[Falling Down]

I think John has onsighted 7b or 7b+ in the past if I'm not mistaken.

[jcm]

>How can sport climbing be ok but bolting be bad?

Easily, surely? If I don't use the bolts, they won't go away.

[jcm]

For example (and replying slightly to Stu's point about how unfair it is him being associated with the Edwardses), on the last occasion the bolters had to hand statements from ME and RE in support of the proposed bolting, and there attended at the meeting former employees of the Edwardses who had (or were certainly thought to have been) been involved in bolting the crag in what local opponents saw as a flagrant breach of the resolution initially passed (a controversial view, I know, and one I don't have an opinion about).

Now, I ask you, was that behaviour calculated to win the day or secure a compromise? Was it sensible, in the context of a call for a Fresh Start and so on?

[Doylo]

Your prepared to drive 300 miles to chop some bolts but you haven't been driving that to attend the access meetings that determine the outcome of the CV situation? 

[Doylo]

I think John has onsighted 7b or 7b+ in the past if I'm not mistaken.

Seems a tad hypocritical to me....

[jcm]

In 2005 I wasn't climbing; while I can't remember I doubt if I even knew the meeting was going on. And the same was true in 1991. If by 'access' meetings you mean the meetings about bolting CV.

I've been sport climbing about four times, and only then because people with me wanted to go and it was better than nothing. On the occasion Ben is referring to I was taking a rope up the crag in order to rescue a climber on a neighbouring trad route.

However, I intend to go sport climbing in the future. As I say, not doing so won't remove any bolts, and I have some ambitions I hope it will help with. It seems to me that denying myself the opportunity to experience the same pleasures as others would be cutting off my nose to spite my face: much the same as not flying from Heathrow because one doesn't think there should be a fourth runway.

Although mind you I very much doubt whether my personal activities are of any interest to anyone. Still, you did ask.

[slackline]

would find a convincing argument for bolting a given area but given the stance that all "bolts are bad" which you hold whats the point?  You'll still think they're bad, no matter what case is made.

You're right, I will. The point of posting was not to give people an opportunity to change my view, but that if bolters don't behave less stupidly than they did at the last CV fight then they will annoy people so much that their bolts will probably get chopped. This would be a Bad Thing and better prevented. My suggestions were my small effort in that direction.

In light of that and other slight digs at various people's posts your "suggestions" come across as willy-waving.

Perhaps pro-bolters find the chopping of bolts by anti-bolters stupid and contradictory as it still leaves (often worse) scars on the rock, and the very act itself may encourage/incenses them to go out and bolt again?  That would be a bit of a vicious circle.

Why not save yourself the time and effort of posting here and just attend the BMC meetings (despite the ~300 miles involved) because that is where a compromise will be reached and not here.  Not everyone who attends those meetings is registered here and will read your posts.

I think I probably will: I didn't intend to but some of the views expressed on here have so incensed me that I just might.

You're complete failure or willingness to spend a few seconds to learn how to utilise the sophisticated and simple quote system that is explained in great detail in the HowTo that has been linked innumerable times is incensing me.  


I too would be interested to know how you sport-climb without clipping bolts (as it would then be soloing).

[nik at work]

However, I intend to go sport climbing in the future. As I say, not doing so won't remove any bolts, and I have some ambitions I hope it will help with. It seems to me that denying myself the opportunity to experience the same pleasures as others would be cutting off my nose to spite my face: much the same as not flying from Heathrow because one doesn't think there should be a fourth runway.

I'm not commenting on CV as I know the best part of nothing about it but I can't level this with your previously expressed venom towards bolts. To make your analogy work you would have to not object to the fourth runway but object to the idea of humans flying in planes, see it as evil, and yet still fly from Heathrow because you fancy a holiday.

[Doylo]

I've been sport climbing about four times, and only then because people with me wanted to go and it was better than nothing.
However, I intend to go sport climbing in the future. As I say, not doing so won't remove any bolts, and I have some ambitions I hope it will help with. It seems to me that denying myself the opportunity to experience the same pleasures as others would be cutting off my nose to spite my face: much the same as not flying from Heathrow because one doesn't think there should be a fourth runway.
Although mind you I very much doubt whether my personal activities are of any interest to anyone. Still, you did ask.

You have been very clear in your condemnation of bolts and have established a very clear ethical standpoint for yourself. Then you tell us you actually intend to go sport climbing? This seems bizarre. Maybe you should stop posting now before you discredit yourself some more

[slackline]

[jcm]

> To make your analogy work you would have to not object to the fourth runway but object to the idea of humans flying in planes, see it as evil, and yet still fly from Heathrow because you fancy a holiday.

I don't see that. I don't think we should have put bolts in in the first place, but once my views don't prevail and they're there, what purpose would it serve me not using them? You might as well say I shouldn't use the Newbury by-pass, or for that matter the Cairn Gorm funicular. That way I get a trashed corrie and it still takes ages to get to the Shelter Stone; what's the point of that.

One of my internet rules, by the way, is that people accusing other people of hypocrisy are invariably being dim. Eh, Toby?!

[Paul B]

you're joking right? You 'don't' see that being firmly in the anti-bolt camp and then climbing on bolts undermines your position somewhat?

[jcm]

>Perhaps pro-bolters find the chopping of bolts by anti-bolters stupid and contradictory as it still leaves (often worse) scars on the rock, and the very act itself may encourage/incenses them to go out and bolt again?

I dare say they do. However, once a meeting decides that bolts shouldn't have been placed, presumably you'd agree that they should be removed? I would have thought most people would think that this task should fall to the people who shouldn't have placed them in the first place, but of course they never, ever do it, so what are you left with? Unilateral chopping and bolt wars are undesirable, of course, which was my original point.

Contrasting last time's campaign again, I see BC brought along some photos of the damage, and (absurdly) called the choppers 'vigilantes' and other endearments. This to a meeting he was trying to persuade to his way of thinking, and which contained not only the choppers but a large number of their friends and supporters. Now I'll ask you again; do you think that was a sensible way to go about things, or do you think my small suggestion that it be done differently this time was a good one?

[nik at work]

I never accused you of hipocrisy, I merely pointed out that your analogy isn't right. My suggested replacement is, unfortunately it doesn't sound rational. Oh well...

I have to say that over on UKC I always rather liked you as a poster, you came across as an intelligent (if somewhat superior in attitude) contributor. I think perhaps the difference is over there 90% of posters deserve a quick retort and slap down and 10% are worthy of listening to, here the figures are (at the very least) reversed. It's a lot easier to sound wise in a sea of idiots.

As for:

One of my internet rules, by the way, is that....

Did you actually type that?? I'm shocked. One of my rules of the internet is that all beautiful women (who, Maggers and Lucy should note, I respect as individuals and in no way objectify) want to have sex with me. It don't make it so...

[jcm]

No, I suppose you didn't. I was kind of replying globally.  Maybe the quote system would allow for that if I could work it?!

[nik at work]

I guess we'll never know...

[slackline]

Perhaps pro-bolters find the chopping of bolts by anti-bolters stupid and contradictory as it still leaves (often worse) scars on the rock, and the very act itself may encourage/incenses them to go out and bolt again?  That would be a bit of a vicious circle.

I dare say they do. However, once a meeting decides that bolts shouldn't have been placed, presumably you'd agree that they should be removed? I would have thought most people would think that this task should fall to the people who shouldn't have placed them in the first place, but of course they never, ever do it, so what are you left with? Unilateral chopping and bolt wars are undesirable, of course, which was my original point.

Contrasting last time's campaign again, I see BC brought along some photos of the damage, and (absurdly) called the choppers 'vigilantes' and other endearments. This to a meeting he was trying to persuade to his way of thinking, and which contained not only the choppers but a large number of their friends and supporters. Now I'll ask you again; do you think that was a sensible way to go about things, or do you think my small suggestion that it be done differently this time was a good one?

And I'll ask you again to use the quote system that is in place 'cause you're making yourself look like a stubborn git by not reading and following the simple instructions that have been linked several times.  Its also tedious to have to correct your failure to quote properly so that I am not misconstrued through your laziness.

Clearly whoever "BC"¹ is also finds/found the topic as highly emotive as yourself and hadn't thought through how s/he should act in light of these emotions in order to not appear as selfish as those s/he wished to antagonise.

As has been posted several times in this thread, after the most recent meeting adjourned attendee's retired to the pub and people from both camps seemed to not have quite such polarised views which sounds like progress to me and a far better alternative to "BC"'s approach.  No idea how your suggestion would fit into what was discussed in the boozer.

I really can't believe that you take such a strong ethical stance over the placement of bolts and then turn round with "Ah well, if I can't beat 'em I may as well enjoy the fruits of their labour".



¹ How did you get British Columbia to attend the meeting?  Because without spelling out what acronyms you're using thats how I interpret "BC".

[jcm]

BC = Barnaby Carver. The promoter of the last motion.

I am a stubborn git. Surely you'd noticed?

My impression at the moment is that the pub 'meeting' wasn't seen in quite the same rosy glow by all those present, but time will tell, no doubt.

[slackline]

I am a stubborn git. Surely you'd noticed?

I was being polite.

[Nemo]

“Lundy Calling isn't on Lundy, btw - your post suggested you might have thought it was” - JCM

My mistake – Suffice to say I haven’t been to the Wye Valley.  Glad I was wrong.

“Really? Just them? We know what the people who are interested in doing sport climbing at any cliff think, surely?” - JCM

I did also say that “anyone who is prepared to drive to a BMC meeting deserves their say.”  But you are right – my point was badly worded – there should have been a “mostly” or something in the other bit.  I just think that I would listen far more if the people who were arguing against the bolting actually had some interest in climbing there.

“I think if you reread my initial post you would see that what I said was that IF people want to rebolt CV they need to go about it differently.” - JCM

I realise that.  Whilst I didn’t agree with a lot of it, I thought some of your earlier posts were relatively sensible and at times constructive – indeed a good number of people on here acknowledged that.  Unfortunately, it then veered off course…

“I rather imagined a fair number were at Raven Tor. Is that particularly chossy?” - JCM

Yes.  Actually that’s a bit harsh, but a lot of holds from a lot of routes would now be on the ground if it weren’t for the glue holding them together.

“Bolting fosters a different attitude to the crag which leads to this stuff going on.  Remember when the jug fell off Mecca? Lots of support for industrial intervention including tons of sika and steel support rods. Remember when the jug fell off the Ace? Ton's of controversy about it being glued on with a barely visible bit of sika. We think of the Tor as an industrial project, but Stanage as a natural wilderness (alright, that's overstating it a bit)” – Stu Littlefair

That’s because the Tor like a lot of Peak Lime is mostly a pile of choss already held together with vast amounts of glue.  A bit more wasn’t going to cause any controversy.  Stanage isn’t.  The fact that one is bolted and one is not is completely irrelevant.

“I think Stu is right about bolting leading to, breaking down inhibitions about, going hand in hand with, or whatever, sika, and indeed chipping too…” - JCM

Fundamentally disagree with this – it isn’t my experience of sport climbers at all – especially not in the UK where the vast majority also take part in the other aspects of climbing.

“what about Ecstasy and Justified and Ancient? Both on excellent rock; both with artificial holds. The one on Ecstasy has been accepted and the route even described as a classic.” – Stu Littlefair

I’ve also heard people refer to Cow Udder and The Keel as classic.  Doesn’t mean I agree with them.  But both of the examples you gave happened a long time ago at the beginning of the 90s when sport climbing was still a new thing and the ethics in all aspects of the sport were in flux.  When was the last time someone actually chipped a hold on a sport route in the UK?

“In general, we might get a lot more support if we were totally accepting that sport climbing comes with a lot of negatives. We're not going to change people's minds about it anyway, so why waste time arguing the point and causing friction.” – Stu Littlefair

Because I don’t believe it.  Some bad stuff has certainly taken place at sport crags just like all other crags in the past.  I see no need whatsoever for that to continue on crags of either allegiance in the future. 


Finally JCM – I don’t think there is any point in either of us continuing with the generalised bolting arguments.  You and Bruce have been at it for ever on UKC, and at the very least you would have to accept that the vast majority of people don’t find the general anti – bolting case compelling.  Equally I know I’m never going to persuade you to change your position – so it’s just a waste of everyone’s time.

As I said earlier, you’d be much better off thinking WHERE you feel you can live with bolting, and WHERE you fundamentally object to it because it is directly affecting classic trad climbing - and concentrate your considerable debating energy there.

So – lets hear some SPECIFIC reasons why bolting at CV is a bad idea.  The only one I’ve heard on this entire thread so far is that it may be seen to legitimise some of the other antics which have gone on in Cornwall.  Suffice to say I don’t find this compelling.  But for all I know there MAY be a whole number of reasons why it’s a bad idea – maybe the landowner doesn’t want any climbers there at all; maybe climbing there would jeapordise access to other areas etc. etc.  If there ARE specific reasons why bolting CV is a bad idea, then lets hear them – and I won’t be getting involved because I don’t have any local knowledge.  But please lets agree to cease the generalised anti - bolting arguments or we’ll all be    until our heads explode.

[Ru]

edit: decided not to bother getting into this.

[Andy W]

I would like to point out that BC isn't the proposer of the motion as JCM suggests, nor was it a motion, the meeting was held to debate what 'might' constitute a motion at the next meeting.

The pub meeting was never held to be 'rosy' I simply said several times that there was common ground and that debate/dialogue would continue.

Those two points are I think 'truths'.

These points following are impressions. Yesterday I went 'sport' climbing at Carn Vellan, it was a sunny day and some time was spent dogging the moves on the bottom section of 'monster munch'. It was good fun. Not a soul about and a pleasant walk down through the post industrial landscape, which surrounds the crag. The bits of metal sticking out of the ground, relics of the mining, contrasted nicely and playfully with the natural looking sea.

My mate removed some of the cup hooks left by Edwards, he did this from the ground.

We peered at the crag and wondered if sport climbing on this crag would steal anything from future generations. Its hard to say for sure, but it is so steep and long, 140ft, the rock is snappy and friable, the landing horrendous, I really can't see any takers.

[Doylo]

I don't think we should have put bolts in in the first place, but once my views don't prevail and they're there, what purpose would it serve me not using them?

Talk about having your cake and eating it!

[jcm]

>I would like to point out that BC isn't the proposer of the motion as JCM suggests

I believe I said the LAST motion. Who was it who doesn't read, doesn't listen and doesn't think again?

So is Monster Munch presently bolted, then? Presumably you can tell Jasper whether it's really 8b+, then, right?

[jcm]

>Fundamentally disagree with this – it isn’t my experience of sport climbers at all – especially not in the UK where the vast majority also take part in the other aspects of climbing.

90's France?!

>Finally JCM – I don’t think there is any point in either of us continuing with the generalised bolting arguments.

I agree. As I've said several times, I didn't intend to have such arguments. As I see it, others made stupid points which caused me to respond and get into them. But my initial post wasn't about that at all.

As to the arguments, in my opinion bolting CV is a bad idea because it would be disgusting. I can't put it any different from that.

I'm actually quite interested in what people think of the Gogarth bolt ladder episode. It seems to me quite a parallel, barring the fact that what the perps wanted to do was not sport climbing but aid climbing. What did you think of choppng that?