UKBouldering.com

The Shark (Read 149618 times)

Nibile

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 7991
  • Karma: +743/-4
  • Part Animal Part Machine
    • TOTOLORE
#325 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 12:02:29 pm
Sad news Shark.

iain

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 672
  • Karma: +31/-0
#326 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 01:25:56 pm
Commiserations Shark  :(

kelvin

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1293
  • Karma: +60/-1
#327 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 01:53:44 pm
Tough times - such a nice write up tho.

Sent from my XT1039 using Tapatalk


danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
#328 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 01:59:49 pm
Nice words Si, sounds like she had a great life.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#329 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 07:22:14 pm
Thanks guys

nik at work

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3586
  • Karma: +312/-2
#330 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 07:29:11 pm
Sad times
Nicely written Shark.
Sounds like a great life.

Adam Lincoln

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4943
  • Karma: +111/-30
    • Flickr Page, Vimeo Videos and Blog
#331 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 08:54:07 pm
Nice words Simon. Seemed like a lovely dog, and has become legend falling/jumping/slipping from the catwalk. I often find myself wondering how the hell she got away with it!


Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#332 Re: The Shark
July 20, 2015, 09:29:39 pm
That was a tear jerker. Well written.

She's running in the long grass now though.

Or panting in the shade.

RIP.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#333 Re: The Shark
June 21, 2017, 06:04:38 pm
 Crag27 feed doesn't seem to be working so here's a copy of my latest

https://27crags.com/climbers/shark/blog/it-s-fun-to-work-at-the-bmc

Having now had 5 months under my belt as a BMC employee I thought I would write a about my experiences so far.

I started in January in the new role of Commercial Partnerships Manager to identify ways to improve revenues or reduce costs against a background of potential reduced funding by Sport England. The broad job description meant that I was able to look at most areas of the BMC work. Having been a volunteer for the Peak Area and a representative on National Council I was well primed (in theory) for the role. The commercial skills I had where what was needed for the job. However, whilst I was going to work with people who shared a love of climbing and the outdoors there was a cultural mis-match between my entrepreneurial background and that of a bureaucratic not-for-profit organisation where caution tends to reign, and change and experiment is treated with suspicion.  One of my business friends said I would leave after the first month. I thought it more likely I would get sacked for being a nuisance.

Because the BMC is engaged in a lot of activities with everyone having different ideas of what should or shouldn’t be done there was a risk of getting pulled this way and that, getting bogged down and end up not achieving anything. Given that the role was advertised as a 12 month contract at the interview I proposed that I would spend the first four months investigating potential commercial improvements and at the end of that period set out those projects where I felt I could make the most difference in the remaining eight months of my tenure.

In life generally, getting things done is my primary motivation. However, making changes or doing new things isn’t easy at the BMC.  Most people in the Office where generous with their time to discuss their areas and offer views on how things might be changed for the better. As I explored things to get some ideas moving I realised I required backing from a Committee, the Exec or in one case National Council and the Membership. Quite often where I saw opportunities others saw difficulties. In retrospect this is hardly surprising when a lot of the ideas have already been explored years ago, typically enshrined in a half-forgotten committee paper, but then somehow never seeming to be followed through.

I’d be lying if I said there weren’t some very low points but I am pleased to report that things are much better now and the job no longer feels like a battle. Some changes I advocated (to anyone who would listen) are starting to happen and hopefully will snowball and encourage more changes. I now also have identified a set of achievable projects with tangible outcomes that I am now confident of putting to bed by the end of the year.

Recently I decided to modify my style a bit. After all, the BMC is not a business I run or own and the sense of mission that you tend to have as a volunteer needs to be tempered at times. Rab Carringtons sage advice “to calm down” is something that I have recently attempted to do both for my own sake and those around me.

So what insights can I share? First of all despite being involved with the BMC for 6 years it was still a bewildering task to unpick what the BMC does and how it works. Although the office only has 33 employees, as a volunteer organisation the real numbers working for the BMC runs into the hundreds and the total membership is 83,000. Not only do we have a relationship with the membership and volunteers but also a myriad of outside bodies most notably Clubs, Mountain Training and Sport England. Finally there is functional support from the Marketing and Communications, IT, Finance, and HR individuals and teams

Over the years the BMC has organically accumulated and developed varied work activities in an unstructured way. I think it is fair to say that its current makeup is the equivalent of half a dozen bodies melded into one. Mainly it is a representative body except in one area (indoor competition climbing) where it is a Governing body. It is also a Membership organisation, a Quality Assurance training body, a technical advice body, a campaigning and lobbying body, an events and competitions organiser, a publisher, a retailer, a specialist travel insurance business and a landowner. Did I mention we have three charities? And, I think, 23 committees. Phew! These varied activities are sometimes at odds with each other in terms of stage of development, priority, ambition, scope, pace, direction and goals and there are vocal adherents and detractors for the different areas in the membership who differ on where the priorities should lie.

Unpicking how decisions really get made through the Committees, the Executive board and National Council was a further puzzle. Putting it mildly the pace of decision making is much slower than I am used to. This is more a fault of the structure than the people. Dave Turnbull, the Chief Executive is the only salaried staff member on the Executive board and National Council. The rest of the Executive board and National Council members are dedicated volunteers that typically convene once a quarter. The volunteers should be applauded for giving up their time and there some amazing and accomplished people involved. Of course they interact between meetings but as part time volunteers can’t be expected to be immersed fulltime in all aspects of the workings of this complex institution.

I experienced this first hand as a National Council representative for the Peak when I was acutely aware that I was voting on a range of issues which I did not fully understand the context and implications, especially to begin with. Without fuller understanding, the quality of debate and decision making is hampered. Typically as an NC rep you are deluged with a variety of lengthy papers by email before the meeting to digest. The agenda was typically large and so time pressured. People naturally had their own personal hobby horses that were important to them (and why not!). There was a tendency to overly focus on procedural matters which, for me, was a turn off. It might be a democratic structure but was it the best and most effective way to decide things? I didn’t think I was achieving anything in the role  and therefore stepped down after two years when there was somebody I could hand over to (thank you Dave Brown).

So, whither the BMC? We now have an independent governing review underway which is examining our decision making (ie governing) structure as well as the organisational structure. When the recommendations emerge I am hoping they will be bold rather than expedient.

My view is that an element of disentanglement is well overdue perhaps by a re-organising into semi-autonomous entities that can forge their own identities, goals, plans and destinies whilst still being supported by and reporting into BMC central. This should allow the overall organisation to grow and develop and achieve more and be better understood in a positive improvement culture where developing new ideas and making changes is not so bloody difficult. Overall the organisation should benefit from a structure that empowers local, nimbler decision-making based on clearer central goals. 

I can only guess at what the specific recommendations of the Governing Review might be, but following investigation, my current hope is that we should aim to convert the BMC to a charity with different subsidiary bodies including a limited liability commercial subsidiary. Not only would there be potentially transformational benefits to our finances from charitable status but also it would crystallise our already predominantly altruistic purposes for the greater good of over 2 million climbers and upland hillwalkers above and beyond the narrower remit of representing member interests thereby raising our ambitions. If this was recommended I think the charity aims should include a pro-participation statement. These would be controversial matters, for at least some of the members, and consulting and communicating will be a big challenge if we are to successfully make the transition. Despite these considerable cultural hurdles if the benefits are so obvious for the BMC then we are just shirking responsibility not to try, otherwise we are holding back our potential to achieve greater things. 

When I started climbing I was an avid reader of Mountain magazine where Jim Collins a US climber featured regularly. Aside from being an accomplished climber he wrote a hugely influential business book based on extensive research and analysis called “From Good to Great” which charted how companies transition from being good companies to great ones.  The Governance review offers the tantalising hope that the BMC might also make a significant step towards this transition.

 (This is a personal blog and not an official BMC piece. The views expressed are my own and it was written in my own time.)

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#334 Re: The Shark
June 21, 2017, 07:15:20 pm
Can you explain a bitmorewhatthismeans:
" the charity aims should include a pro-participation statement"

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#335 Re: The Shark
June 21, 2017, 09:16:14 pm
Can you explain a bitmorewhatthismeans:
" the charity aims should include a pro-participation statement"

To qualify for charitable status an organisation must state objectives that meet the requirements of the Charity Commission so an example would be Cycling Touring Club (now Cycling UK!) first charitable object being to: "Promote community participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of cycling.." ie promoting participation in the sport for the sake of general health, enjoyment and well  being.

The same sort of pro-participation object(ive) could apply for climbing and upland hillwalking and mountaineering and would be an obvious thing to state if going down the route of converting to a charity. Currently the rub is whilst we represent the general climbing and hill walking communities we are also a member organisation representing member interests. Which comes first when push comes to shove? Its not clear. Some members don't want to promote climbing and hillwalking to the non-climbing and non-hillwalking public and confine BMC activities to promoting member interest only, or mainly.

To commit to being a charity with honesty and  integrity would mean subsuming member interests to the general good. I hope that makes sense? I don't think I have expressed it very clearly.

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#336 Re: The Shark
June 21, 2017, 09:43:40 pm
No the explanation is perfectly clear. Unfortunately it's what I thought it might be.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#337 Re: The Shark
June 21, 2017, 09:48:10 pm
No the explanation is perfectly clear. Unfortunately it's what I thought it might be.

So not the route you want then

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#338 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 12:16:19 am
No I think it's a terrible idea.
1. I see the primary role of the BMC is access, bringing more people into the activities is counter productive to that aim.
2. Why change the remit of the BMC? It serves a function (or a few functions) now you want to give it a different function. If a private company goes into new markets it's to make money for its shareholders who benefits from this move?
3. What's to stop the charitable remit taking over? I mean, there must be restrictions on what a charity can do so whilst the promotion remit will benefit from charitable status will other functions need to be ring fenced so won't benefit from that status anyway?
4. I'm sceptical how much 'good' a charity of this sort can do. You'll promote climbing etc by making it more accessible, who'll take it up as a result of this? A few more middle class people will tag it onto their other interests like triathlons and Tough Mudder. Will we have a healthier nation as a result? There's an obesity epidemic that needs addressing, something like this is window dressing at best.
5. Usual selfish reasons about there being too few decent crags so bringing more people into the sport will have a detrimental effect on my enjoyment.
6. What happens if this doesn't go ahead?

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
#339 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 08:50:56 am
You make a lot of assumptions there Teaboy, if you don't mind me saying. Other organisations successfully manage to balance what appear to be competing aims, in this case recreation and conservation.

I'll counter your point 4 by saying that research shows that exposing young people to the outdoors at a critical time in their development has a strong correlation with them remaining active for the rest of their lives, with big positive impacts on their health, and the value to them of wild spaces. Promoting that in itself would be a worthy charitable aim with benefit to society as a whole and to the individuals concerned.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#340 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 08:56:28 am
Thanks for taking the time to set out your thoughts.  :thumbsup:

Quote
1. I see the primary role of the BMC is access, bringing more people into the activities is counter productive to that aim.

First of all you specifically asked about pro-participation and so I answered just that. Expanding on that a charity typically has multiple objectives. Cycling UK has four. If converting to a charity then yes, facilitating access would be top of the list for the BMC. I also see those two objectives as  complementary rather than counterproductive. Facilitating access allows more choice of venues for participants thereby spreading the load and putting the BMC in a position to help educate participants in responsible recreational use of those environments and that includes education of awareness of options away from honeypot locations. 

Pro-participation also seeks to reduce barriers (perceived of otherwise) to certain  groups participate ie women, youth, race. Increasing more participants should also increase funds to care for those environments. Participation doesn’t just have to be on the crags but also at indoor venues too. At a more fundamental level if you enjoy an activity that you find life fulfilling why wouldn’t you want others to have the opportunity to enjoy that activity rather than just the lucky, select few.

Quote
2. Why change the remit of the BMC? It serves a function (or a few functions) now you want to give it a different function. If a private company goes into new markets it's to make money for its shareholders who benefits from this move?

Because the remit of the BMC has some contradictory elements which can confuse decision making. I think pro-participation is a good thing for reasons stated above. It doesn’t have to be one of the charity objectives but it could be. However, the acceptance that the BMC is working for the general good of all climbers and hillwalkers (as we in fact already state we do) rather than just members would have to be adopted to be accepted as a charity. As members are climbers and hillwalkers anyway the two by and large go hand in hand. Pro-participation is an area where there is arguably a divergence. As for the financial benefits in my proposed structure there is potentially £300Kpa of gift aid reclaim on member subscriptions, better VAT reclaim (potentially £50Kpa) and tax free gifting of commercially generated profits into the charity.

Quote
   3. What's to stop the charitable remit taking over? I mean, there must be restrictions on what a charity can do so whilst the promotion remit will benefit from charitable status will other functions need to be ring fenced so won't benefit from that status anyway?

In effect we are already mainly a charity in the stated mission of the 2013-17 strategic plan in our stated aims. Of the current strategy the top three out of the four are charitable:

-   Negotiate access improvements and promote cliff and mountain conservation.
-   Promote and advise on good practice, facilities, training and equipment.
-   Support events and specialist programmes including youth and excellence.
-       Provide services and information for members

If converting to a charity (as a whole) the charitable remit (whatever remit is decided) would take over. Sometimes this fundamental aspect hasn’t been fully addressed by member organisations converting to a charity and has caused problems for the organisation and the Charity Commission. With a charity remit (whatever it might be) there is clearer direction for the BMC which isn’t the case now to say the least. In y view it takes the organisation and the members in the ‘right direction’ as a philanthropic, altruistic and public spirited organisation with a clearer mission for the future

Quote
4. I'm sceptical how much 'good' a charity of this sort can do. You'll promote climbing etc by making it more accessible, who'll take it up as a result of this? A few more middle class people will tag it onto their other interests like triathlons and Tough Mudder. Will we have a healthier nation as a result? There's an obesity epidemic that needs addressing, something like this is window dressing at best.

We can try with this aim. If we fail you will be if not happy, then content ;-)

Quote
5. Usual selfish reasons about there being too few decent crags so bringing more people into the sport will have a detrimental effect on my enjoyment.

I'm sure that Fiona would agree that you would be happier sharing the love rather than being a curmudgeonly misanthrope.  :jab:

Quote
6. What happens if this doesn't go ahead?

There are many structural alternatives that would improve decision making perhaps leaving some fundamental issues unresolved. One such compromise is to leave the BMC as it is but channel more activity through our existing charity subsidiaries (ACT, Land & Property Trust, Mountain Heritage) but that would be a compromise not making the most of the potential. The structure I propose is what I perceive as the best way but politics is the art of the possible not necessarily what is best.  I predict wholesale conversion to a charity wont go ahead as it will be perceived to be too difficult to persuade the membership of the merits.  I hope I am proved wrong
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 09:24:23 am by shark »

Teaboy

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1176
  • Karma: +72/-2
#341 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 09:11:17 am
You make a lot of assumptions there Teaboy, if you don't mind me saying. Other organisations successfully manage to balance what appear to be competing aims, in this case recreation and conservation.

4 of my 6 points contained questions, the other two are my personal opinion so not that many assumptions

Quote
I'll counter your point 4 by saying that research shows that exposing young people to the outdoors at a critical time in their development has a strong correlation with them remaining active for the rest of their lives, with big positive impacts on their health, and the value to them of wild spaces. Promoting that in itself would be a worthy charitable aim with benefit to society as a whole and to the individuals concerned.
I don't doubt the veracity of this statement but do I think this is an inefficient and poorly targeted way of getting the country active. How strong is the correlation (when I was a kid I went on a couple of residential outdoor pursuits courses with school, as far as I know I was the only person out of 25 who carried on being active in the outdoors), so how much exposure is required and are the people who end up being active outdoors people who would have carried on being active anyway (in some sport or other).
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 09:38:54 am by Teaboy »

danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
#342 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 09:26:18 am
From memory, we're talking about around 75%, so a huge impact. From your personal anecdote, are you saying none of your classmates walk, run, cycle or do the gardening at all these days? If you asked them, would they put any value on the countryside and fresh air, and having access to it? The effects of having an immersive outdoor experience when young seem to be quite holistic, rather than generating a large volume of climbers, walkers or paddlers.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#343 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 10:38:23 am
Off the top of my head here is what a list of potential charitable objectives for the BMC might look like:

1.   Work with other outdoor users, landowners and bodies to promote public access and the conservation and protection of the environment
2.   Promote responsible, best practice in the hills and mountains and at indoor walls
3.   Facilitate education and ensure high quality standards of training schemes related to hillwalking, climbing and mountaineering working with the Mountain Training Board
4.   Promote participation in healthy recreation by promoting the amateur sport of hillwalking, climbing and mountaineering in all its forms and work towards removing barriers to participation faced by under-represented groups
5.   To guide the work of a regional volunteer network of individuals and walking and climbing clubs to achieve the above
6.   To represent the national interests of the walking and climbing community and influence legislation to achieve the above

How would you feel about a list of objectives like that?

Davo

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 442
  • Karma: +24/-4
#344 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 08:22:26 pm
 Thanks for the blog about your work at the BMC shark. I found it pretty enlightening as to what the structure is.

Afraid to say though that I disagree with having an objective of increasing participation. Mainly because I want to know that my subs go towards things I feel are important- mainly access etc... I understand that lots of people pay subs and we will all have slightly or possibly wildly different wishes but mostly they will be to do with that particular sub set of climbing and hill walking.

I struggle to see what benefit promoting climbing and hill walking has for me? I understand the benefit to the wider society but I pay taxes (and am happy to pay more in taxes)  for that element. I think despite Danm's comments that it would mean a dilution of what the BMC does and would personally prefer to not have promoting participation as an aim.

Thanks Dave

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5778
  • Karma: +622/-36
#345 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 08:43:53 pm
Shark, why would you want a larger BMC? What's so good about getting larger? What about as above a trimmed down organisation with less responsibilities?

For example.. Point 2. ''Promote responsible, best practice in the hills and mountains and at indoor walls''.
There's already an alphabeti spaghetti of organisations other than the BMC promoting best practice in the hills, mountains and indoor walls. BMG / MTA (for mia, mic, spa, ml)/ UIAA / IFSC / UIAGM / CWA / Ramblers assoc / National Parks / Long Distance Walkers Assoc / Fell runners clubs / numerous industry technical notices and best practice information - for e.g. the Petzl foundation / SAIS / Alpine Club / Climber's club / Scottish Mountaineering Club / Irish Mountaineering Club / local clubs / Mountaineering Ireland / Mountaineering Council of Scotland..

There's never been more information on best practice.


Regarding the BMC and access.. Lived in N.America for 4 years and found access issues usually dealt with quite successfully at a local level without an overseeing national organisation like the BMC. However in my experience Canada has more than it's share of practical can-do people, due in large part I think to the geography making it blatantly obvious to people that they have to be more self-reliant and reliant on each other. The typical climber in the UK in comparison seems more accepting of committees and waiting for someone 'in authority' to tell them what they can and can't do - makes sense in such a densely populated country, when you're often likely to be upsetting someone somewhere for recreating on the land.


Things I'd most like the BMC to do:
Organise international meets, exchange visits, youth meets,
Write good guidebooks
Provide specialist insurance
Lobby decision-makers
Deal with access issues - but increase the number of access staff for Wales (and England but I'm not familiar with the setup there) - but I'd just as happily see this responsibility transferred out to local groups.


Tech advice - probably worth keeping, but not growing
BMCtv - not bothered
Competitions - it's time to split away from the BMC and have an NGB for the organised competition side of climbing, and a members organisation representing the wholly different interests of the rest of climbing.
Promoting climbing/mountaineering beyond the scope of meets/exchanges/youth meets - I don't think they should.

So a members organisation rather than an NGB for me. Climbing isn't a sport is it. Except for the olympics and indoor comps, which are great and all but an anomaly and not representative of the rest of climbing.

Regards Dan's point about participation in outdoor recreation promoting health. I'm sure it does. But we have Public Health England funded by the taxpayer and they can't even get a proper sugar policy through government. It shouldn't be the BMC's role to spend money fighting an obesity epidemic. Part of the PHE report on obesity states the importance of banning advertising of junk food to children - especially drinks containing refined sugar.... How about the BMC play its part by refusing any sponsorship of R.e.d.b.u.l.l. via Shauna's latest beanie, chalkbag and sweatbands...?




« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 10:52:48 am by shark »

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#346 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 10:54:25 pm
Shark, why would you want a larger BMC? What's so good about getting larger? What about as above a trimmed down organisation with less responsibilities?

Why would you not? Personally I want the organisation that represents us (ie all climbers and hillwalkers) to be as an influential and active as possible in representing and promoting our interests - I certainly don't want to constrain it. The more resources, the more good things can be achieved.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 11:24:02 pm by shark »

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#347 Re: The Shark
June 22, 2017, 10:59:44 pm
I struggle to see what benefit promoting climbing and hill walking has for me? I understand the benefit to the wider society but I pay taxes (and am happy to pay more in taxes)  for that element. I think despite Danm's comments that it would mean a dilution of what the BMC does and would personally prefer to not have promoting participation as an aim.

Thanks Dave

Thanks for your views. Less of your taxes are going towards things like the National Parks. The third sector of which the BMC is part can play a part in making some shortfalls. The more people involved in our activities then the more voices we have.   

Oldmanmatt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • At this rate, I probably won’t last the week.
  • Posts: 7097
  • Karma: +368/-17
  • Largely broken. Obsolete spares and scrap only.
    • The Boulder Bunker climbing centre
#348 Re: The Shark
June 23, 2017, 08:15:18 am
I've not been following this, just caught up.

I agree with Shark, for all the reasons he has laid out.
All the arguments against can be summed up with "overcrowding ".
I think you're going to get that anyway and the BMC, or a stronger, bigger version of it; is the best way of regulating and educating that growing population.

Davo

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 442
  • Karma: +24/-4
#349 Re: The Shark
June 23, 2017, 08:48:07 am
I've not been following this, just caught up.

I agree with Shark, for all the reasons he has laid out.
All the arguments against can be summed up with "overcrowding ".
I think you're going to get that anyway and the BMC, or a stronger, bigger version of it; is the best way of regulating and educating that growing population.

Sorry, think you have missed my point about not wanting to promote participation! I dont see that all the arguments about not wanting to promote participation can be summed up with overcrowding at all.

Personally I just want my subs to be used in the most effective way to gain the most "bang for buck" to promote things I value in climbing. More people taking part is not something I value and therefore I don't want it promoted.

Dave

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal