[T_B]

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.

Does bigger really mean more influential?

On a local level, fell running clubs seem to do OK securing access and working with landowners.

Indeed, as I've pointed out before, the Fell Runner's Association (6,000 members) do not promote participation (on environmental grounds):

The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php

[shark]

This is another form of Nimbyism. The Peak National Park (and presumably the other National Parks) was set up with the primary aim of providing open-air recreation for the public which is an implicitly pro-participation goal. That is the public - not a self-selected clique who would prefer that others didn't clutter their playground.

Getting more people in the hills is a good thing and if we do that then helping to manage the impacts is a complementary responsibility. 

[T_B]

This is another form of Nimbyism. The Peak National Park (and presumably the other National Parks) was set up with the primary aim of providing open-air recreation for the public which is an implicitly pro-participation goal. That is the public - not a self-selected clique who would prefer that others didn't clutter their playground.

Getting more people in the hills is a good thing and if we do that then helping to manage the impacts is a complementary responsibility.

It’s not.

There are loads of ways already, more than ever, to get involved in the outdoors. I don’t think there’s a need to promote it further and I can't for a second imagine why the BMC membership would want it.

[dave]

Wikipedia states that the two statutory purposes of the National Parks are "To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the national park by the public." I don't see this as being implicitly pro-participation, in fact it could easily be said the  being pro-participation harms the first aim above. Same as in climbing.

[shark]

This is another form of Nimbyism. The Peak National Park (and presumably the other National Parks) was set up with the primary aim of providing open-air recreation for the public which is an implicitly pro-participation goal. That is the public - not a self-selected clique who would prefer that others didn't clutter their playground.

Getting more people in the hills is a good thing and if we do that then helping to manage the impacts is a complementary responsibility.

It’s not.

There are loads of ways already, more than ever, to get involved in the outdoors. I don’t think there’s a need to promote it further and I can't for a second imagine why the BMC membership would want it.

Well I have set out my reasons and I am a BMC member

[shark]

Wikipedia states that the two statutory purposes of the National Parks are "To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the national park by the public." I don't see this as being implicitly pro-participation, in fact it could easily be said the  being pro-participation harms the first aim above. Same as in climbing.

I am going on what Henry said about the establishment of the Peak District National Park (the first National Park) which was gifted to the public (I forget by whom) for the specific purpose of public recreation. Would be strange if it has a slightly different remit to the other later Parks.

[dave]

Wikipedia states that the two statutory purposes of the National Parks are "To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area, and to promote understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the national park by the public." I don't see this as being implicitly pro-participation, in fact it could easily be said the  being pro-participation harms the first aim above. Same as in climbing.

I am going on what Henry said about the establishment of the Peak District National Park (the first National Park) which was gifted to the public (I forget by whom) for the specific purpose of public recreation. Would be strange if it has a slightly different remit to the other later Parks.

I understand the wording of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 says "to confer on the Nature Conservancy and local authorities powers for the establishment and maintenance of nature reserves ; to make further provision for the recording, creation, maintenance and improvement of public paths and for securing access to open country, and to amend the law relating to rights of way; to confer further powers for preserving and enhancing natural beauty ; and for matters connected with the purposes aforesaid."

I read the access part of that to mean that people have legal right of access to open country, and that's not the same as increasing participation.

As I've said many time, in climbing I very much doubt that the increased lobbying and volunteering power of a hugely increased cohort will counteract the negative aspects of increased numbers. Basically it's a hell of a gamble to make.

There's also more to it than numbers. It could be said that if increased participation just boosts indoors numbers but many of them rarely go outside then it's all gravy. The problem remains though that if and when they do go outdoors they're going to go to honeypot locations, and as inexperienced users are more likely to trash the joint climbing on damp rock, parking badly etc etc. Also, generally it's inevitable that increased numbers are going to impact on popular sites pretty badly. You can develop as many esoteric venues are you like but the famous crags form such a huge part of the cultural history of climbing that traffic there is inevitable.  Even the best marketing job isn't going to get all those climbers to make a beeline for the unfashionable unfrequented crags.

[shark]

Even the best marketing job isn't going to get all those climbers to make a beeline for the unfashionable unfrequented crags.

Bolt them and people will come 

[cheque]

The modern wisdom in my line of work (public libraries) is that it's less effort and cost to retain existing occasional users who're at risk of leaving altogether than it is to recruit current non-users, but has the same result.

So I reckon that rather than extolling the virtues of climbing to the general public the BMC should just mount smear campaigns against road biking, fell running, surfing, DIY, parenthood etc.

[shark]

So I reckon that rather than extolling the virtues of climbing to the general public the BMC should just mount smear campaigns against road biking, fell running, surfing, DIY, parenthood etc.

Along the right lines with regard to fell runners  but road biking, surfing and DIY (RBSD) has the opposite effect which has cost me many belayers climbing buddies. We should support the RBSD community and their rights as an offsetting carbon trading karmic rebalancing exercise as it gets those participants away from the hills and crags.

[Johnny Brown]

It's all very well grandstanding about not promoting outdoor rec, but I suspect the Fell Running Association would rapidly change their tune if faced with steadily ageing participation and falling numbers.

We all base our perceptions of 'busy' and 'quiet' based on when and how we got into climbing. I'm not aware of any baseline data, but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest a lot of climbing areas are quieter than they were twenty years ago. At honeypot sport and bouldering locations the opposite is obviously true. Either way, what remains either way is that use is not evenly spread - increased participation seems to mean there are a few more mental busy days rather than no quiet times. The busy days have always happened and the savvy have always gone elsewhere.

I feel the argument against promotion, but I don't think it bears much scrutiny.

[dave]

Then the savvy come back to the plantation midweek and find broken holds due to huge PSYCHE teams up from the big smoke sieging stuff in the damp.

[Johnny Brown]

Bloody Londoners, coming over here...

[petejh]

This is another form of Nimbyism. The Peak National Park (and presumably the other National Parks) was set up with the primary aim of providing open-air recreation for the public which is an implicitly pro-participation goal. That is the public - not a self-selected clique who would prefer that others didn't clutter their playground.

Getting more people in the hills is a good thing and if we do that then helping to manage the impacts is a complementary responsibility.

Participation by people you like you mean - ramblers, climbers, birdwatchers... and not trails bike riders. I mean why would increased participation in trail-bike riding on bridleways be a problem 

[petejh]

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.

Well for a start your whole blog post reads much like a decent argument for a smaller, sleeker organisation not a larger one.

I question the need for the BMC to grow. It needs to get better at making decisions and acting. Something which large organisations are notoriously bad at doing. So why grow larger?
Your main (only) reason seems to be - so the BMC can make more money (in the face of reduced funding). Which for a commercial consultant makes sense as it's what you've been employed to do. But bottom line is it's just a climbing/mountaineering member organsiation. Not a commercial business that *must* grow or die. And your/the BMC's effort to grow participation/members/revenue risks negatively affecting the pastime (not sport) of climbing and I'm not in favour of that - all I care about is climbing and our access to it, not its member organisation's desire to be bigger.

[cowboyhat]

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.

Does bigger really mean more influential?

On a local level, fell running clubs seem to do OK securing access and working with landowners.

Indeed, as I've pointed out before, the Fell Runner's Association (6,000 members) do not promote participation (on environmental grounds):

The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php

This is perfect; for years I've been looking for a reason not to go fell running.


Reading some off this stuff, from people I know well is depressing. You want climbing to be fightclub. There is a phrase for this, something about eating cake whilst looking at cake.

How did you all get into climbing? Were you inexperienced once?

And are you getting your kids into climbing? You must feel pretty guilty about that? OR let me guess, they aren't allowed to tell anyone what they do at weekends...

[Davo]

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.

Does bigger really mean more influential?

This is perfect; for years I've been looking for a reason not to go fell running.


Reading some off this stuff, from people I know well is depressing. You want climbing to be fightclub. There is a phrase for this, something about eating cake whilst looking at cake.

How did you all get into climbing? Were you inexperienced once?

And are you getting your kids into climbing? You must feel pretty guilty about that? OR let me guess, they aren't allowed to tell anyone what they do at weekends...

Sorry, I really don't understand your point here. Yes of course I would like my son to get into climbing and of course I had to start somewhere. I don't see that has much to do with my not wanting the BMC to actively promote participation in climbing. I want the BMC to do as much as possible with my subs towards the things I value it doing rather than spreading itself thinner and getting bigger. As Pete said earlier I think it should concentrate on doing a good job of representing members interests rather than getting more members, raising more money and becoming bigger.

To me this has nothing to do with the crags becoming busier or overcrowded. That may or may not happen anyway. It is just about what I think the BMC should be doing, which is again in my opinion representing members interests

[shark]

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.

Well for a start your whole blog post reads much like a decent argument for a smaller, sleeker organisation not a larger one.

I question the need for the BMC to grow. It needs to get better at making decisions and acting. Something which large organisations are notoriously bad at doing. So why grow larger?
Your main (only) reason seems to be - so the BMC can make more money (in the face of reduced funding). Which for a commercial consultant makes sense as it's what you've been employed to do. But bottom line is it's just a climbing/mountaineering member organsiation. Not a commercial business that *must* grow or die. And your/the BMC's effort to grow participation/members/revenue risks negatively affecting the pastime (not sport) of climbing and I'm not in favour of that - all I care about is climbing and our access to it, not its member organisation's desire to be bigger.

Sleeker yes. Smaller no. I covered the wide ranging remit the BMC has and that it was several organisations melded into one. I think it is stretched currently to cover what is asked and expected of it. Currently decision making is slow and innovation stifled by its structure mainly. It could be both bigger and more agile. An organisation of say 50 is still not large and could be far less bureaucratic.

[petejh]

I think it is stretched currently to cover what is asked and expected of it.

The point Davo, myself and others are making is that it isn't expected to do all the things it tries to. I don't expect it to do half of what it currently tries to do.

Just concentrate on being a good members organisation - one that sorts the shit out in climbing which needs sorting, such as access, lobbying decision makers, insurance and promoting good quality meets for members to experience the world of climbing in all its flavours. Forget trying to become the voice of climbing because the BMC isn't that. Climbing is far bigger than the BMC and still at bottom an activity which attracts self-reliant types who shun authority/organisations.

Cowboyhat. Waa? I got into climbing because I live in N.Wales and I have a strong adventurous spirit. The BMC had zero influence on my discovering climbing - I'd never heard of them until I'd been climbing a few years. I honestly don't really care if people who don't have that spirit never find climbing. I don't begrudge anyone who discovers the joy of the outdoors with *some* help from the BMC. Just don't think it needs to become the proselytiser-in-chief  because that won't do the pastime any favours and it isn't in climbers' interests for numbers to grow greatly. Shark's and the BMC's 'expansion/increasing participation' line is, for me, not much more than self-justification by people who like to do work administering a large organisation - aka bureaucrats - for existing and being busy.

[shark]

I think it is stretched currently to cover what is asked and expected of it.

The point Davo, myself and others are making is that it isn't expected to do all the things it tries to. I don't expect it to do half of what it currently tries to do.

But that is what has been asked of it via the democratic structure. My experience is that very little new or major is initiated by the BMC Office who are rather (too much) like the Civil Service in carrying out the wishes of their masters. The Memorandum of Articles and the culture of the Office is to carry out the express wishes of the Volunteer Exec Board and National Council. Feel free to insert Yes Prime Minister clip of choice to make the obvious rebuttal.

Just concentrate on being a good members organisation - one that sorts the shit out in climbing which needs sorting, such as access, lobbying decision makers, insurance and promoting good quality meets for members to experience the world of climbing in all its flavours.

Does it not do these things already? Just because they are your preferences of things that need sorting doesn't mean other things arent important to other members. There will be a new poll of the membership (the last was in 2010) that will aim to determine and prioritise those things that are perceived as important by the membership. 

Forget trying to become the voice of climbing because the BMC isn't that. Climbing is far bigger than the BMC and still at bottom an activity which attracts self-reliant types who shun authority/organisations.

Why are they not the voice of climbing? Who would you have instead - UKC? And of course climbing is bigger than the BMC - that is a trite thing to say. The BMC serves climbing not the other way round.

Yes I would have counted myself as a generally anti-authoritarian type who, due to arrested development, was well into my mid-40's before seeing the value of the BMC, recognising that the only way to achieve a voice outside the bubble of climbing is through an organisation. Whether a Trade Union or the BMC an organisation can gather gather and mobilise resources in a way that individuals cant. My judgement of how good that organisation is: how clear they are in their purpose, how capable they are at gathering resources (money, peoples time) and then how efficient they are at deploying the resources to the greatest effect. I have spelled out the areas where there is room for improvement.       

Shark's and the BMC's 'expansion/increasing participation' line is, for me, not much more than self-justification by people who like to do work administering a large organisation - aka bureaucrats - for existing and being busy.

Rather ungenerous for you to characterise those involved in the BMC in this way, particularly the Volunteers. For every vocal Bob Pettigrew who revels in the bureaucracy and politics there are a score of Ru's and Rob Greenwood's who would rather be ledge shuffling in Wales than paper shuffling in Manchester. They are in it for the greater good rather than its own sake.

[petejh]

That last point isn't aimed at every volunteer Shark, it's aimed at a specific type of person who enjoys building/growing/administering complicated organisations and the politics that goes with them. Not the typical volunteer, who I have plenty of respect for.

I come from a background where if you want to get something done, in any area of life, you get on and make it happen yourself. Need a guidebook? - write it. Routes need re-equipping? - do it. Need bolts? - set-up/support a local bolt fund. See a new sport route/new sport crag? - equip it and climb it. Access issues? - approach people and try to solve them. I also do really appreciate the support on offer from organisations.
Perhaps I'm just a bit sick of hearing about the BMC recently. It's something that I think should just be in the background and not something I want to hear much about or distract me from my selfish precious time spent going out enjoying climbing.
Quite simply I think the BMC is probably a bit too large, a bit too complicated and a bit too cumbersome; is trying to do and be too many different things; and climbing doesn't actually 'need' what you're saying the BMC should be. Climbing's a pretty simple activity really when you strip away all the bullshit surrounding it.

[shark]

The BMC is mostly run by volunteers though and I'm struggling to think of any staff or volunteers who "enjoys building/growing/administering complicated organisations and the politics that goes with them".

Yes of course it's easier to get things done on your own. No consultation or consensus. And hats off to your equipping work. But a lot of the representation and collaboration the BMC does to other National bodies and interest groups is beyond individual capability especially if done in a joined up way.

Yes climbing doesn't need the BMC but I bet it would be more appreciated if it did suddenly disappear

[highrepute]

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

Is this really what you think? If a friend said to you "can i come climbing with you?"would you tell them "no, more people taking part in climbing is not something I value".

I imagine you wouldn't say that instead you'd introduce them to climbing. So why is your friend allowed to have climbing promoted to them but not "other" people? What kind of other person starting climbing specifically do you have a problem with?

[highrepute]

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.

Does bigger really mean more influential?

On a local level, fell running clubs seem to do OK securing access and working with landowners.

Indeed, as I've pointed out before, the Fell Runner's Association (6,000 members) do not promote participation (on environmental grounds):

The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php

Guess that's why I never got into fell running then. Which I'm sure the fell running community is glad about.

[highrepute]

not much more than self-justification by people who like to do work administering a large organisation - aka bureaucrats - for existing and being busy.

Got any evidence to back up this bureaucrats claim?