As was said, difficult to navigate, but part of being heard.

but out of curiousity, is there much new route development going on there recently? maybe I don't know FA-ists but had the impression by the guidebook dates that most of the area had been developed.

It would also likely ban replacement of existing fixed anchors, thwarting efforts to upgrade old bolts and other fixed gear (some of which has been in place for 60 years!)

... but out of curiousity, is there much new route development going on there recently? maybe I don't know FA-ists but had the impression by the guidebook dates that most of the area had been developed.

I simply kept this page up and viewed the other site in another browser (you can open more than one you know) using this page for reference made the task a bit easier.
_________________
I'm a little bastard

Confirmation
No: 10000384

Dear Administrators,
I would like to voice my objection to proposed Wilderness Standard "SBNF S10" for the San Bernadino National Forest. This standard would prohibit the addition of, or replacement of fixed anchors for use in rock climbing activities.
(http://scfpr.esri.com/scfpr/builds/build947/doc46/section10_20_35_20.htm)
Implementing this standard would likely affect a significantly more dangerous environment for rock climbers, who comprise a large recreational user group of the San Bernadino N.F. This is an unnecessary situation, as modern bolts (fixed anchors) are camoflaged, and create minimal visual impact -- indeed, less than the anchors that they typically replace (colorful slings and cord).
Rock climbing has become a popular activitiy an America's national forests, and climbers often bring a needed economic boost to surrounding towns. In addition, climbers tend to be a very environmentally conscious group, active in the preservation and maintenence of natural areas. To prohibit fixed anchors in the SBNF would be an unjust and unnecessary step in addressing Forest Service goals. The minimal impact of fixed climbing anchors simply pales in comparison to the environmental trauma caused by logging, mineral extraction, OHV use, and pack animals.
Please reconsider the inclusion of this obscure fixed anchor ban in the Forest Service plan.
Thank you,

Conf # 1000400

I would not have made it through that mess without your help.
Good job.

d.

1. Many other wilderness areas, including NPS land in SoCal, are allowing bolt replacement and actively working on ways to allow new fixed anchors while at the same time avoiding resource and social conflict.
2. The USDA Forest Service unsuccessfully attempted a similar policy in 1997.
3. The Forest Service has not studied the issue beside a failed Negotiated Rule Making process, a process that merely considers ideology and opinion.
4. Economic studies (such as the ones conducted by Douglas Shaw of UNR) show the econonmic value of climbing in wilderness to surrounding local communities.

I believe, after having close relationships with a variety of federal land agencies, that these initiatives are ill conceived, and are sometimes products of a lack of information, creativitiy, and interest. Climber comments are critical. The FS needs another wake up call.