UKBouldering.com

Peak area bolting policy (Read 18976 times)

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 11:19:58 am
Unfortunately I wasnt at the last area meet but jusrt received the area notes which include a proposed draft bolting policy (below). As far as I can make it this has been a personal crusade of Ian Millward as he has raised this at previous meetings.

To my mind this is matter for activists and individual situations sorted out at a local level rather than any top down policy.

It's to be discussed at the next area meet if you want to have your say on18th April 2012, 7.30pm at The Maynard. If you want to contribute to the discussion, but can't attend the meeting, then please e-mail comments to  lynn.robinson@bmcvolunteers.org.uk



Peak District Limestone – Bolting/Fixed Gear Policy
This policy relates to new and replacement fixed gear on Peak limestone climbs. The Overall Policy applies generally; it is supplemented by crag-specific policies given in the crag introductions. Bolting is defined as the placement of any gear requiring the rock to be drilled – normally expansion or resin bolts. Retro-bolting is defined as the addition of new bolts to an existing route so that it becomes a sport climb.

Overall Policy
1)    Respect for the crag and its environment is paramount in all activity involving fixed gear.

2)    New sport routes, where allowed, shall not affect the character of pre-existing traditional routes. Should the possibility of interference arise, refer to 3) and 4a) below.

3)    Due regard to the history, style and significance of pre-existing routes on the same crag, together with common crag sense, should help to guide future development. Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable.
 
4)    Retro-bolting, where allowed, shall require prior consideration of:
a)   the views of the first ascensionist (if available) AND
b)   consensus sought via BMC Peak Area meetings on a route-by-route basis.

5)    Bolt renewal on existing climbs shall be on a bolt-for-bolt basis.

6)    In cases where deviation from 5) is considered desirable and appropriate, approval shall be sought as in 4) above.

7)    Renewal (where possible) of old/worn fixed gear (usually pegs or threads) that preserve the character and/or grade of traditional routes is generally welcome; but only on a like-for-like basis.

8.     Where renewal under 7) is not reasonably possible and replacement with a bolt is considered desirable and appropriate, approval shall be sought as in 4) above.

9)    Wilful removal of, or damage to, bolts/fixed gear placed in accordance with this policy shall not be condoned.

10)   Concerns/disputes regarding fixed gear shall be resolved by consensus sought via BMC Peak Area meetings; notwithstanding that fixed gear blatantly contravening this policy may be removed/replaced without notice.

Example of a crag-specific policy:
   Willersley Castle Crag

No new sport climbs. No retro-bolting.

Lund

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 442
  • Karma: +85/-12
#1 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 01:07:11 pm
Shark old bean,

Not quite sure what your beef is here: I don't think it's necessarily a personal crusade (but could be wrong).  This is the background which you may be missing.  I'm paraphrasing the issue into the UKB style.

* There are some shit routes in the gower (shock).
* Some of these shit routes don't get climbed by anyone, even the locals.  This is not just because they're shit, but because they're bold and bollocks.  Easy-ish climbing, but on terrifying and loose gear.  Lots are unrepeated, they're that bad.
* The locals want more stuff to climb on.  A good way to get this, is to bolt these routes that nobody gives a crap about anyway, so that they're safe, and become slightly rubbish sport routes, rather than risk-my-life-for-that?!? routes.

So, the decision was made to bolt stuff.  Everyone was asked via the area meetings and the like, and everyone thought it was a splendid idea.  Everyone that is, apart from one (or two) first ascensionists, who couldn't bear to see their pride and joy get bolted.

Cue a huge argument over whether
* the first ascensionist gets to veto stuff
* the area gets to decide and nobody else gets a look in.

The debate is about getting some kind of "policy" in place to cover these, so that people know where they stand.

So there's the background.

Now, it's another question about whether the peak area has had this laudable agenda leveraged for personal gain or not.  I have no clue about that.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#2 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 02:41:17 pm
No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.

A policy like this is very useful when dealing with landowners. Increasingly they will be worrying about contravening conservation designations as well as any personal concerns. A policy will reassure them that any bolting is done responsibly and legally.

Quote
To my mind this is matter for activists and individual situations sorted out at a local level rather than any top down policy.

Well maybe, but I don't see anything in the policy that would prevent that - in fact several points specifically refer to local consensus and individual situations. It would have been nice to see the policy presented first, and then your thoughts, but nevermind.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#3 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 04:02:32 pm
No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.

I think Jon Clark retro bolting Supercrack is being targeted for a start.

The BMC doesn't govern climbing activity and not all new route activists are BMC members.

I've placed bolts which would have been in direct contravention of this type of policy for routes which are now well established like Wil E Coyote at High Tor.

Sport climbing in the Peak wouldnt have got off the ground in the first place if this policy had been in place and adhered to/enforced.


shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#4 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 04:09:28 pm
To use Ken Wilson's phrase "It's the thin end of the wedge"

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4286
  • Karma: +341/-25
#5 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 04:15:12 pm
Can we just seek consensus via a rage in the cage between opposing sides? Bolters armed with drills, those opposed with hexes? It sounds much more fun.

It could all get a bit wack with those regulations - e.g. when Kristian put a new bolt in Bricktop because I asked him to move it, but left the old one as a dogging bolt, that technically would have broken the rules by the looks of it. I don't think it needed BMC consensus to know that moving it down a foot would make clipping easier...

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
#6 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 08:37:48 pm
Funny, this just smacks of the very thing I got into climbing to get away from.

Where can I get my copy of climbing rules, regulations and sanctions?

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#7 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 08:57:55 pm
Well maybe, but I don't see anything in the policy that would prevent that - in fact several points specifically refer to local consensus and individual situations.

Of a VERY specific (dare I say non-representative) demographic? Obviously all are welcome but not all attend. In a similar manner anyone can sign up to this forum but not everybody does, would a consensus reached here be deemed representative?

Moff

Offline
  • *
  • newbie
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +3/-0
#8 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 08:59:36 pm
Ian wanted me to point out this is very much a 'first draft' for discussion/debate etc at the next meeting. As Shark has already stated any comments and suggestions regarding the draft policy to be e-mailed to lynn.robinson@bmcvolunteers.org.uk before the 18th April and they will be read out at the meeting - for sure.

Also, the notes of the meeting that took place on the 8th Feb (including an interesting - honest - Q&A session with Danny Udall, Eastern Moors Partnership and Jon Stewart, from the National Trust) are now on the BMC webpage: http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=2614

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#9 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 09:04:48 pm
Quote
Funny, this just smacks of the very thing I got into climbing to get away from.

Where can I get my copy of climbing rules, regulations and sanctions?

Oh yeah we're all such anarchists aren't we? Wake up.

Most of the sport crags in the Peak are SSSIs and managed as nature reserves. Ignore stuff like all these heavy rules, man, and you'll lose access. Even heavier, huh?

Quote
In a similar manner anyone can sign up to this forum but not everybody does, would a consensus reached here be deemed representative?

For, say, Peak bouldering? I think so, yes.

Democracy isn't perfect unfortunately. I think a lot of the time the wider the canvassing of opinion, the greater the proportion of people who don't understand the issue.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#10 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 10:14:08 pm
Ian wanted me to point out this is very much a 'first draft' for discussion/debate etc at the next meeting.

The use of the phrase "first draft" is insidious and suggestive that a policy will be implemented and that its just the wording that needs to be agreed on. We don't need a written bolt policy with sanctions and all the rest of it. Any policy of this sort IMO oversteps the mark. There are only a handful of activists out there that arsed enough to get stuck into bolting and rebolting. I don't see why they should be fettered and beholden to a commitee in this way. They are knowledgable about what is on and not on. If they overstep the mark it can be aired in person ideally away from area meets. If someone is suitably motivated they will have the gumption to remove bolts of their own volition rather than needing to be empowered by a policy.

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#11 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 10:31:20 pm
For, say, Peak bouldering? I think so, yes.

Thats not what I was asking, but you knew that.

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
#12 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 10:38:45 pm
Quote
Funny, this just smacks of the very thing I got into climbing to get away from.

Where can I get my copy of climbing rules, regulations and sanctions?

Oh yeah we're all such anarchists aren't we? Wake up.

Most of the sport crags in the Peak are SSSIs and managed as nature reserves. Ignore stuff like all these heavy rules, man, and you'll lose access. Even heavier, huh?

Very witty Adam, quoting me back on another thread. Whilst I may not fit your model of anarchism the comment stands, governance by committee is the very heart of what I don't want.  Compromise may be necessary but that isn't going to change the underlying motivation.

I do get the reality of conservation and the desire for landowner's indemnity particularly in our increasing litigious society. Why I need to wake up from something I'm already perfectly cogniscent of will be best known to yourself. Tilt at another windmill.

The organisation by committee approach needs debate, not sarcasm.


danm

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 827
  • Karma: +112/-1
#13 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 19, 2012, 11:12:05 pm
Whoah guys, chill out. Put down the gun and take a step back.

I understand where you all are coming from. On one hand, climbing is about freedom, accepting the consequences of your own actions, no rules. That will never change - if you want to stick a load of bolts in somewhere, nobody can stop you.

On the other, access for everybody is affected by those actions. Saying that those involved "know the score" and are pure as the driven snow isn't true. Each year that I've worked for the BMC, there has been some access issue in the Peak directly related to bolting activity. Having an inkling of how much effort and dedication is needed to go about re-equipping a crag (to those like Kristian who do this, mucho respecto), it would be cruel if that then lead to those routes becoming inaccessible, no?

Now, whether a written policy can help avoid this happening, I don't know. It can certainly help though if negotiating access to be able to say, here you are, here is something that people have generally signed up to.

As for being ruled by committee, you are the committee! The days of things being decided by a few grey old neckbeards are long gone. If you can't physically make a meeting, email Moff with your view and it'll count. If a shit-ton of you say you're absolutely against any written guidelines for bolting in the Peak, then it won't happen.

P.S This isn't in any way official, I've had a couple of pints and didn't like the way this thread was going. Be nice to each other.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#14 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 09:08:57 am
Quote
Very witty Adam, quoting me back on another thread

Total coincidence, don't know what you mean. Sorry if any offence was caused.

What Dan said. It is becoming a constant frustration how much access to places like Cheedale is taken for granted by climbers. Trust me, the landowners do not want you there, and they think both the law and common sense is on their side. Things are not going well currently. I really don't see how a policy like this has any real downsides, whereas the benefits could be significant.

Lund

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 442
  • Karma: +85/-12
#15 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 10:39:29 am
Quote
Funny, this just smacks of the very thing I got into climbing to get away from.

Where can I get my copy of climbing rules, regulations and sanctions?

Oh yeah we're all such anarchists aren't we? Wake up.

Most of the sport crags in the Peak are SSSIs and managed as nature reserves. Ignore stuff like all these heavy rules, man, and you'll lose access. Even heavier, huh?

Very witty Adam, quoting me back on another thread. Whilst I may not fit your model of anarchism the comment stands, governance by committee is the very heart of what I don't want.  Compromise may be necessary but that isn't going to change the underlying motivation.

I do get the reality of conservation and the desire for landowner's indemnity particularly in our increasing litigious society. Why I need to wake up from something I'm already perfectly cogniscent of will be best known to yourself. Tilt at another windmill.

The organisation by committee approach needs debate, not sarcasm.

I'll reply to this one, although I could easily have replied to a number of posts on here.  Here goes.

1. The document (not the process, or the content) has two purposes.
  - A. It outlines an effort to get to a starting point for any subsequent discussions.
  - B. It's part of the process the BMC goes about setting expectations amongst the community about what's acceptable behaviour and what is not.

2. The process by which the document gets agreed is by democratic vote at an area meeting, yes.
  - A. You might say, ooh, but nobody goes.  This is not true.  At the gower meeting there were more than a hundred.  Similarly large issues (e.g. dry tooling in the Lakes) have attracted massive debate; far more than the usual couple dozen have turned up to meetings.  Clearly, this isn't 100% of the population of each area, but it's probably representative.
  - B. You might say, ooh, I don't go.  This is your problem I'm afraid: if you don't go, then you can't complain when the majority opinion doesn't go your way.

3. The content of the document needs deciding by majority rule.  This is only fair.  If it doesn't go your way, tough, sorry - you're in a minority.  And you're a dick if you go around doing stuff that the majority doesn't want.

In this particular issue - bolting stuff - we all get very excited, and old codgers start coming out of the woodwork banging on about how it's unacceptable to bolt anything, that there are indoor climbing walls etc for bolts, and the young sport climbers start getting very angry at grandad and before you know it there's a shouting match.  This is undeniably true.

The whole thing is simply about making this discussion easier, and making it less likely that (a) someone will get lamped, and (b) when some twat travels up from London/down from scotland and bolts/dry tools millstone because they think it's acceptable, that they do get lamped.

Some people may be getting very excited because they like sport, and yet everyone looks at them like they're about to bolt stanage or some shit.  The draft does read "nasty bolters".  This is unfortunate, and a reflection of the old-codger-led debate (probably - not knowing anyone in the real world.)

The "anarchist" position... is I'm guessing a reaction to the boring process of getting people to agree to disagree.  Totally buy that; if only we could all act our age all the time it would be much easier.  But we're a bunch of fucking children at the best of times.  Best to suck it up and make sure that the right policy gets sorted first time rather than requiring a whole load of repeat attempts.

Do we need the discussion at all?  I guess we also don't want to lose access to other crags, or have bolts chopped either, so the process of getting to a consensus *is* important.  Maybe this isn't needed in the peak.  But you're having it because some people want it - you've now got to turn up and make sure it doesn't end up bollocks.

In summary: we'd all prefer to go climbing rather than argue, but we're not part of some hive mind and thus it's not possible.  The boring committee led approach followed by a democratic vote is probably the best way of reaching this nirvana state.  And we've started it now, so it needs finishing.

slackline

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 18863
  • Karma: +633/-26
    • Sheffield Boulder
#16 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 10:51:02 am
And you're a dick if you go around doing stuff that the majority doesn't want.

A hypothetical 51% v's 49% clearly makes those in the 49% camp wrong! :worms:

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#17 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 11:18:15 am
  - A. You might say, ooh, but nobody goes.  This is not true.  At the gower meeting there were more than a hundred.  Similarly large issues (e.g. dry tooling in the Lakes) have attracted massive debate; far more than the usual couple dozen have turned up to meetings.  Clearly, this isn't 100% of the population of each area, but it's probably representative.

That's not what I said, I said it wasn't representative and I stick by that.

Given I spent the majority of last summer climbing on Peak limestone (at least 3 or 4 times a week, trad and sport), at the meeting I attended (Christmas Quiz led), I didn't see a representative cross-section of users and if I'm correct, some of the main activists on the Limestone were specifically invited to attend the meeting (which notes their absence from prior meetings/involvement).

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4286
  • Karma: +341/-25
#18 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 11:28:14 am
If there's going to be a policy then:

Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable.
 
Needs rephrasing. 'Adequate' means nothing.

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#19 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 12:59:34 pm
Quote
and the young sport climbers start getting very angry at grandad and before you know it there's a shouting match.  This is undeniably true.

I think this may be the problem here - you are talking about the bolt debate twenty years ago. That is not the current situation - all the bolters I can think of I would class as middle-aged. The problem in the Peak mainly stems from a few old school sport climbers who think they can still behave as they did in the eighties - ie just doing what they like. Meanwhile others have to try and negotiate around the problems they cause. They don't tend to come to meetings, presumably because they think it is still old codgers complaining about bolts, or perhaps because they'd like to believe they are on some anarchist trip that doesn't dig on rules.

Quote
I didn't see a representative cross-section of users

I think there was a very broad demographic present at that meeting, with no scene over-represented. Not sure who you think was missing, or perhaps your expectations are a tad high?

Quote
Needs rephrasing. 'Adequate' means nothing.

I think adequate is probably the best word you could use there. It gets the intention across without being overly proscriptive. Rather than say 'needs rephrasing' how about offering a better term?

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1
#20 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 01:40:57 pm
No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.

The problem in the Peak mainly stems from a few old school sport climbers who think they can still behave as they did in the eighties - ie just doing what they like.

 :-\

ChrisC

Offline
  • **
  • menacing presence
  • Posts: 181
  • Karma: +8/-0
#21 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 02:07:13 pm
If there's going to be a policy then:

Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable.
 
Needs rephrasing. 'Adequate' means nothing.

Rephrasing is one option, but I don't see why we can't just operate with a good bit of common sense?

There only a small clutch of people that have been arsed to (re)place/remove bolts on Peak lime in the past few years.   Everyone I know has been climbing for long enough to know right from wrong, and I suspect some official words on won't really change much since it seems to pretty much sum up the current actions of most activists anyway.

Occasionally something contentious may be done and it can be discussed and a consensus either reached or not reached. Either way its actions that win in the end.

A few examples of both sides, not saying any are right or wrong.

Ian will no doubt have had JC's LPQ rebolting (Supercrack etc) on his mind when he wrote the above clause and it has already been discussed at length elsewhere, but the fact remains that no ones been sufficiently offended to remove them despite the fact that they have been there for 4 years or more and its only a 20min job compared to the effort required to put it into its current state.

That bolt route that crossed Mad Dogs - it's not there any more because someone thought it overstepped the mark could be bothered to remove the bolts.

Another classic E4 on a well known trad crag (name removed) - retrobolted but if anyone is sufficiently motivated then they will go and tap in the studs and leave the old ring replaced with a nice shiny new bolt like for like.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 02:23:16 pm by ChrisC »

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#22 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 02:34:55 pm
Adam,

As I see it the downsides with this proposal are that, if poorly worded, it can give "authorisation" to someone acting in a way that no-one feels is appropriate.

Clause 10 is very scary in this regard. Paraphrased it says: you have to ask to put bolts in, but any bolts you feel strongly about can be taken out without notice.

In view of this, the phrase about "Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable." is a disaster. Adequate is indeed a meaningless phrase; many routes at the cornice have adequate natural protection for some climbers. Sardine clearly had adequate natural protection for Dave Thomas. As worded, it's a carte blanche for people to de-bolt virtually any route they want, with full approval of the bolt agreement.

Also, viewed in that light, the clause - "Bolt renewal on existing climbs shall be on a bolt-for-bolt basis" is potentially problematic. According to the proposed draft, if I want to move a bolt on an existing sport route I need the agreement of the first ascensionist and the blessing of the peak area meeting. In practise, no-one will bother with that. Indeed, even BMC organised bolting (i.e Horseshoe) contravenes the agreement, as drafted.

So, taken literally (and someone will), the agreement licenses removal of bolts from lots of routes in the peak, whilst placing onerous duties on those wishing to make what I think would be uncontroversial bolting decisions.

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of some sort of bolt agreement in principle. I think that any bolting agreement which attempts to write down black and white rules for what are always grey areas (e.g re-bolting) is going to satisfy no-one, and will simultaneously be seen as too lax, and too restrictive by various parties.

In my mind it is better to stick to an agreement that everyone can sign up to. That at least has some chance of being followed. What would such an agreement consist of? There would be hard statements on uncontroversial points (e.g keep clauses 1,2,4 and 9). Re-word clause 3 to read

"Due regard to the history, style and significance of pre-existing routes on the same crag, together with common crag sense, should help to guide future development. This applies equally to the addition, and removal, of fixed gear"

Add a clause to the effect that actions which might violate clauses 1-3 are not condoned, and prior approval for such actions should be obtained from an area meeting.

Ditch clauses 5 thru 8 entirely.

Lastly - your major concern seems to be that bolting activities have jeopardised access. I've tons of sympathy with that view, but none of the vague statements in this agreement actually help in that regard. This is more a place for crag-by-crag specific policies. Bizarrely I think it'll be easier to agree on a set of crag-by-crag policies than it will to agree on blanket principles...

Johnny Brown

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 11437
  • Karma: +690/-22
#23 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 03:09:46 pm
The point I have been trying to make, without being quite so explicit, is this....
« Last Edit: March 26, 2012, 10:07:11 am by Bonjoy, Reason: Deleted as per request PM JB if you are curious »

Paul B

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 9626
  • Karma: +264/-4
#24 Re: Peak area bolting policy
March 20, 2012, 03:24:59 pm
May I ask if you think such a policy would work in that manner (genuine question)? As it could possibly go exactly the opposite way, providing written confirmation that a few people stray outside of agreements?
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 03:34:45 pm by Paul B »

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal