[Teaboy]

I still never got an answer as to why the BMC now (always did?) has a stated aim of encouraging growth in all areas it represents?

1. How do current members benefit from more people parking under Kilnsey, walk on walls at Almscliff or blocking gates at Whitehouses.
2. What growth rates do the BMC have in mind for annual growth of participants (not members as that's obviously different although ignored by most on the UKC thread)?
3. What, tangibly, does 'responsible' mean?

[highrepute]

I still never got an answer as to why the BMC now (always did?) has a stated aim of encouraging growth in all areas it represents?

Can't find this written down anywhere. Got a link?

[galpinos]

Can't find this written down anywhere. Got a link?

"The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause"

Item 8, on page 10

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-final-report has the link to download.

[shark]

This relates to recommendations 8 and 9 of the ORG report which were amended in the update on page 21 and 22 and reads:

In recommendations 7 and 8, the ORG has sought to clarify that the challenges of maintaining impact and relevance relate to membership growth, while potential access, conservation and environmental issues could result from growth in participation in climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering as a whole.......

Amended Recommendations

Recommendation 7: The BMC must understand and define the breadth of its membership and understand the balance between attracting new members and over-expansion so that it retains focus and relevance

This recommendation has been amended in order to remove the reference to access, conservation and environmental issues, which have been moved to recommendation 8. Following feedback, the ORG felt that the original recommendation potentially conflated the growth in membership with a direct environmental impact, which was not intended.

The ORG recognises that a growth in overall participation in climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering could have an impact on the environment. However, it believes that this is unlikely to be as a result of membership expansion, which would be largely drawing from existing participants. The BMC should focus on attracting new members, as required, to ensure it maintains a representative balance of all climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, and therefore credibility in representing their views.

Recommendation 8: The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause

As per the commentary for recommendation 7, this recommendation now has the addition of access, conservation and environmental considerations. The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of
the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.

Teaboy aka tyler made his views known on this ukc thread


.

[highrepute]

Teaboy aka tyler made his views known on this ukc thread

Blimey!

[Will Hunt]

I was fairly outraged by the motion of no confidence and followed that quite carefully.
I have absolutely failed to follow the organisational review, despite the BMC's valiant efforts to engage me in it (Grimer's Facebook interview etc). Most likely because it's not something I was ever particularly interested in seeing happen.

The issue of increased participation is something that does interest me. As I understand it, we're fucked. We can't get money from Sport England without attempting to increase participation (have I got that right?), and we need that money; at the same time, the crags are completely fucked.

While removing the mud that was on the roof crimp on Underhand at the weekend, I was talking to SpiderMonkey (of these parts) about access et al. He said we had to try and win the battles. I concluded that this is all we can do, since we've already lost the war. The crag was heaving and there were multiple examples of shitty behaviour. People were climbing problems that weren't dry; people were climbing with wet soles of their shoes (a lady trying Bancroft's Roof - when it was pointed out to her that her shoes were wet she made a half arsed attempt to clean them. When somebody told her her shoes were still wet, she adopted what one might call a "bitch face" and said "So?"); people walked on the wall (though fewer than have been recently reported).

Bouldering is now really popular, and is becoming ever more so. Although people have always bouldered, it's been a discipline in it's own right for something like 30 years. It's been accessible as a direct route into climbing for maybe a little less time. The first bouldering only walls started to become popular about 10 years ago. Even in this short time we have completely fucked the rock, lost access to crags, and seen the introduction to the sport of the kind of people who bring Bluetooth speakers to the crag. Abandon hope, y'all; climbing is fucked.

[SA Chris]

If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?

[Will Hunt]

If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?

I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.

I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com

[Teaboy]

If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?

Let's pretend that there is a capacity limit for Almscliff (I personally think that there is) and that limit is reached soon because of all the experienced rock cats (some of whom might be BMC members). The BMC, through its policy of growth, converts 10 non-climbers and they now want to go to Almscliff. Your solution to this is for the 10 ERCs to go to their second or third choice crag to make way? In this scenario how has the BMC policy benefited its members and climbers?

[highrepute]

Abandon hope, y'all; climbing is fucked.

Do you have an opinion on the role the BMC should be playing in this current state of affairs? I'm asking in this question in the context of the stated aim in recommendation 8 quoted above.

[shark]

Hi Wil,

No it's not the case that Sport England won't fund us because of participation it's because our governance doesn't meet their requirements until we change our constitution.

SE funding is directed at specific projects and programmes of work. I'm not closely involved in this but it seems to me you could argue both ways whether it is pro-participation or not or pro participative in a way that affects crags usage. For example the talent development of the youth squad as a pathway to the national team is largely SE funded (or rather was) but arguable whether that is pro participation or not and if it is - so what!

Also participation is normally taken to mean introducing new people to an activity but could also be retaining people from leaving it or existing participants do more.

An extreme view is that anything positive that the BMC does or says could be deemed pro-participative. With it being such a trigger point for people like Teaboy clarity was sought and gained from the ORG as without it the direction and decisions on work programmes become muddled and potentially political

[SA Chris]

If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?

I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.

I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com

Not aimed at you personally, I'm just talking in general terms.

I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...

[Will Hunt]

You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality. There isn't a ticketing system, it's first come first served. If the parking is full you should go elsewhere, even if you are Ondra. Many of the problems that we're getting are because people refuse to do this.

It's not impossible to do. A couple of springs ago I really wanted to climb on the Cromlech. We drove up the Pass and every parking space was full. We went to Ogwen and climbed on Tryfan and it was great. I bet that some of those people parked in the Pass were climbing at a lower standard than I, or hadn't been climbing as long - but it was our fault we didn't get a speck because we got out of bed late and had a nice breakfast.

In order to reduce the likelihood of carrying capacity being reached, people should be encouraged to see that, for the most part, the less popular crags are not inferior, they are simply less hyped. This will encourage them to explore other venues.

If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?

I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.

I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com

Not aimed at you personally, I'm just talking in general terms.

I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...

Almscliff is very rarely my first choice for all of these reasons (also I've done most of the good problems there that are within my ability, or aren't traverses, or in some other way shite).

[Teaboy]

I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...

Nor mine but you've got to assume that as these are ERCs they have made an informed choice to go there but thanks (in part) to BMC policy it is now full. Who has benefited from the policy? Why is that policy there?

[spidermonkey09]

You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality. There isn't a ticketing system, it's first come first served. If the parking is full you should go elsewhere, even if you are Ondra. Many of the problems that we're getting are because people refuse to do this.

...

In order to reduce the likelihood of carrying capacity being reached, people should be encouraged to see that, for the most part, the less popular crags are not inferior, they are simply less hyped. This will encourage them to explore other venues.

What Will said. There is a real risk that objections to participation come across as incredibly elitist and selfish, even if they aren't. Just because someone has been climbing since the 70's doesn't give them a divine right to turn up and climb at a quiet crag at a time of their choosing.

Few things piss me off as much as someone arriving at a busy crag on a nice day, be it Stanage Popular or Almscliff, making a face and saying 'Jesus, bit busy isn't it?' What did they expect? It was the first nice weekend day in weeks, and the Cliff was the only place dry for miles around. Of course it was busy. By the way, this isn't a pop at you Will!

For the sake of balance, I was actually very heartened by the fact that, aside from the few examples of fuckwittery that Will mentioned (how did the mud in the crimp on Underhand even get there?), it was way better than it has been recently there, and the crag was rammed with climbers and members of the public alike.

At the risk of sounding like an incurable optimist, I think this is a plus side. A lot of people were out having a good time, there wasn't a bluetooth speaker to be seen, and hopefully those indulging in fuckwittery were called out, reflect on their actions and be better next time. Plus, I was one of the last to leave after a lovely half an hour soloing around in the twilight in perfect solitude. Things could be a lot worse.

[Teaboy]

You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality.

You've missed the point completely, this isn't about who climbs best it's about growth leading to overcrowding, regardless of ability. If growth is encouraged who benefits? If it is not actively pursued who misses out? Some notional people who are unaware of climbing? Let's face it it's never been easier to get into climbing, numbers are growing anyway. If it comes to a choice between my place in the queue at Almscliff and someone who has been press ganged by the BMC I'd chose me, I want to know why the BMC would choose the other person because at some point that's what it will boil down to.

[SA Chris]

Fuck, you guys are making a lot of assumptions about what I'm meaning rather than what I'm saying. I'm not forcing anyone to go anywhere, nor implying anyone has priority.

Honeypots are honeypots for a reason, they are good 5* crags. But in my mind I take the same approach as I (used to) do with a must do winter route; remove 1 star for every climber on the route, as no matter how good it is, it's not worth climbing while shit is being rained down on your head and you are freezing your tits off waiting on a belay ledge.

Likewise a great crag is not that great if there are too many people there.

[spidermonkey09]

You've missed the point completely, this isn't about who climbs best it's about growth leading to overcrowding, regardless of ability. If growth is encouraged who benefits? If it is not actively pursued who misses out? Some notional people who are unaware of climbing? Let's face it it's never been easier to get into climbing, numbers are growing anyway. If it comes to a choice between my place in the queue at Almscliff and someone who has been press ganged by the BMC I'd chose me, I want to know why the BMC would choose the other person because at some point that's what it will boil down to.

Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional. Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse? I don't think it will ever come to the BMC prioritising certain groups as long as education continues apace. In any case, in time I suspect trad will have a resurgence, or wild/remote bouldering, distributing participants across the sport more widely.

At the moment there is a bouldering wave being ridden by a lot of people. Our challenge as ERC's is to ride that wave out, educate those who stick around and call out people who drop in. there endeth the surfing metaphor!

[Teaboy]

What Will said. There is a real risk that objections to participation come across as incredibly elitist and selfish, even if they aren't. Just because someone has been climbing since the 70's doesn't give them a divine right to turn up and climb at a quiet crag at a time of their choosing.

You too have missed the point, it's not about being against participation it's about being against trying to work out why encouraging growth is considered a good thing. What are the benefits of the BMC encouraging increased growth to the BMC membership and other climbers. What are the disadvantages of not doing so? And this isn't even about good behaviour, even if everyone behaves impeccably there will come a point when certain crags cannot accommodate more climbers at which point there's no point suggesting to someone who is 3 days into trying Zoolook that there are some VS's with no one on them at Attermire.   

[Teaboy]

Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional.

If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?

Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse? I don't think it will ever come to the BMC prioritising certain groups as long as education continues apace. In any case, in time I suspect trad will have a resurgence, or wild/remote bouldering, distributing participants across the sport more widely.

At the moment there is a bouldering wave being ridden by a lot of people. Our challenge as ERC's is to ride that wave out, educate those who stick around and call out people who drop in. there endeth the surfing metaphor!

Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.

Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.

[ferret]

Not a BMC member anymore as I no longer live in the B. When I was a member I paid my dues to fund Access issues and for the insurance.
I agree that it should not be the BMC's mission to grow the sport, rather it should try and grow the number of members within existing participants and spend the money on Access and Education. That is the only way I can see outdoor climbing being sustainable in the UK if growth continues at its current pace.
If there was a viable alternative to the BMC, concentrating on Access issues and Education alone, that is where my money would go.

Edit, I do support those kind of programs that take underprivileged kids climbing to try and give them a fun new experience and potentially broaden their view of life.

[abarro81]

Likewise a great crag is not that great if there are too many people there.

Whilst this is true, with UK sport there are pretty limited options for large parts of the year. A busy Kilnsey might not be a great crag any more, but a wet Giggleswick, damp Cornice and underwater Diamond are even worse... I can fully understand why one might prefer the option of not getting more people into climbing to the option of having to abandon the best crags in favour of esoteric choss because too many people got into climbing.

Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse?

Not sure that analogy works - what does the BMC win by backing the horse as opposed to staying outside of the bookies altogether?

The more I think about it actually, the more I don't support it being part of the BMC's inherent structure/constitution/governing rules/whatever to widen participation. Climbing will likely grow without that, at a fast enough rate that we'll still be struggling with how many climbers there are. Why does it need to be accelerated more than that? Sure, it might make people happy. So might crack, but crack addicts aren't morally obligated to go repping for it.

[ferret]

Actually long term I see things going the way of the US with day use fees for areas, as I don't see funding for erosion control, increased parking etc being funded by the government or the BMC as neither will likely have the money to deal with increased numbers of participants.

[galpinos]

Blimey "Teaboy", you're not this curmudgeonly in real life, is this what moving to deepest darkest Lancashire does to a man.......

[highrepute]

Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional.

If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?

Poor answer. I raise your homeless and give you starving children in Africa.