Since 2026, bivouacking (or "boofen") in the Saxon Switzerland National Park has been prohibited from February 1st to June 15th. Mountaineering associations are challenging this legally – which also puts the decades-long model of self-regulation to the test.
It's getting late that day. The sun is already disappearing below the horizon, and the sleeping area is being prepared under a sandstone overhang. Sleeping mats are unrolled, sleeping bags pulled from backpacks. No tent, no hut – just a sheltered spot high up on the rock face. The next morning, they'll head out from here to climb again.
This is how I experienced bivouacking in Saxon Switzerland in 2017. What was possible year-round back then is no longer allowed in spring. Since 2022, there has been a temporary ban, and since 2026, free overnight camping has been prohibited from February 1st to June 15th for an indefinite period. The regulation is primarily justified by the need to protect nature, and especially cliff-nesting birds. Outside of this period, bivouacking is still permitted – but only in connection with climbing. Violations can be punished with a fine of up to €50.000.
Inheritance with conditions
The new regulations from the Saxon State Ministry for the Environment and Agriculture are meeting with considerable resistance. The Saxon mountaineering associations, including the Saxon Mountaineering Association and the Saxon branch of the German Alpine Club (DAV), do not support them. The issue is no longer simply when it will be permitted to sleep under rock overhangs in Saxon Switzerland. It is also about how much responsibility climbers will be able to assume in regulating their own sport in the future.
"Boofen" is a unique Saxon custom, referring to spending the night outdoors under rock overhangs or in small caves – without a tent, just with a sleeping bag and sleeping mat. In the Elbe Sandstone Mountains, this practice has been part of the climbing culture for generations. In 2024, "Mountaineering in Saxony" was included in the nationwide register of intangible cultural heritage – and overnight stays in "Boofen" are explicitly included in this cultural heritage.
The question of how climbing and nature conservation can be reconciled is by no means new. With the rapidly growing number of climbers in the 1980s, conflicts over bird protection, vegetation, and access to rock faces also increased. In the Franconian Jura, a complete closure of the Röthelfelsen rock face in 1989 to protect peregrine falcons led to the founding of the IG Klettern Frankenjura & Fichtelgebirge (Climbing Interest Group Franconian Jura & Fichtel Mountains).
In the following years, comprehensive climbing management plans were developed in many areas in cooperation with authorities and nature conservation organizations. These plans exemplify a different approach: instead of closing climbing areas across the board, crags are zoned and rules are established collaboratively. The underlying principle is that climbing should remain possible if the climbing community does its part to protect nature. It takes responsibility so that, in return, as little government regulation as possible is required. Self-regulation does not mean a lack of rules. It only works if rules are accepted, followed, and communicated within the climbing community.
That's precisely why the developments in Saxon Switzerland are so interesting. Here, self-reliant mountaineering has a particularly long tradition. The question, therefore, is not only which rules for bivouacking (hiking in the mountains) make sense. It's also about whether an established system of self-regulation still functions when the interests of nature conservation and mountaineering diverge.
The compromise that broke down
The idea of regulation isn't entirely new: Years ago, a paid "Boof ticket" based on training was already under consideration. This model was ultimately rejected, partly due to unresolved legal and organizational issues. In 2022, the national park administration, mountaineering associations, and nature conservation organizations jointly agreed on a temporary closure. It was initially intended to last until 2025, after which the situation would be evaluated.
The overall assessment was mixed. While the number of overnight stays without permits did indeed decline significantly, the national park rangers had to initiate more than 100 proceedings for regulatory offenses. It was striking that many violations were committed by people who were not from the region and apparently unaware of the applicable rules. Nevertheless, in a joint interim report from the associations, National Park Director Uwe Borrmeister drew a positive partial conclusion: "It was significantly quieter in the national park at night."
However, this did not yet clarify what would happen after 2026. A specially established project group was therefore formed to search for a permanent solution. The mountaineering associations recently favored an "annual ticket based on training." According to the associations, this approach received broad support within the project group – the model was intended to restrict access more strictly to climbers, promote environmental education, and increase acceptance of the rules.
The national park and forestry administration, as well as the Saxon State Directorate, had also agreed to the model, provided it received a positive evaluation. However, the Ministry of the Environment withdrew its previous legal assessment and ultimately decided on a closure for an indefinite period. "This is annoying and incomprehensible," commented Michael Scharnweber, board member for mountaineering at the Saxon Mountaineering Association, on the decision.
The limits of self-regulation
Behind the dispute lies a very real problem: Wild camping is no longer solely the domain of the traditional climbing community. For years, associations and national park authorities have been observing illegal camping outside designated areas, as well as fires, littering, and other disturbances.
The internet, in particular, has made the search for suitable overnight spots much easier. Information that was previously passed on within the climbing community is now much easier to find. For the national park administration, the question therefore arises not only of how to preserve environmentally friendly bivouacking (boofen), but also of how to prevent the designated spots from becoming publicly accessible overnight areas.
Two interpretations of the same data
The question of how much bivouacking actually affects protected cliff-nesting birds is particularly controversial. The focus is on peregrine falcons, eagle owls, and black storks. The national park administration has been documenting their populations for years and emphasizes the importance of undisturbed breeding sites.
The latest ornithological annual report reveals a remarkably good year in 2025: All 15 peregrine falcon pairs documented in the national park region bred and raised a total of 19 young birds. Three black stork pairs were recorded; two of them bred successfully and fledged seven young. At the same time, the report indicates that the long-term trend for peregrine falcons and black storks is rather negative. The data thus paint an ambiguous picture: A successful breeding year is followed by an indication of a long-term unfavorable population trend.
Against this backdrop, the national park administration points to the positive experiences with the previous closure. During the temporary restrictions, it became significantly quieter at night; from their perspective, this supports continuing the nighttime quiet measures during the sensitive breeding season. The mountaineering associations assess the situation differently. They do not dispute the importance of bird protection, but consider a blanket closure of all bivouac sites for four and a half months insufficiently justified. In their view, greater consideration must be given to whether a more differentiated regulation, both temporally and spatially, could achieve the same protective purpose. Furthermore, they fear that people will simply shift to other areas not designated for overnight stays.
What's at stake now
The dispute has now reached the legal arena. The Saxon Mountaineering Association and the participating DAV (German Alpine Club) associations have filed an objection to the new regulation. At the end of March 2026, they also applied to the Administrative Court for preliminary legal protection against its immediate implementation. Despite the ongoing legal proceedings, the new regulation remains in effect for the time being.
For the mountaineering associations, this represents a break with previous practice. They speak of decades in which conflicts between nature conservation and mountaineering in Saxon Switzerland were resolved jointly. The Ministry of the Environment, however, emphasizes that the tradition of "Boofen" (a type of overnight shelter) will be preserved even with the new regulation: Outside of the restricted period, free overnight camping at the 58 designated locations will still be possible.
The current dispute also reveals something else: the traditional climbing community is no longer the only group using the bivouac sites. Where rule violations primarily originate from people who have little connection to the established climbing culture, even the self-regulation of mountaineering associations reaches its limits – regardless of the final outcome of the legal battle.
Throughout the German-speaking world, where free access to rock climbing is based on negotiated climbing agreements rather than official prohibitions, the same mechanism hangs by a thread: the trust that the climbing community can enforce its own rules. If this fails precisely where it has worked the longest, the call for more government control is likely to grow louder elsewhere as well. Until the administrative court decides, at least in Saxon Switzerland, things will remain as they were this spring: all is quiet beneath the rock overhangs.
That might interest you
+ + +
Credits cover image: René Schröder, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0