Suggestion: add chains at the last pitch anchor of 5.6 Cat in the Hat in Pine Creek Canyon at Red Rocks

Bruno Schull wrote:

Nope, never been on that route, never climbed at red rocks.  But whatever's going on at the anchor, it's not best practice, neither the bolt configuration nor the anchor construction.  

That first sentence might be the point where somebody recognizes that if they haven't climbed the route, they certainly don't have all the information or relevant experience needed to make the claim in the second sentence. For reference, I have climbed the route in the last couple years and when I did, we got our ropes stuck and because we were prepared and knew to expect that possibility, we solved the problem and continued on with our ropes intact.

On the route's page, there are 5 comments mentioned stuck ropes. There are 3 comments mentioning snagged ropes. There are multiple with guidance on the rappels. This is a real route, and even though the grade is lower, it's not a joke at all and there are very real dangers that come with multi-pitch trad climbing, including getting ropes stuck if you're not careful. Being prepared and doing your research ahead of time is highly advised for this route, and any other route. It appears that there were steps in being adequately prepared that were missed, and lessons to be learned from the experience. Blaming the anchors is not a move that makes sense to me.  

 And now I wait for the inevitable multi paragraph reply I'll get that triples down on the claim.

Hey Kevin, 

I generally respect your posts, but why the snarky tone?

You said my ideas above were confused.  

Exactly what do yoiu think I missunderstood or got wrong?

If you resort to a comment like, "If you don't know then I won't deign to explain it to you," then I'll know you're just trolling.

Here are my views on the anchor in the picture:

If you are going to place two bolts, why not connect them with some chain, so that when somebody arrives, especially a beginner, as might be expected in a route of that level, they can clip into one point and immediately be redundant?  Having two unconnected bolts requires somebody to have the knowledge and equipment to join them properly, and increases the chances that somebody might go in direct to just one and call it good, possibly with serious consequences.  There is no advantage to two unconnected bolts, other than cost and laziness.

As to the two sets of bolts, I can see one being useful for bring up a second, and the other serving as a rappel line.  Was that the intention?  Or did those two anchors just evolve/appear organically over time with no real clear intent?  I guess it's the latter.  Let's say somebody had the desire to clean up that route. Wouldn't the best option be to have one anchor, in the right place, with the other bolts pulled out and the holes filled in nicely? 

What about rappeling by passing the rope through two quicklinks on two bolts?  I forget who (Dale Remsberg?) but somebody talked about how passing the rope through two quicklinks leads to massive rope twist.  So, anybody rapping there, who is aware of this problem, will need to add come cord, a rappel ring, a carabiner, and so on.  I think this is wastefull and unecessary.  

Last there's the whole issue sitting and lowering down to start the rappel.  I don't know what the best solution is, but concens about linking the bolts together in some way, and having a simple rappel solution, should definitely be balanced against the position and lowering.  

Now, zooming out, I think the real objection here is that somebody with relatively less experience happens to have pointed out a less than ideal anchor set up.  Don't let the lack of experience of the messenger blind you to the fact that this anchor could be improved. 

There's so much gate keeping and elitism in this thread. Get over yourselves folks....everybody was a beginner once. 

Bruno Schull wrote:

Hey Kevin, 

I generally respect your posts, but why the snarky tone?

You said my ideas above were confused.  

Exactly what do yoiu think I missunderstood or got wrong?

If you resort to a comment like, "If you don't know then I won't deign to explain it to you," then I'll know you're just trolling.

Here are my views on the anchor in the picture:

If you are going to place two bolts, why not connect them with some chain, so that when somebody arrives, especially a beginner, as might be expected in a route of that level, they can clip into one point and immediately be redundant?  Having two unconnected bolts requires somebody to have the knowledge and equipment to join them properly, and increases the chances that somebody might go in direct to just one and call it good, possibly with serious consequences.  There is no advantage to two unconnected bolts, other than cost and laziness.

As to the two sets of bolts, I can see one being useful for bring up a second, and the other serving as a rappel line.  Was that the intention?  Or did those two anchors just evolve/appear organically over time with no real clear intent?  I guess it's the latter.  Let's say somebody had the desire to clean up that route. Wouldn't the best option be to have one anchor, in the right place, with the other bolts pulled out and the holes filled in nicely? 

What about rappeling by passing the rope through two quicklinks on two bolts?  I forget who (Dale Remsberg?) but somebody talked about how passing the rope through two quicklinks leads to massive rope twist.  So, anybody rapping there, who is aware of this problem, will need to add come cord, a rappel ring, a carabiner, and so on.  I think this is wastefull and unecessary.  

Last there's the whole issue sitting and lowering down to start the rappel.  I don't know what the best solution is, but concens about linking the bolts together in some way, and having a simple rappel solution, should definitely be balanced against the position and lowering.  

Now, zooming out, I think the real objection here is that somebody with relatively less experience happens to have pointed out a less than ideal anchor set up.  Don't let the lack of experience of the messenger blind you to the fact that this anchor could be improved. 

There's so much gate keeping and elitism in this thread. Get over yourselves folks....everybody was a beginner once. 

Kevin is this site's most instructive and helpful raging asshole. Strangely, he is incredibly nice in real life. Real Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation. I like to think that the proj is his outlet of hate that he requires to be nice in real life. 

Kevin has helped me and a great many others enormously and I only have love for the dude, but he's definitely a bit of an odd duck that one. Don't take it personally, he's an asshole to everyone. 

Bruno Schull wrote:

Hey Kevin, 

I generally respect your posts, but why the snarky tone?

You said my ideas above were confused.  

Exactly what do yoiu think I missunderstood or got wrong?

If you resort to a comment like, "If you don't know then I won't deign to explain it to you," then I'll know you're just trolling.

Here are my views on the anchor in the picture:

If you are going to place two bolts, why not connect them with some chain, so that when somebody arrives, especially a beginner, as might be expected in a route of that level, they can clip into one point and immediately be redundant?  Having two unconnected bolts requires somebody to have the knowledge and equipment to join them properly, and increases the chances that somebody might go in direct to just one and call it good, possibly with serious consequences.  There is no advantage to two unconnected bolts, other than cost and laziness.

As to the two sets of bolts, I can see one being useful for bring up a second, and the other serving as a rappel line.  Was that the intention?  Or did those two anchors just evolve/appear organically over time with no real clear intent?  I guess it's the latter.  Let's say somebody had the desire to clean up that route. Wouldn't the best option be to have one anchor, in the right place, with the other bolts pulled out and the holes filled in nicely? 

What about rappeling by passing the rope through two quicklinks on two bolts?  I forget who (Dale Remsberg?) but somebody talked about how passing the rope through two quicklinks leads to massive rope twist.  So, anybody rapping there, who is aware of this problem, will need to add come cord, a rappel ring, a carabiner, and so on.  I think this is wastefull and unecessary.  

Last there's the whole issue sitting and lowering down to start the rappel.  I don't know what the best solution is, but concens about linking the bolts together in some way, and having a simple rappel solution, should definitely be balanced against the position and lowering.  

Now, zooming out, I think the real objection here is that somebody with relatively less experience happens to have pointed out a less than ideal anchor set up.  Don't let the lack of experience of the messenger blind you to the fact that this anchor could be improved. 

There's so much gate keeping and elitism in this thread. Get over yourselves folks....everybody was a beginner once. 

I'll try to help clarify your misconceptions, if I may. 

The picture was taken by a confused person, who didn't understand where he was going and was in the process of making several mistakes. The anchor isn't as bad as his photo makes it seem. Your assessment of it is based on the content of a poor photo, taken by a beginner who frankly didn't know what he was doing there. I'm not bashing him and I feel like I've tried to relate and be very kind. 

The two quicklinks on the bolts actually come close enough together to keep the rope from twisting. The other two bolts allow for two parties to be at this anchor at the same time. It's one of the busiest multi-pitch routes at what is arguably the mecca of easy to moderate multipitch climbing in North America (perhaps the world). This route sees THOUSANDS of ascents a year and a handful of people get ropes stuck. The ones who really have problems are often beginners who are dealing with snagged ropes for the first time. It's not the anchor that's the problem, it's the skillset. 

You mentioned the "issue" of sitting and lowering down to start the rappel. It's actually not an issue, but a situation that exists because of the terrain where the route logically finishes. There isn't a suitable option to change this and it's not an unsafe way to start the rappel. There isn't a more convenient way to position the anchor or get the rappel started, it's forced by the terrain. And none of this even begins to broach the subject of adding/replacing/moving anchors in a wilderness where bolting is no longer allowed. Adding new bolts somewhere else can be problematic at best.

This really isn't a situation of gatekeeping, elitism, or not wanting to listen to someone with less experience. It's that the person with less experience doesn't know enough to realize that his "solution" doesn't resolve the issue. Ropes get snagged and stuck the entire way down this descent. It's the nature of the rock. The same rock that makes for such an amazing climb at such an approachable grade also is really featured and prone to snagging ropes. It's really not about the anchor. 

You also seem to be ignoring so many of the signs that indicate this was an issue that came from inexperience and not a problem with an anchor... here are several of them: started first long route at 9am on one of the shortest days of the year, missed a bad weather forecast, chose to use a biner block in terrain that is incredibly prone to snagging, climbed past anchor and then created whatever system is in that picture, rappelled the wrong direction off the ledge. 

This is not an issue of "gatekeeping" and "elitism" no matter how much you use emotional terms to get people to stop disagreeing with you. It's that the person making suggestions about a change of anchor frankly doesn't understand what he's talking about and he's getting rabid support from someone (you) who also has never seen the anchor, the surrounding terrain, the route, or the setup, but insisting that changes be made because one confused person said so. 

Honestly Bruno, just step back and consider that you may not know enough about the situation to have the opinion you do about it. 

Bruno Schull wrote:

Nope, never been on that route, never climbed at red rocks.  But whatever's going... 

Bruno Schull wrote:

If you are going to place two bolts, why not connect them with some chain, so that when somebody arrives, especially a beginner, as might be expected in a route of that level, they can clip into one point and immediately be redundant?  Having two unconnected bolts requires somebody to have the knowledge and equipment to join them properly, and increases the chances that somebody might go in direct to just one and call it good, possibly with serious consequences.  There is no advantage to two unconnected bolts, other than cost and laziness.

Bruno, it's a 6 pitch trad climb that requires a hike to even find the base plus decent route finding and various climbing techniques to then follow the route to the top. Despite the mellow grade it's hardly a beginner climb. I really hope nobody is getting on climbs like CITH  without knowing that you thread a rope through both rings to set up a rap, not just one...

Roman Kiselev wrote:

[...]

Who said we started late? We got to the base of Mescalito before 9am. But we were slow at climbing and probably should have bailed earlier.

[...] But it was dark and rainy. I knew the pitch was 130ft long from the MP description. So, with my 65m rope I could easily be up to 20ft short. We had only one head lamp and thus had to rappel together. With no visibility I had no way of knowing whether the rope reaches the ground, or any way to look for intermediate anchors. 

[...] My partner should have had a headlamp. Yet, I put a lot of effort into studying the guidebook and making sure have everything we need for this multipitch - and we still got punched in the gut. We definitely learned our lesson.

[...]

In the spirit of potentially helpful advice for next time rather than piling on...

One thing I've learned to do when doing long routes, after plenty of benightments, is to discuss out loud with my partner the pitch count, our expected speed, and what that means for the day ahead. 

In this scenario, you were at the base at 9am for a six pitch climb. Assuming an hour a pitch--which is not unreasonably slow for a party new-ish to multi-pitch trad climbing, onsighting a route, with possible traffic ahead--you would top out at 3 pm. Sunset is 430 in December, so you would expect to be finishing the last raps in fading light if everything goes well, and definitely hiking out in the dark. 

In actual fact, you topped out at 4:30, and it was already dark or close to it when you started rapping.

There are a number of advantages to verbalizing these factors before leaving the ground, ideally the night before: 

• it gives you reference points to check in throughout the day. If you expected 45 minutes per pitch, but you're moving slower, better to know that when you still have time to change the plan.
• it sets expectations. If you leave the ground expecting to be rapping in the dark, you're much less likely to forget your headlamp. And if you spend all day expecting that rapping in the dark is a possibility, the advent of nightfall becomes less of a scary surprise and more of an expected obstacle that you'll feel mentally prepared for and ready to overcome in due course.
• It informs how early you want to start. A 9am start is not particularly early for a long climb in December. Sunrise was at 649; what would you have had to do get in position to be climbing at first light? Be at the gate when it opened at 6? Take the slightly longer hike in from the highway? 
• It gets you and your partner on the same page vis a vis your expectations for the route.

This conversation only has to take a minute. But making a plan and checking your progress against the plan over the course of the day can have an enormous effect on a day's success.

Cosmic Hotdog wrote:   …And now I wait for the inevitable multi paragraph reply I'll get that triples down on the claim.

Nostra-fuggin-damus right there…   

Hey NateC, 

Thanks for your reply, and hope you're healing/recovering. 

I'll respond point-by-point.  Hope this will provide some entertainment/distraction for you.

NateC wrote:

The picture was taken by a confused person, who didn't understand where he was going and was in the process of making several mistakes. The anchor isn't as bad as his photo makes it seem. Your assessment of it is based on the content of a poor photo, taken by a beginner who frankly didn't know what he was doing there. I'm not bashing him and I feel like I've tried to relate and be very kind. 

You have been one of the more supportive voices, which is a testimony to your character.  Regarding the photo, it shows what it shows.  Four bolts, none of them linked, two empty holes.      

The two quicklinks on the bolts actually come close enough together to keep the rope from twisting. The other two bolts allow for two parties to be at this anchor at the same time. It's one of the busiest multi-pitch routes at what is arguably the mecca of easy to moderate multipitch climbing in North America (perhaps the world). This route sees THOUSANDS of ascents a year and a handful of people get ropes stuck. The ones who really have problems are often beginners who are dealing with snagged ropes for the first time. It's not the anchor that's the problem, it's the skillset. 

If the two quicklinks really come close enough together to make rope twisting a non-issue, then fair enough, the anchor is better than it looks. But the OP did quote several comments on MP about twisted ropes there.  If we compared this route to other routes of similar difficulty, would there be as many comments?  How many of these "rope twist" incidents are related to the inexperience of the climbers and the nature of the rock, versus the anchor?  We don't really have any way of knowing.  

Also, the issue with the anchor is not only twisting ropes.  There are two additional issues:

First, any climbers arriving there will need to build an anchor of some kind to link the bolts, even if that means simply clipping them together with a quickdraw.  This is obvious to us, but it might not be to some inexpericned climbers. 

Second, there is a very real possibility that inexperienced climbers will pass the rope through only one quicklink/bolt to rappel.   

Why not add one or two more links of chain? Why not connect two of the bolts?  The only reasons not to are laziness and cost.  

You mentioned the "issue" of sitting and lowering down to start the rappel. It's actually not an issue, but a situation that exists because of the terrain where the route logically finishes. There isn't a suitable option to change this and it's not an unsafe way to start the rappel. There isn't a more convenient way to position the anchor or get the rappel started, it's forced by the terrain. 

I mentioned the issue of sitting down to lower only because it's something anybody who rappels there should consider, not necessarily because I think the anchor is in the wrong place.  Of course, it's perfectly fine to have to sit down to start a rappel.  If that were in the UK, people would sit on the edge facing out, and belay off their harness to bring up a second.  That's a common technique.  Anyway, there are many possibilities.  But the fact that people will have to "get over the edge" is obviously one factor to consider.

And none of this even begins to broach the subject of adding/replacing/moving anchors in a wilderness where bolting is no longer allowed. Adding new bolts somewhere else can be problematic at best.

As far as I can tell, nobody has suggested adding bolts somewhere else.  But replacing hardware, or adding some chain or a rappel ring would be simple and permissible, right?

You also seem to be ignoring so many of the signs that indicate this was an issue that came from inexperience and not a problem with an anchor... here are several of them: started first long route at 9am on one of the shortest days of the year, missed a bad weather forecast, chose to use a biner block in terrain that is incredibly prone to snagging, climbed past anchor and then created whatever system is in that picture, rappelled the wrong direction off the ledge. 

Oh, it's obvious that many things went wrong here.  I'm not ignoring them, I just think they were covered pretty well, so there was no need to repeat what was already said.  I was more concerned about all the complicated rope work (one strand coming down from above, the PAS carabiner doubling as the master point, the rigging to raise/lower on the right).  I thought some guidance there could be helpful.

This is not an issue of "gatekeeping" and "elitism" no matter how much you use emotional terms to get people to stop disagreeing with you. 

Here I disagree with you. I think it's absolutely an issue of gatekeping and elitism.  I'm surprised we haven't seen a tide of comments about how gym-to-crag climbers are ruining Red Rocks, how crowds of ignorant people are endangering themselves and others, how the climbing world just wasn't what it used to be, how people these days don't put in their dues, and so on.  As if climbers haven't always had epics!  

I think it really gets under people's skin that an inexperienced climber would suggest an anchor modification.  People seem to need to lecture him on all the things he did wrong (to demonstrate their superiority) instead of recognizing that he might actually have a point.  

As for people disagreeing with me, if you are familiar with my posting history (dogs, gun control, politics) you will know that I couldn't care less whether people agree with me or not.  It's a forum.  We're exchanging views.  Disagreement is the point.  

It's that the person making suggestions about a change of anchor frankly doesn't understand what he's talking about and he's getting rabid support from someone (you) who also has never seen the anchor, the surrounding terrain, the route, or the setup, but insisting that changes be made because one confused person said so. 

I wouldn't say my suport is "rabid" but I do appreciate the resonance of that perjorative term with my proclivity for canines.  

Also, I have not insisited that changes be made, I've only suggested that people get past their initial reaction and consider that anchor with an open mind.  

Honestly Bruno, just step back and consider that you may not know enough about the situation to have the opinion you do about it. 

Nate, consider that the only person here who seems to be a local with the experience and skills to get the work done volunteered to go up and improve the anchor.

What does that tell you?  

The cost to add some chains and a rappel ring was quoted as 60 dollars.  I'm happy to split that cost with the OP, or pay the full amount.  I'd also throw in a little extra if somebody could fill in those empty holes properly.  Or, if somebody else pays for the work, I'll match that amount with a donation to the anchor replacement initiative (if it's still called that).

It's a sub-optimal anchor, and I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is to see it improved.  

Anybody who's interested can PM me.

My understanding is the anchor in question is the top of the last pitch.

Some here reasoning to not improve the anchor are getting too far over their skies. A few thoughts, some contrary to a very old theme the way expressed by some in this thread:

• The route’s technical rating is not any kind of deterrent for inexperienced climbers
• Less experienced parties tend to Not be the first party to the top of a long and popular route
• The fact that thousands successfully rapped is misleading. With so many, a significant number are just following the party who rapped in front of them, or based on the way they saw others come down as they were climbing up a pitch or so below.
• About the only time an inexperienced party will be alone is in the colder season or when the weather forecast is poor.
• Fixing a messy anchor does not replace the primary reasons Roman got into an epic that day - he knows that now. It just fixes a messy anchor.
• That someone had an epic does not mean they can’t see that a messy anchor is messy

Most rap anchors we come across indicate the direction of rappel + or - 15 degrees. On this anchor, the only chain attached to one of four bolts can be interpreted as to rap 60 or so degrees away from the correct direction (i.e., back the way the climber came up which most times is correct). And the holes are an eye sore for such a magnificent place. I plan to be in RR in April should there be remaining anchor-fixing work. 

All in favor of updated hardware can Venmo Gee Monet, who's local and knows what he's doing. The reason that anchor looks like it does is that it was developed as a passion project out of pocket 49 years ago and is updated by volunteers who work out of the kindness of their hearts and with the support of donors like you. Additionally, If you want to donate to the Southern Nevada Climbers Coalition, their venmo is @southernnevadaclimbers, however, as many pointed out this anchor is perfectly valid as is so I would guess that money would go to more urgent anchors. 

Hey Bruno, it’s raining and I have a pulley injury, so I’ll join in the “dogpile” here (that pun is just for you). I’m not taking a strong stance on exactly how this anchor should be set up, but I’m curious about your more general view that anchor bolts should be linked together with chains. Is this the norm in your area? I haven’t seen this much on the West Coast. Even beginner-friendly single pitch crags with mussey hooks don’t typically have the anchors linked. It’s hard for me to imagine that someone who is able to make it to the top of a six pitch trad route wouldn’t understand the concept of redundancy in anchors and know how to achieve it with two bolts. That’s a prerequisite even for toproping. Climbing multipitch trad routes, it’s a luxury to even have bolts at the anchors/rap stations (this is not an argument against bolted rap stations, I like bolted raps).

If all routes had the bolts connected by chains, it seems likely that many climbers would begin to treat them as innately redundant and fail to learn even the basics about setting up an anchor or taking responsibility for their own safety. It would then make for a starker transition on climbs where one has to build their own anchor with trad gear. This route appears to be pretty far along the progression toward longer traditional climbs, so it seems like if this would be a problem for any climbers, better they encounter it here than on even longer and more remote climbs in full alpine environments. Just my two cents (or ten); I haven’t yet climbed there so I don’t really have a dog in this fight (see what I did there?)

Hi Collin H.  

I appreciate your words, especially the dog puns :)  I agree with everything you said.  It's really a valid perspective.  I guess my only point would be that if we can make it a little safer, a little cleaner, why not?  

I do think my perspective is influenced by where live and climb regularly.  In Switzerland, where I've lived for the last 16 years, two bolts anchors connected with chain are common on routes like CITH.   They often look like the anchor below.  This is what I've used when I put in anchors at a dry tooling crag I helped develop.  

All that said, about 80% of my climbing is ice climbing, mixed, alpine, mountainering...and in that world the anchors (if there are any!) are all over the place. 

Maybe that helps explain my perspective. I've spend a huge amount of time roaming around in wilderness areas of the US and climbing in remote places in the Rockies and high desert, and I appreciate and value enormously the wildness, stark beauty, rapidly changing weather conditons, scale, and "very real" nature of places like Red Rocks (places that I miss greatly living in Europe). 

But, at the end of the day, this is an easy grade route that thousands of people climb each year, if we can prevent one accident or death, why not?

Maybe the recent rappeling accidents and death have clouded my reasoning.  

Anyway, thanks for responding.

All of this is just extra reason to top it out and walk off. It’s a fun and pretty descent that way, I think the Vegas hiking and scrambling club does trips up the descent. In places like RR I would rather spend twice as long hiking off than I would rapping and unsticking my rope as I go.

Tony Danza wrote:

All of this is just extra reason to top it out and walk off. It’s a fun and pretty descent that way, I think the Vegas hiking and scrambling club does trips up the descent. In places like RR I would rather spend twice as long hiking off than I would rapping and unsticking my rope as I go.

With a competent and experienced party, I can understand making an argument for walking off. Even though I personally would still rappel. 

A group doing their first long route, starting at 9am and topped out at 4:30pm on this route, is probably not moving well enough or competently enough to successfully find their way in the dark using your strategy. 

A group doing their first long route, starting at 9am and topped out at 4:30pm on this route, is probably not moving well enough or competently enough to successfully find their way in the dark using your strategy.

Such a group does not belong on that route, at this time of year, starting so late and climbing that late into the evening. No wonder people are having epics. Its almost guaranteed, given the starting point.

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Such a group does not belong on that route, at this time of year, starting so late and climbing that late into the evening. No wonder people are having epics. Its almost guaranteed, given the starting point.

Agreed. Furthering the epic by suggesting they walk off is bad advice in my opinion. 

Last summer I climbed Mt. Russell via the Fishhook Arete. The climb went fine and I led the whole thing with no issues. On the descent, we made the mistake of trying to shortcut things by trusting a couple rap stations we could see from the top of the east ridge descent. Long story short, those rap stations put us in the wrong descent gully and it turned into a long night of getting cliffed out and doing many emergency raps. Inconvenient and time consuming, but not a huge deal as I always plan for that possibility and I'm prepared with bail gear. 

Do you know what I didn't do? I didn't come to MP and blame the rap stations or route/descent description. I acknowledged that I made a bad judgement call and had to bail myself out of the resulting consequences. I also didn't go to a thread about a climb I've never done in a place I've never even climbed, and tried to assert that said climb needs to be modified. 

Just be humble, admit it is entirely possible that a mistake was made or the wrong judgement call happened, learn from the experience, and improve next time. It's really, really simple. I am not being elitist or gatekeeping or whatever other dumb language was used earlier to try and dismiss the directness of those of us saying - learn from the mistake and move on.  

NateC wrote:

Agreed. Furthering the epic by suggesting they walk off is bad advice in my opinion. 

I love the walkoff, but between the 4th classing, the chimney pitch (more serious than any of the normal pitches on CiTH) and the somewhat circuitous route with a couple dead end gullies....a party that takes all day on cat in the hat and then epics on the straightforward rap route would get shellacked on the walkoff. 

Cosmic Hotdog wrote:

Last summer I climbed Mt. Russell via the Fishhook Arete. The climb went fine and I led the whole thing with no issues. On the descent, we made the mistake of trying to shortcut things by trusting a couple rap stations we could see from the top of the east ridge descent. Long story short, those rap stations put us in the wrong descent gully and it turned into a long night of getting cliffed out and doing many emergency raps. Inconvenient and time consuming, but not a huge deal as I always plan for that possibility and I'm prepared with bail gear. 

Do you know what I didn't do? I didn't come to MP and blame the rap stations or route/descent description. I acknowledged that I made a bad judgement call and had to bail myself out of the resulting consequences. I also didn't go to a thread about a climb I've never done in a place I've never even climbed, and tried to assert that said climb needs to be modified. 

Just be humble, admit it is entirely possible that a mistake was made or the wrong judgement call happened, learn from the experience, and improve next time. It's really, really simple. I am not being elitist or gatekeeping or whatever other dumb language was used earlier to try and dismiss the directness of those of us saying - learn from the mistake and move on.  

So you're saying the bolts at the top of Mt. Russell aren't to blame?