New Bolt on Cat in the Hat...?

Andrew Carson wrote:Once the posse is saddled up, are you planning on returning Crimson C. to its original state?

Crimson C. is a mess. Maybe someone should clean it up..

--Marc

Greg Barnes wrote:I try to stay away from bolting controversies, but adding a pro bolt to the single most popular 5.6 in Red Rocks - in the middle of a BLM decision making process on future bolt regulations - is not smart.

I agree with Greg here. What a bad idea - Cat in the Hat doesn't need any more bolts.

Andrew Carson says 'lets vote'.
I hear no one expressing approval except one person.
It is obviously unanimous, the bolt goes.
and so it goes...

Aside from a negative vote,
I say to give the bolt and it's installer,
(in light of Greg Barnes comment)
little if any more attention.

just chop it! - My Vote

Just not to muddy the waters further...but aren't fixed anchors allowable in wilderness areas, but motorized drill prohibited?

N'est pas?

It has been pointed out to me that the actual position may not be in the wilderness at all. I do not have blm maps in front of me, but clearly that would be an appropriate avenue for investigation, especially for the legal beagles.

Greg wrote:Don't care about the legal isues. Chop it. Larry? You out there? Anything in your discussion with Andrew that would change your opinion on this?

Still out here. This is a situation that has generated some very serious concern with the BLM. I'm planning to reserve further comment until I have talked more deeply with all the appropriate people. I hope to post some follow-up later today.

This is important because the way we handle this as a community will surely affect BLM relations.

I'll cast another vote to chop it.

Retrobolting is LAME!

Andrew Carson wrote:It has been pointed out to me that the actual position may not be in the wilderness at all. I do not have blm maps in front of me, but clearly that would be an appropriate avenue for investigation, especially for the legal beagles.

There's no question. This is inside the wilderness area.

Currently the rule is that old bolts may be replaced with a hand drill inside the wilderness area if you have a permit. No new bolts may be added with or without a powerdrill.

Jason

Andrew Carson wrote:As to its illegality, maybe it's civil disobedience.

"Civil disobedience" would be putting up a new route that had a bolt or more. Retro-bolting an existing route is more of a slap at the climbing community than it is at the BLM. As street theater, it's pretty dumb: you're alienating the people you want to rally. "Birdland" was civil disobedience; retro-bolting "Cat in the Hat" is just acting out.

If you've actually read Thoreau, you'll know that civil disobedience includes a willingness to pay the legal penalty for your actions. So the perpetrators should be willing to go public. Until then, this isn't even poorly-thought-out civil disobedience.

Andrew Carson wrote:The blm has been grossly negligent in its addressing of the need for a climbing management plan.

Not negligent, but certainly not committed to finishing the process. When the BLM can take lots of other administrative actions with respect to this Wilderness in a timely manner, but has simply suspended work on the Recreation Management Plan (not just climbing) for most of a year, BLM management is just not committed to resolving a whole host of issues. The BLM manager in charge of this project may have just hoped that work on the plan would get itself done, but he shouldn't be surprised if climbers have long since come to the conclusion that the BLM is not committed to any change in the current regulations. The BLM is squandering it's opportunity to work with those climbers who are committed to the planning process.

Henry David Thoreau, in 'On the Duty of Civil Disobedience', wrote:Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

One question: Everyone seems to be so concerned with the perception of BLM and the addition of this one bolt. Is it even feasible to think that anyone from BLM or outside of the "climbing community" would take notice to a single bolt added how ever high mixed in with the rest of the already existing bolts? Seems to me that without all of this internet chatter the likelihood of anyone (aside from people who have already climbed the route) ever noticing the violation, would be high unlikely.

I vote that if it's not your route then don't make changes, get rid of it. Andrew, your argument is about as convincing as the boulderers leaving their pads in RMNP...Total BS.

Jeff Barnow wrote:One question: Everyone seems to be so concerned with the perception of BLM and the addition of this one bolt. Is it even feasible to think that anyone from BLM or outside of the "climbing community" would take notice to a single bolt added how ever high mixed in with the rest of the already existing bolts?

Yes, the addition of one bolt may seem to be a minor issue to an outsider but Cat in the Hat is not some obscure route lost in a sea of similar routes. It is a historic trade route that is a rite of passage for many. Words like "national treasure" come to mind. It is one Red Rock route on the progression for the traditional climber:

Cat in the Hat
Solar Slab
Tunnel Vision
Crimson Chrysalis
Epinepherine
Dream of Wild Turkeys
Sour Mash
Eagle Dance
Prince of Darkness
Levitation 29

Note: several of these routes are considered classics of North American rock climbing.

New bolts have come and gone frequently on some of these routes (especially on Crimson and Epi), but to put additional bolts on what is arguably the easiest route on this list is an outrage. The defining characteristic of Cat was that final slab pitch and the addition of a bolt will seriously degrade the experience for all future climbers.

Acting out is blathering on the internet.

Adding a bolt to one of the most traveled 5.6s on the continent is having no sense of judgement, style, history, or respect.

Nice post above John H.

brent armstrong wrote: Adding a bolt to one of the most traveled 5.6s on the continent is having no sense of judgement, style, history, or respect.

EXACTLY!

Well, I have talked at some length with the BLM folks and others. The bottom line is that the bolt must come out and will be removed very shortly. The BLM feels strongly that removal must display high-quality craftsmanship. This is all planned, so don't anybody worry.

One positive aspect of this is that the BLM recognizes that one of the crucial things they are protecting is the climbing experience on one of the area's classic routes. This is a very good thing-- protection of the climbing experience is important to us all.

There is some further good news. The BLM was pleased to see the outpouring of support here on MountainProject. They are happy to see that climbers can actually support a BLM rule in a case such as this. Maybe this situation can serve as a catalyst to help climbers and land managers work together for our common interests. Which leads us to the next point. . .

As some of you may know, I have been party to quite a few discussions over the last few years as the BLM has been piecing together a new Wilderness Management Plan for Red Rock. One of the key objectives of this plan is to develop revised bolting regulations. This was not a very fast process to begin with, and the subsequent loss of key personnel has brought things to a virtual standstill. The current situation has underscored the importance of getting a good plan into motion. As an indication of their seriousness on this matter, the BLM has agreed to discussion on an interim plan that might speed up the process considerably. I will post some follow-up as this develops in the next few weeks.

Additional commentary:
This has been a difficult situation, but not without some good side effects. The climbing community responded with mature discussion as opposed to reflexively destructive action. Moreover, there was an element of balance in the community response that struck a very positive chord with the BLM. Admittedly, the current BLM bolting ban is an extreme measure, and it has polarized many climbers to the opposite extreme-- that of ignoring the regulations. In this case the BLM has gotten to see first-hand that climbers do NOT possess that extreme, "bolt everything" position. This is crucial, because the ultimate effectiveness of any plan will be tied closely to the degree of acceptance it receives from the climbing community. And climbers have had the opportunity to see a better side of the BLM: While we have vaguely acknowledged that the BLM is trying to protect wilderness values, it is encouraging to see them explicitly include the climbing experience as part of those values.

Well, everyone has already said what I was going to so I'll just add my voice as another one saying that the bolt was a mistake that should be cleaned up.

Perhaps this should go in another thread but why doesn't the BLM just apply the standard ethic of only allowing hand drills? That seems to do a pretty good job of restricting bolts while still allowing them when "necessary".

Aaron S wrote:... but why doesn't the BLM just apply the standard ethic of only allowing hand drills? That seems to do a pretty good job of restricting bolts while still allowing them when "necessary".

Well, it does sound like a good option and has already been proposed as an alternative for the Wilderness Management Plan. It might even work. But keep in mind that there is already a "double restriction" in effect (no bolts AND no power equipment) and this did not stop someone from power-drilling.

It is worth mentioning that there are many ideas that superficially seem simple and good, but they don't really stand up in the real world of the BLM. Not only is the BLM a huge, unwieldy organization, but it is doing a very tricky job (there is a contradiction in "managing" something that is "wilderness"). Further, it is literally restricted by acts of Congress. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an Environmental Assessment (EA) to quantify the expected impact of land management actions. It is not obvious how to assess the impact of an action that does not contain some kind limit, so it is correspondingly difficult to imagine that limits will be absent from the final plan.

You can find more detail at:

lvclc.org/clc/issue01.php

I kind of breezed through the replys and sorry if this allready came up.
I hope it was not added for some ease of guiding as this has happened in other areas around the country.I am only saying this as I believe Mr Carson does or did run a guide service.Then again it could be a different Andrew Carson from Wyoming and I am sorry to imply such a thing.

The bolt was definitely NOT added for guiding.

Jason

good news

Larry DeAngelo wrote:Well, I have talked at some length with the BLM folks and others. The bottom line is that the bolt must come out and will be removed very shortly. The BLM feels strongly that removal must display high-quality craftsmanship. This is all planned, so don't anybody worry.

I think that cyber talk is moving somewhere.