Climbers can have a zombie mentality when it comes bolts, as well as our notions of trad and sport climbing. The way we talk about and write about these two disciplines reifies them as inherently antithetical approaches to our one sport, as if they are distinct from each other in Very Important Ways, even as most of us dabble in both and transition from one to the other more or less seamlessly. We understand that whether we’re clipping bolts or clipping cams, in both situations we’re still just rock climbing—and that’s good.

The reason why this tension over bolts remains salient in the average climber’s imagination, however, is understandable. Our sport emerged out of the violence of this dispute. Our ideas about style and ethics arose directly out of the many bolt wars that have transpired throughout each era of modern rock climbing.

These disagreements, however, have been merely internal conversations between climbers about what climbing ought to be. And to be honest, after all of these debates, I think our sport has landed in a pretty good place, one in which trad climbs can be trad climbs, sport climbs can be sport climbs, and there’s enough room and respect among us for both to coexist, even at the same crag.

Of course, we will always have quibbles about bolts and style—and that’s all good too—but I think it’s safe to say that we’ve largely achieved something approaching a perfect Hegelian synthesis when it comes to this issue. Most climbers I know understand themselves to be, foremost, rock climbers. Sometimes we go trad climbing. Sometimes we go sport climbing. Certainly, we all prefer one over the other. Sometimes we clip a bolt or two on a trad climb. Sometimes we tackle a runout on a sport route. We know (or at least should know) not to bolt next to cracks where protection works. We intuitively understand that routes could have too few bolts to be enjoyable, just as we intuitively understand that too many bolts also detract from a good climbing experience.

People who make jokes about bumbling trad climbers or wimpy sport climbers are now totally cringe. Why? Because as more climbers do both, these categories have evolved to become far less value-laden. Today, to call something a “sport climb” or to call a person a “trad climber” is just an empirical observation devoid of appraisal, like saying El Capitan is tall. There’s just rock climbing. There are just routes.

I’ve been thinking about all of this after paying attention to what is being proposed by the National Park Service as a new climbing management in Joshua Tree. The plan is confusing, probably purposefully so, but it contains various passages that take strong stances against bolts in Wilderness, where rock climbing in general is otherwise considered to be a valid form of recreation. Here’s one of the more concerning passages to me (emphasis mine):

In cooperation with climbing partners, the park would implement bolting/rebolting projects on select routes in priority areas that would (1) replace fixed anchors where needed for climber safety (including in wilderness, where appropriate); (2) evaluate and, if determined inappropriate, remove bolt-intensive routes to comply with the Wilderness Act and address natural and cultural resource concerns; and (3) fill and camouflage abandoned bolt holes. Climbing style categories would inform decision making on the installation or replacement of fixed anchors on routes in wilderness. Here are proposed style categorizations for the North Astro Dome, South Astro Dome, and the Geo Tour treatment areas. Most of the wilderness routes do not meet the proposed definition of a sport climb within Joshua Tree National Park, and therefore would be considered for bolt replacement as needed.

Here is the National Park Service asserting two disturbing things: 1) that it will actually chop an existing rock climb if they decide it fits a highly subjective description of being “bolt intensive,” and 2) that they will also decide which style of climbing is valid. And by using this term of art “bolt-intensive climbing,” they are essentially saying that sport climbing is not valid.

Because the Park Service never explicitly states their rationale for these assertions, you have to read between the lines to grok the logic underpinning their premise that “bolt-intensive” climbing is invalid while other kinds of climbing are allowed. One assumes their logic goes something like this: that bolts equal convenience, and that convenience means more climbers, and that more climbers means greater impacts, and that those impacts will fall upon natural resources, and those natural resources are so uniquely precious that our rights to recreate on these public lands must be restricted in order to protect them.

Even in this overly simplistic analysis, bolts are still four steps away from being the direct cause of an adverse impact on a precious resource. Along that path one will find many other factors beyond bolt count that could undoubtedly influence whether a rock climb is impactful in a negative way. This can include how far the approach is, whether the trail to the climb is well established, how hard the route is, how good the route is, and so on.

Chris Kalous and I addressed this topic in a recent episode of The RunOut, and posed the question of what style of climbing would be more “impactful” between a boulder problem, a sport climb, a mixed climb, and a pure trad climb. The answer, obviously, is the boulder problem—but the more important takeaway is that a single sport pitch won’t necessarily be more popular than a single mixed or trad pitch. In all three examples, there’s a belayer and a climber; they set their packs down and stand at the base of a rock wall; they do their climbing and then they leave. Who cares whether they clip camouflaged bolts that no non-climber would even see were they not looking for them, or whether they place their own gear?

If climbing is a valid form of recreation on public lands, even Wilderness—and it absolutely is—then that means bolts. It just does. The Park Service shouldn’t be in the business of determining how many bolts are too many—climbers should. (And I would also add that we have an overall good track record of placing bolts appropriately, minus whatever obvious glaring examples are coming to your mind right now, which I bet stand out in your head precisely because they are outrageous examples of things most climbers don’t agree with, not because they’re the norm.)

Finally, the Park Service shouldn’t be allowed to tell us that sport climbing isn’t a valid expression of rock climbing. Sport climbing is part of rock climbing. Period. And, no, it isn’t inherently any more or less impactful than other kinds of roped-up cragging.

If the Park Service wants to reduce climber impacts in the park, they should focus on the limited areas where they could make a difference: better trails and better crowd management. (To be fair, much of this plan focuses on establishing and maintaining trails, which is good.) Instead, the Park Service is attempting to assert their subjective and misinformed opinions about bolting and climbing style as a way to regulate our sport.