Type: Sport, 100 ft
FA: Joe Terravechia, Tom Doherty 1987
Page Views: 12,738 total · 70/month
Shared By: bw1 on Apr 8, 2004
Admins: Luke Bertelsen, JJ Schlick, Greg Opland

You & This Route

131 Opinions

Your To-Do List:

Add To-Do · View List

Your Star Rating:

     Clear Rating

Your Difficulty Rating:

-none- Change

Your Ticks:

Add New Tick


An obvious line up the pretty right side of the highest pinnacle in the area (to the right of Puppy Chow). Solid face climbing with some nice exposure. The route is pretty sustained throughout though the crux seemed to be just before the last bolt.


standard Mt. Lemmon sport rack. 12 quickdraws.
Wes Turner
az / pa
Wes Turner   az / pa
the crux is def before the last bolt ...........great route....DO NOT rap back down the route!! climb up and over to rap anchors on the N side. May 15, 2004
Vincent Greene  
Thats right, the crux is at a bulge right above the second to last bolt. If you plan on setting up a TR, bring a lot of webbing or a cordelette and some two foot runners. May 17, 2004
A 60m reaches the ground.. a 50m definitely would not, the route is not 70ft like the guidebook says.. Pulling the rope is pretty rough on it due to the flat section at the top of the route so like the other poster said you may want to rap down the 5.11 route on the north side..I would recommend staying on belay until you get clipped into the north side shuts, they're down a bit from the top of the pinnacle.. Oct 31, 2005
FA: Joe Terravechia, Tom Doherty 1987 Apr 12, 2006
Jon Ruland
Tucson, AZ
Jon Ruland   Tucson, AZ
fanfreakintastic! Oct 20, 2007
susan peplow
Joshua Tree
susan peplow   Joshua Tree
7 bolts to the lower chains. No problem pulling the cord from the rap. Unknown about TR but figure just the same.

Amazing the original route was done on 3 bolts, that could make for a sketch lead!

Don't cheat yourself at the top....push on and straight up, it's worth it. Apr 20, 2009
Mike M.  
Slab? I don't recall any slab/friction/smear moves on the entire climb. maybe on the first steps up if you contrived it. It was face climbing on tiny, positive edges. I do remember when it only had three bolts - brisk! May 16, 2009
Just recently climb and noticed the bolts seemed to be loose..not the hangers but the bolts...hope it is ok...maybe a check from someone more experienced would not hurt..I mean the anchor bolts not the bolts for clipping the climb. May 12, 2010
Since when is it okay to add bolts to an existing free climb let alone more than double the original count?!
Tom & I did this route safely with, I believe, 3 bolts and a few small nuts. It was a far more engaging little climb back when it was a bit of spicy lead - something for a 5.9/5.10 leader to aspire to. Now its just another sport route.
All routes do not have to be made uber-safe for the masses.
If you've clipped more than 3 bolts, sorry you've climbed Chihuahua Pussy not
Chihuahua Power. Dec 30, 2012

This has been an ongoing problem. I agree existing routes should not be retrobolted. If you would like, I will help you neatly remove the added bolts. Otherwise we reinforce this problematic behavior. Dec 30, 2012
Tucson, Arizona
RyanJohnson   Tucson, Arizona

This route has been fully bolted since SQ2 was published around 2001. It is listed as a bolted route in Rock Climbing Arizona(published in 1999). Why the sudden ethical concern? Maybe this isn't a sudden concern but given the FA date and when these resources for Southern Arizona climbing were published, why didn't you take action in the decade prior to publication?

This isn't just another bolted sport route on the Lemmon, look at the quality rating it continually gets on this site as well as in the published media. Chihuahua Power is in the running for the best 5.9 sport route on the mountain. The masses clearly enjoy this safer version.

Given that the Tucson climbing community has let this route remain as a sport route for over a decade, it is likely to be a much larger issue if the bolts are chopped. Dec 30, 2012
jbak .
jbak .   tucson,az
This route was bolted over ? When ? By who ?

"Chihuahua Pussy" Catchy name Joe ! I laugh. Dec 30, 2012
A couple of thoughts:

Geir, I really appreciate your input and offer of help with the removal of the added bolts. Although I would like to see the route returned to its original FA state it was not my intent in bringing up the subject here. I want to be clear that the route wasn't in any way some kind of statement - It's a little 5.9 that had some run outs. Probably R rated at most. I merely want to bring attention to something that I and a hell of a lot of other climbers feel very strongly about. As you mentioned, this type of action is reinforced when not confronted.

RyanJ, I live in Maine and haven't climbed in Arizona since the winter of 86/87 when I lived in Tuscon. I only recently learned of the addition of the bolts.
That the masses enjoy the safer version of the route is hardly the issue. Of course many more people do the route now - its a bloody sport climb. There would be a line at the base of the Bachar Yerian if the bolts were 6' apart instead of 40'. What is at issue is the addition of bolts to established routes w/o the consent of the FA party. Are you condoning this behavior? Dec 30, 2012
Scott M. McNamara
Tucson, Arizona
Scott M. McNamara   Tucson, Arizona
I am absolutely opposed to adding fixed anchors to existing mental test pieces.

For me, minority users have as much right to pursue their style of climbing---as we do to pursue sport climbing. Thanks Joe for Red Diamond! Your skills are not forgotten.

Anchors added after the first ascent should usually be immediately removed.

I fear doing that on this climb could create the perfect storm---because of its great popularity and the length of time these added anchors have existed.

Imagine: inexperienced climbers using the guidebook go out to try to do this route. Amazingly, the guidebook notes, “[o]riginally done with three bolts.” They reasonably assume that there must be more---but the surplusage has been chopped.

They climb it. They get hurt. (A long time ago there was another accident on this climb.)

The lawyer sues everybody—guidebook author, chopper, original FA, forest service—looking for a deep pocket.

The forest service reacts. Not too hard to imagine how this might play out to everyone’s detriment.

I also agree with J-BAK,---it would be very interesting to know how this happened.

Scott Mc

Dec 31, 2012
Tucson, Arizona
RyanJohnson   Tucson, Arizona

I generally agree with the view that additional bolts should not be added to established routes without going down the usual list, i.e. FAist, else FA party members, else community elders etc. I also agree with the ethic that Scott McNamara presented above, "anchors added after the first ascent should usually be immediately removed."

Yet what is the statute of limitations on removing added hardware? If it has been allowed to remain in place for what ever reason, when is it too late to chop? The Tucson climbing community has kept Chihuahua Power as a sport route for going on +12 years. That is enough to convince me that there is no reason to chop it. Dec 31, 2012
Scott, good thoughts as always. I think a small metal sign attached to the first bolt would adequately warn people of the change.

Ryan, I get what you are saying but I feel leaving the bolts in reinforces the behavior. Further, I suspect most of the people who have "accepted" this were unaware of the history of this route. For example, I have lived here 10 years and I did not know. Dec 31, 2012
jbak .
jbak .   tucson,az
Bolting over this route makes no more sense than bolting over Quickdraw. It was not R-rated when it had 3 bolts. It was never a "test piece". Yes, it was "engaging" (Joe T's term), but that's it. The slight mental challenge ADDED to the goodness of this route. Dec 31, 2012
Scott M. McNamara
Tucson, Arizona
Scott M. McNamara   Tucson, Arizona
Forgive me for being a total nerd, but the history of this route (as illustrated in the local guide books) is kind of interesting:

Steiger’s guide (1985)--- Route does not exist yet.
Route put up 1987.
Eric’s, A Supplement to .... (1989)—Chihuahua Power (5.9 + R) 3 bolts
Eric’s, Squeezing the Lemmon (1991)—Chihuahua Power (5.9)
Eric’s, Squeezing the Lemmon II (2000)—Chihuahua Power 5.9 Originally done with three bolts. [B,C]
Eric’s, Squeezing the Lemmon III (2015)—Chihuahua Power 5.9+ Originally done with three bolts [B,C]
Eric's, Squeezing the Lemmon IV (20??)--Chihuahua Power 5?

Scott Mc Dec 31, 2012
Good to get the Tucson locals thoughts.

Jbak - Right on. I second everything you said in your last post.

Scott - Thanks. Just for the record, when I called in the route to Michael Jimmerson ( I think that was his name. its been 25 yrs ) I didn't give it an R rating. It was added in the supplement.

RyanJ - With regard to statute of limitations on removing hardware, in my opinion there isn't any. Hell, the compressor route was just erased and it was put up in 1970.

As far as what to do with the offending bolts - you know how I feel. If I lived in the area I'd be inclined to pull them and neatly patch the holes. Most importantly it would help to set a precedent against this kind of thing but it'll also leave you with a better and more memorable route because it'll demand a little more of climbers. Geir's right, any liability concerns can be overcome until the next guidebook is printed.

I don't really care who added the bolts but I have to admit that I wonder what goes through the mind of someone who slams in 4 more bolts on a 70' route that originally had only 3. Do they think they're doing the climbing community a service by making a route more safe? Do they know they're breaking one of climbing's cardinal rules? Jan 1, 2013
A.P.T.   Truckee,Ca
All climbs should a have chaulk board at the base warning of all changes and updated dailey Ha, ha
Everytime I led this climb, the thought of doing it with 3 bolts scared me. The removal of the addtional bolts will be a serious issue because they existed for so long. I do know for sure I won't be leading this climb anymore if they are removed and only 3 remain.. oh well :( Jan 1, 2013
Littleton, CO
Hendrixson   Littleton, CO
My vote is to leave the route in its current form. While I do not condone retro-bolting, this route was altered 20 years ago and is a local classic. As far as I'm aware retro-bolting isn't accepted or practiced in Southern Arizona. Jan 1, 2013
Scott M. McNamara
Tucson, Arizona
Scott M. McNamara   Tucson, Arizona
If the offending bolts get removed, will the climb become a Joe “Terror--vecchia" route? Jan 2, 2013
1Eric Rhicard
1Eric Rhicard   Tucson
Hey Kids, just got back to town. My memory is often faulty with anything older than a week but I thought that Ron Farrel added the bolts to this climb. I thought he climbed with you Joe and thought it would be okay. Might have been Ben Burnham too. I don't know. I am sure it can be brought back to the way you did it Joe if you want. As you say it isn't really some test piece especially from a guy who climbed the things you have climbed. Much more impressive to me are the much harder routes you put up with equally long or longer run out sections. The Cost of Glory 5.12R in 1987 and Wicked Decent Thrill 12-R 1987. I have not done either one of them as I am averse to injury.

My thought would be to leave it as is since it was nothing for a climber of your talents. But that is me. If you want it fixed I am sure that can be arranged. Or better yet come on out for a winter visit and we will fix you up with all the needed tools. Always wished I had met you. Jan 3, 2013
OK, this is a fun discussion.
I think it is incumbent upon the local climbing community, if substantially outraged and the FAist isn't around, to chop a retro-bolted route in a timely fashion. FA 1987- outrage 2013 that's 26 years if my math is right.

Sorry Joe, the Compressor route and Chihuahua Power are apples and oranges.

The 80s and early 90s were a sad time on the Lemmon with lots of chipping and retro-bolting going on. The new ethos has gone far away from this, thank the gods. I think there are several climbers in the community now who are willing and able to chop retro-bolts as they appear, but the statute of limitations is way up on Chihuahua Power.

In this case I think the greater good is better served by leaving it alone. I few climbers new found outrage should not override the thousands of climbers that already have climbed this as a sport route, or the thousands that will climb it in the future.

All this coming from a guy that has chopped his fair share of bolts. Jan 4, 2013
Alex McIntyre
Tucson, AZ
Alex McIntyre   Tucson, AZ
I'm strongly opposed to chopping the bolts down to the original 3. Geir, you "not knowing" isn't the product of this being some obscure fact, but you not paying attention to the guidebook. Every time I've climbed this I've shuddered at the original 3 bolts. The route is closer to 90 feet long than 70, it comes somewhat close to maxing out a 60m. Jan 9, 2013
Hey Alex, that is a good point. What I wanted to get across is that many of the people who climbed this route may not have known it was retro bolted. As an example I noted that I did not. Another element of this particular case (which is not evident in the guidebooks) is that the bolts were placed without the knowledge or consent of the FA. Jan 10, 2013
How about putting a little metal sign on the three origional bolts and leave the others be, thus giving people a choice of the style in which they wish to climb the route. Im only being half sarcastic..... Feb 20, 2013
That some vague statute of limitations is up for returning a route to its original FA state is just nonsense and that the local climbing community didn't take it upon themselves to chop the route is irrelevant . As Geir mentioned, most never knew how many bolts the original climb had or that bolts were added without the consent of the FA party. Ultimately, It's the first ascentionist's decision anyway and as I've mentioned above, I found out about the bolts long after the fact.
I'm also of the opinion that you take a zero tolerance stance with stuff like this. Otherwise, over time, wishy washy ethics inevitably invite more of the same.

Jimbo,I know the compressor route analogy is far from perfect but in both instances bolts were placed that should never have been placed. Countless people have pulled on Maestri's bolts over the last 42 years, just as you say "thousands" have clipped the added bolts on CP. People have gotten used to them being there and they have allowed many ascents that would not have otherwise been possible. The point I was trying to make is that its not too late to pull the added bolts and that higher climber volume in no way validates the placement of those bolts. Climbers will somehow manage w/o them or ( oh the horror!) have to go climb something else within their abilities.

And look, there's no double standard here. If a New England first ascentionist discovered 20 yrs after the fact that someone had retrobolted a North Conway classic of his or hers, I'd applaud their decision to return the route to its original state even if it was going to put the route out of my reach and piss off the usual suspects.

But I'm beating a dead horse.

Happy climbing in the New Year.

Hi Eric FR, Thanks for the kind words. I always wished that we had a chance to meet and to climb together when I was in town. Maybe one of these winters when I manage to sneak away for a few weeks? Very much miss Lemmon and Cochise. Mar 11, 2013
If Maestri had hand drilled all those bolts they would still be there and climbers would still use them. The fact that he left his compressor on the route is what really upset people.

Also a little crag on a Tucson hillside cannot be compared to one of the proudest granite faces in the world.

I have no problem with you coming to town and chopping the bolts on Chihuahua Power yourself. I would have done it myself the first time I climbed it in 94 if I had known that the bolts were added without the FA,s permission. I assumed they were.

Now 26 years after the fact, I think it may be more about ego than righteous indignation.

Seems like a guy with your resume shouldn't be getting so bent out of shape about a 50 foot 5.9 someone added a bolt or two to a quarter of a century ago. But maybe I just need to take this game we play more seriously.

Mar 13, 2013
.. and I've been known to take this stuff too seriously Jim. What's the alternative though? Was I supposed to just bite my tongue when I found out that 4 bolts were added to a route that originally had only 3? Not likely.
If you haven't already, you might want to read my first couple of posts - This has zero to do with ego and everything to do with sounding off about something that I think does harm to the sport. Mar 13, 2013
I'm totally on your side about retro bolting routes with out the FAist permission, Joe. But I do think it is incumbent upon the FAist or the community at large to chop the offending bolts in a timely manner. You don't live in Tucson so your off the hook. Consequently chopping the bolts became the responsibility of the climbing community. For 26 years this community has decided not to chop the bolts for whatever reason.
For 26 years climbers have been enjoying this route with all the added bolts. I just think in this case after so many years the greater good would be to leave it alone. Mar 14, 2013
Charles Vernon
mind & body in Colorado, he…
Charles Vernon   mind & body in Colorado, he…
I'm not advocating anything and don't particular care what happens, but it is worth noting that if bolts are removed, anyone who wants to climb this can do so by first leading Puppy Love, which is a well-bolted 5.8 that shares the same anchor. Removing the bolts won't mean that people can't easily access and climb it.

[Edit] It's also interesting that people still seem to get plenty scared on this route, despite the addition of bolts. The "ticks" note at least one 35 foot fall and several other people who backed off. Mar 14, 2013
Nick Hoenig
tucson, az
Nick Hoenig   tucson, az
Got the fear and fell from the bulge before the last bolt and broke my ankle. don't reccomend a fall from this spot. Will be back someday to get it...when I don't have my tail between my legs Mar 20, 2013
Does anyone know the current status of the bolts on this route? Does it still have seven bolts or has it been chopped down to the original three? Dec 24, 2013
Christian Roda o Back
Casa do Cacete
Christian Roda o Back   Casa do Cacete
Should be fine, would (probably) be all over MP if someone had chopped it. Dec 24, 2013
Would anyone be able to tell me which 3 bolts were the originals? Nov 30, 2014
Luke Bertelsen
Tucson, AZ
Luke Bertelsen   Tucson, AZ  
Just pick any three. Dec 1, 2014
I guess I could do that... I have it in the back of my mind to do this the original way. Probably won't ever be able to know which 3 though. Dec 1, 2014
I guess I could just clip the 3 that seem to clear up the run-out as much as possible. We'll see. Dec 1, 2014
Hey Joe and Eric. It has been a long time.i dont really recall the route but I had agreat time climbing with both of you way back when. Glad to see you are both still at it. Apr 19, 2015
Patrick Koch
Saint Louis, MO
Patrick Koch   Saint Louis, MO
Seemed a bit runout, it could probably use a couple more bolts. Jan 6, 2018
Gets a bit scary/run out at the final bulges. I wasn't confident I could make the clip on the second bulge so I backed off (would not be a clean fall from there). Jan 11, 2018
Noah Mendez
Duluth, MN
  5.9 PG13
Noah Mendez   Duluth, MN
  5.9 PG13
Climbed this route maybe two months ago. If you are considering climbing this, know that there are only 7 bolts to the first chains which I estimate are about 90 feet of climbing (based off of how much extra rope I had from rappelling off my 60M). Don't expect 12 draws on your way to the top, but do expect 12 foot run outs between every clip!

If you have the head for it and are CONFIDENT you are able to climb it, this is definitely a worth while route. If not, I'd pass it up for a more generously bolted route, and save the possible trip to the hospital that could come from taking a spill. As a reference point, I regularly onsight 11s outside and am breaking into onsighting 12s, but this route definitely tested my mental game. Feb 26, 2019