Shot on 35mm film by Margaret Szeles in Fall 2025 at a sport climbing area in the Pacific Northwest.
Roots of American Rock Climbing
From “the original dirtbag” Fred Beckey to the “Stone Masters” and “Stone Monkeys” of Yosemite Valley, like Warren Harding and Lynn Hill, American rock climbing has been defined by its counterculture as much as its vertical accomplishments. Yosemite Valley in the 1960s became the birthplace of this counterculture movement. The climbing community’s rejection of materialism and authority fueled a lifestyle of dedicated frugality. In the pursuit of pushing vertical limits, climbers embraced sleeping on the ground, scavenging for food, and climbing full-time. The endearing vernacular term “dirtbag” emerged as a badge of honor describing the sacrifice and lifestyle of those dedicated to the sport. As climbing becomes mainstream and shifts from the countercultural lifestyle, what remains is a vibrant community united not just by vertical challenge, but by a powerful ethic of environmental stewardship. This shift reflects the evolution of the dirtbag ethos into a modern climbing ethic concerned with self-regulating climbers’ behaviors to minimize environmental impacts and ensure safety.
Sport Climbing Revolution and the “Bolt Wars”
Today, climbing is more accessible and developed than ever, due in large part to the rise of the “sport climbing revolution.” Sport climbing utilizes pre-drilled fixed bolts on the rock face that are used to protect the climber while they ascend the route. This technique contrasts with the practice of traditional (“trad”) climbing that was historically used in Yosemite Valley, which requires placing temporary gear in cracks or around natural features to provide protection. Although safer and more accessible than trad climbing, sport climbing drew criticism for using permanent bolts on natural rock features.
The rise of sport climbing and fixed bolts in the late 1980s sparked an era of intragroup conflict within the climbing community, dubbed the “Bolt Wars.” Fixed bolts split climbers: one side championed harder, safer climbs through sport climbing, while the other accused the practice of violating the climbing communities’ shared ethics by damaging the rock and changing the character of a route.
History of Climbing Regulations
While the climbing community was divided over the philosophy of bolts, federal agencies created a separate issue for climbers by banning fixed bolts and anchor systems and closing down climbing areas through their various interpretations of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Created to preserve congressionally designated wilderness, the Wilderness Act permits recreational activities in wilderness areas but limits “permanent improvements” such as those created for trails, restrooms, and fences. Federal agencies have taken inconsistent approaches to interpreting permanent improvements or “installations” when managing climbing under the Wilderness Act.
For example, the National Park Service (“NPS”) has historically recognized rock climbing as appropriate in wilderness areas while simultaneously authorizing park superintendents to prohibit or restrict climbing as deemed necessary. Most recently, however, in 2024, the NPS issued proposed regulations that would have considered “fixed anchors” a “prohibited use” under the Wilderness Act that could only be authorized if deemed necessary by the area land manager. Other restrictions, such as those from the Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), prohibited only the installation of new fixed bolts within specific areas, creating issues for the maintenance and replacement of existing bolts.
North Cascades National Park Example
A Washington example of this conflict is the fixed anchor moratorium in the North Cascades National Park, which banned all fixed bolts. In practice, this general ban prohibits bolts not only used for sport climbing but also those used sparingly to create an anchor station at the summit of a climb that a trad climber would rely on to descend a route—a technique that creates a safer rappel by reducing the risk of anchor failure and diminishes rock fall potential.
In contrast, when a bolted anchor station does not exist, a climber must create their own natural anchor by placing a sling around trees or protruding rocks and lowering off. This technique leaves gear behind and introduces substantial safety considerations. An example of the conflict that exists between bolting moratoriums and the increased risk of rappelling from natural anchors can be seen in the tragic death of a climber who was struck by a falling rock while completing a traditional rappel from the summit. The climber was on a popular North Cascades route that had been bolted with an anchor just two years before the fatal accident, but the bolts had been removed because of the moratorium. Had the bolted anchors been there, the climber could have made a more direct rappel and diminished their risk of rockfall.
Inconsistencies in Climbing Management
Although the North Cascades anchor moratorium applies only to fixed bolts, other inconsistent regulations by federal land managers have broadly prohibited the use of slings for natural anchors—since the gear is necessarily left behind for a safe descent and therefore considered a fixed anchor. Inconsistent management practices have also arisen under circumstances where the NPS itself has actually installed fixed bolted anchors, like on popular routes in the Grand Teton National Park.
Ultimately, these federal regulations and management practices—whether banning fixed bolts for sport climbing, prohibiting anchors used in traditional climbing, or even sponsoring the installation of fixed bolts—highlight the inconsistencies climbers face when accessing public lands, which impact the safety and accessibility of rock climbing.
Bipartisan Passage of the EXPLORE Act
After nearly seventy years since climbers took up the vertical challenges in Yosemite valley, federal management of rock climbing is being redefined by the passage of the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act (“EXPLORE Act”), an expansive first-of-its-kind recreation policy package. In the era of proposed federal public lands sell-offs and various rescinded protections, like the Roadless Rule and Public Lands Rule, the EXPLORE Act presents a unified national recreational policy front. The Act improves recreational opportunities and protects federal public land access, including covering activities like establishing long-distance bike trails, protecting rock climbing, and enhancing adaptive trail systems on federal public lands.
Due in part to the tremendous economic impact the outdoor industry generates—more than $1.1 trillion in annual gross economic output in 2024—the EXPLORE Act was bipartisan legislation that passed unanimously through the House and Senate with the support of over 100 outdoor groups. The passage demonstrated the broad political and public appeal for outdoor recreation.
The PARC Act
In response to the inconsistent management practices and recent federal proposals to restrict climbing access, the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing Act (“PARC Act”) was included in the EXPLORE Act. This addition provides national level climbing management guidance and ensures the protection of existing and future climbing exploration in Wilderness areas.
The PARC Act has four main components. First, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture are required to provide guidance for managing climbing on certain federal lands. Next, the Act codifies that fixed anchors are appropriate within the National Wilderness Preservation System, like those used to create anchor stations for safe rappels. Then, the Act protects existing routes with fixed anchor systems and authorizes their continued use and maintenance. Finally, any issued climbing management guidance must go through a public comment process before it is finalized, with a deadline of eighteen months after the PARC Act was enacted (likely summer 2026).
When taken together, the four parts of the PARC Act ensure that climbing, in both trad and sport styles, can continue to develop on federal public lands. An example of this protection for both existing and new route development is “The Tooth” in Washington’s Alpine Lakes Wilderness area. This beloved Cascade Range summit appeals to both trad and sport climbers, featuring newer bolted sport routes alongside historic trad routes, which are protected with fixed rappel stations. The Tooth, in its appeal for diverse climbing styles and historical significance, including one of the oldest rock climbing routes recorded in Washington history, illustrates the types of climbing adventures safeguarded by the PARC Act.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the PARC Act directs the development of national guidance on climbing management on federal public lands and ensures public participation in that process. This provides a new space for the climbing community, and its evolving dirtbag culture, to mobilize and ensure the historically self-regulated ethics of sustainable climbing practices and public land access are represented in federal land management practices. More broadly, the PARC Act and the other EXPLORE Act provisions encourage federal agencies to think prospectively about recreational access in their land management.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Margaret Szeles is a third year law student at the University of Washington School of Law, with interests in land use and natural resource law. Outside of law school, Margaret is an avid rock climber that works as a youth climbing instructor and explores crags across the west for great sport routes.
