Pro bolt on N Chimney of Castleton?

Get a grip everyone, there really isn't even an arugument here. Leave it alone- stop trying to save the world.

I agree. Even if it is not from the FA it still has been there probably since the 70's. Why do YOU feel the need to dicate what happens to this bolt?

Obviously a number of people don't agree, and if there is not a clear consensus then the least offensive and lowest impact thing to do is let it be.

As climbing tradition dictates, first ascentionists determine the style of the climb. Since the first ascentionist wants the retro bolt taken out, it looks like this problem has an easy solution.

Don't be ridiculous. Do not take out or replace it.

I don't care if the FA party placed it or not. It has been there long enough to become a historic part of the route.

Removing it would simply leave a scar even if you attempt to patch. Thus, more impact.

And how about just freaking leaving these poor relics out there alone for others to ponder and enjoy? Especially when modern pro can be had!

Yes, some of us enjoy seeing museum pieces on desert towers. So please, just leave it... and climb on.

Being the FA does not give anyone the absolute authoirty of a route's style, character, or protection. This is determined by a consensus of the local climbing community. Many times we choose to respect the FA's wishes, but not always.

The bolt has been there for several decades without any protest from the FA or anyone else. Wishes to remove this bolt seem to be motivated only recently by several individuals.

This is type of situation that causes much confilct in the climbing community-- people taking it upon themselves to act as the moral authority for the rest of the climbing community.

Obviously there is not a consensus with the community here. But do as you wish, nobody is going to be able to stop you....

Kirk Heatwole wrote:I agree. Even if it is not from the FA it still has been there probably since the 70's. Why do YOU feel the need to dicate what happens to this bolt? Obviously a number of people don't agree, and if there is not a clear consensus then the least offensive and lowest impact thing to do is let it be.

Just FYI, I dont feel compelled. I was going to replace it with something that will not kill one of the nxt 5 people who put total faith in it. I was going to do this as the ASCA rep for the area and someone who just wants to help out others. However, there was not a consensus that it should be done. Just to affirm the age of the bolt I called the First Ascenionist. He did not place it, does not know when it was placed, and is offended that someone took the "spunk" out of a climb he did without it.

I only said we should remove it because 1) its not a safe bolt and 2) the person who established the route did so without the aid of the bolt.
In the end I dont even clip the thing... you guys can worry about it

BUT (read on)...

Does anybody actually trust those old mank bolts on towers? I use them when I have to, but if I can back them up I do - and so does everyone I know who climbs in the desert.

I wouldn't be upset if the bolt was simply removed and patched, but I also wouldn't be upset if the bolt was simple left as is. As long as it isn't replaced I am happy.

Kirk Heatwole wrote:Being the FA does not give anyone the absolute authoirty of a route's style, character, or protection.

..... this is bullshit.
Anarchy is never the answer. THe only rule we have to follow is that the first ascentionist sets the standard for the route. I have not climbed the Bachar/Yerian or Master Edge because, despite their beauty, I do not have the mental wherewithal to do them. Much of climbing is not just an extension of a climbing gym but is actually a mental process of keeping your cool. The Needles of S.D., The Gunks, and the Utah Desert are the bastions of this philosphy. The goal is not only to climb physically what you can, but mentally too. Measuring this against a route established by someone in the past with the same eithics is part of the scene. It is the only rule we have, really, and it is one we should live with. If we don't, then everyone can go out and add bolts to any route they feel like... now woulnd't the Bachar/Yerian, a mere .11b, seem like no big deal if we did that.

I understand that in certain cases, like decnet anchors , we might have to add to routes just to deal with the masses of people on the mountains now. However, this is something different. This is about adding permamanent protection to a route that has been, and is still, done with out it.

I have climbed everything from chipped sport climbs in Spain to natuarl lines in Germany where no metal has touched the rock. I find it completely self centered for anyone to think his form of ethic, that being no bolts, more bolts, or any other ethic, should be adhered to by the rest of the world. What should be adnhered to is the standard of the person who did it first.

I have to guess that those of you who feel a bolt should go there whether the first ascentionist placed one or not have never established a route that required as much mental as physical strngth. If so, you would be horrified at the idea that someone could come along and chip it down by adding permanent protection.

I agree with you, and that is why the community consensus for those climbs is to leave them in their origonal style. I am not an advocate of being able to bolt anything and adhere to your own ethic. I have never placed a bolt or developed a route for that matter. I just think it is important for people to think about things before they act.

I also appreciate your efforts for the ASCA and was not trying to attack you.

But just pulling a bolt for the sake of pulling a bolt I don't necessarily agree with. This topic was post here to seek other's opinions and it seems that there is not a clear consensus as to the solution so the lowest impact solution would be to let it be.

Just my opinion.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote: ..... this is bullshit. Anarchy is never the answer. THe only rule we have to follow is that the first ascentionist sets the standard for the route. I have to guess that those of you who feel a bolt should go there whether the first ascentionist placed one or not have never established a route that required as much mental as physical strngth. If so, you would be horrified at the idea that someone could come along and chip it down by adding permanent protection.

I hear what you're saying (and have heard it said over and over again). I wouldn't be an advocate for adding fixed protection to someone else's route. But...its been done over and over again. Snake Dike on Half Dome. Sometimes with the blessing of the FA, sometimes not.

Its not really anarchy to suggest that the FA doesn't "own" the rock. It doesn't really toss all the "rules" out. Sometimes the community makes decisions based on the area, the route, etc.

It would be interesting to find out why the bolt was added. Chopping it might not be a solution for the person who placed it, and, more harm seems to sometimes come from such than just leaving it. Chop, rebolt, chop, rebolt.

I can think of a ton of routes, especially here in Utah, where the FA folk haven't minded, and in fact have embraced, the addition of a bolt or three to their routes so that more people can enjoy them. Go surf up the debate (hate to bring it back up) we had last year or so on a route in LCC. Horrified? Or, gift to the community? Depends on the route, depends on the people involved and what their motivation is. Lot of petty ego at play here, perhaps.

Not done the North Chimney, but, know a ton of folks who have. If that bolt has been there for more than 30 years... My bet is most folks will have a cam for the crack. And, folks saavy enough to safely climb the route won't be relying on an old star dryvin bolt anyhow. Hard to believe that after so many people have climbed that route, so many experienced and well travelled desert guru's, that its taken until now for someone to figure out the bolt wasn't on the original ascent. I guess I don't really care one way or another.

Unfair comparison between the B-Y test piece in the meadows to a desert offwidth on a tower ascended back before big cams were in vogue, which was never considered a test piece. Maybe if a line of bolts sprung up on Pratt's crack on the North Six Shooter, then that'd be something to get in a huff over.

And please don't put the carpenter's nail back on the Kor/Ingalls route...

Just doesn't seem to be THAT big a deal.

Again, I'm not up in a huge hubub to chop it... Not at all. I simply called Dan Bugrette and aksed if he had placed it and thus wanted it replaced. He said no. Thats the word of the F.A., so I then said here that if we follow that rule, which I bleieve in, then we should jsut remove it and patch it over. Again, the original plan was just to replace it and bring it up to standard (it was presumebly the standard when it was placed). When I found out it was not original equipemnt and that the first ascentionist did not like that it had been added, I joned his side. I side with the F.A.

As per Pratts Crack and the cutting edge arguement, I clearly see your point. However, there is an understated competition between all of us. I put up a couple of A3 things solo last week. Cutting edge, hardly, but I would be offended if someone added a bolt to make them A2. Dan Burgette may not have been cutting edge by climbing 5.9 without the bolt in 1970, but remember, he also didn't have the cams. He had a few nuts and pins. If I were him I'd want people to remember that level of mental commitment to doing a route that we now think of as the easiest way up the tower.

For what its worth, unless a couple hundred people start screaming to pluck that bolt, I'm not gonna. This has been too much already. However, I do very strongly feel that the standrd of the first ascentionist should be kept on all routes. The belay/rap anchors might need something else as dictated by the masses and the times, but adding protection is wrong to me. I have no doubt taht in my replacement efforts I have replaced bolts that the First Ascentionist did not have there... If I had my druthers I would not do this and am sorry to anyone who I have done that to. IN this case, I knew the first ascentionist and could ask him.

Finally, some trivia. Dan once told me that he and his partner (name escapes) had gone up there to climb the Kor/Ingals... they thought they were on it when they did the chimney and only later realized they had done a new route on the tower. I'm now wondering if Dan got to the moves in question and thought "Damn thats scary... I wish I could palce a bolt" but figred he couldn't without pissing of Layton.
I need some John daniels...

Given there is no clear consensus - how about this. Leave the bolt and hanger but some how warn people that its use is questionable. For instance, put a couple four raps of webbing through the hanger so that it can not be clipped but then add a note - "do not use or replace - not on used on first ascent but no longer safe"

Here's a better way to warn people. Look at the bolt and make sure your eyes are open. While you're doing that you're probably placing a #5. By now you've realized that the bolt is a piece of s***. That's how this warning system works by using your brain. If a climber is dumb enough to trust that bolt maybe they should find another thing to do cause they won't be climbing long. Leave the thing alone.

Sam Lightner, Jr. wrote:I simply called Dan Bugrette and aksed if he had placed it and thus wanted it replaced. He said no. Thats the word of the F.A., so I then said here that if we follow that rule, which I bleieve in, then we should jsut remove it and patch it over. Dan Burgette may not have been cutting edge by climbing 5.9 without the bolt in 1970, but remember, he also didn't have the cams. He had a few nuts and pins.

Good ol' history, to be sure.

Browsing through at least 5 climbing guides to Castleton, including the '86 Desert Rock and Ken Trout's awesome mini guide in Rock and Ice 23, Jan/Feb 1988 (wish this had morphed into a full on guidebook), they all show the bolt at the 5.9 wide section, past the first belay. So, in the literature, the bolt has been there for over 20 years.

Significant ascent as it was the second route on the tower, and, in 1970, pretty good free climbing given the style options at the time.

From the 1971 AAJ, "Two pitons will be found ten feet above the bulge for belay anchors." So, the first pitch bolted anchor isn't original either.

From the same AAJ: "Very large nuts or angles are useful since many of the cracks are one to four inches wide. We climbed it all free, using 21 nuts and eight pitons. NCCS F8. Daniel Burgette, Purdue Outing Club"

Given that cams, especially the big honkin' ones we can get our mitts on nowadays, weren't around, its no wonder they drove a bit of iron into the tower for pro. Not sure that aspect of the FA needs to be continued (!).

Dan hasn't sat on his butt since then. FA's in a number of places. I seem to recall running into him in the Tetons a few times. And, he was on a rescue on the Grand I witnessed (from the Lower Saddle) back in the summer of 2003: amazing stuff. So, mucho props to him.

Doesn't really matter to me if the bolt stays or goes. Desert Rock mentions the second ascent team. Be interesting if they knew if it was there or not.

My guess is that it was added back in the 70's some time. Wasn't that common to see star dryvin's as bolts into the 80's, although I know a guy in the SW Utah who still places the darn things...(ugh). Back then, having a bolt to back up a (shaky?) pin belay might have seemed a good idear in the interest of self preservation...

Fun stuff. Thanks for all you do, Sam (and Greg too!).

Man, I would love to leave that bolt. I enjoy seeing those relics, and did smile when I clipped it.

But, I guarantee that it will eventually be replaced with a shiny new one at which point it will become a permanent fixture on the route.

I'll be as sad to see it go as all of you. I just don't want to see a shiny new bolt there.

Thanks Sam for finding the FA and confirming that the bolt is not original. I was pretty surprised to find out that those ancient 1/4" bolts on Braille Book in the Valley were not only not original, but were added at least 6 years after the FA. Old 1/4" bolts on the Regular Route on Fairview appeared in the '70s, and one even fell (or pulled) out before I removed the others. One of them was on top of pitch 2, and it was a single spinning 1/4" bolt with a Leeper hanger - complete with an old rusty smash-link that was well polished from frequent use for retreat.

Leaving old bolts as historical relics is pretty dangerous. It's easy to say that anyone clipping them and getting hurt because they fail deserves a Darwin award, but we were all new climbers once, and I bet a good number of us blindly assumed anything in the rock was good. New climbers clip, hang, lower, rap, etc on old gear all the time. I've even found rap gear on a 1/4" star-dryvin with the nail half way out (the nails on those are only 3/16", and make the bolt on N Chimney look totally bomber).

And leaving an added bolt is an invitation for someone to replace it, thinking they are doing a community service. In my opinion, the fact that it's added makes it a no-brainer to remove and restore the route to closer to its original state.

The bolt should be removed before someone that doesn't know better decides to drill a new bolt right next to it and leaves us with two holes to patch instead of just one.

S***.

It’s not a safety issue as far as I am concerned. If a “climber” can look at a 20 year old bent over spinning mank star-dryvin… actually clip into it, and actually trust their life to it… whatever.

But what folks are saying now is that we have to pull all those cool old desert relics out there, where modern pro can be had, just to keep them from being replaced… before some "I'm gonna make this safe for all" climber comes along and feels they have to “make things right for the masses”?

Sadly… Eric and John and others, you may be right.

Is there no respect anymore though? I would still hesitate to pull historic relics. It’s like desecrating some museum artifact fer gosh sakes!

And Sergio P had a great point too: If someone takes it out, someone else, who isn't into reading online chats, is going to climb it and think to themselves "hey there used to be a bolt here, I should replace it" .

I am torn too as I don’t want any shimmering new fatty in there… but I still say leave it as is for now.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO REPLACE THE BOLT!!! A 4 1/2 or a #5 Camalot protects the crux nicely. Leave the bolt alone...its a nice piece of history up there whether its from the FA or not. Nuff said...