[shark]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

To use Ken Wilson's phrase "It's the thin end of the wedge"

[abarro81]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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

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

[mrjonathanr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Paul B]

  - 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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

[Stu Littlefair]

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]

The point I have been trying to make, without being quite so explicit, is this....

[Paul B]

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?

[Johnny Brown]

Stu, I think your points would be valid if this were a new climbing area in a soon-to-be-settled new land. In the Peak, I don't think they are. The thing could be tweaked, sure, but I think most of your concerns come from taking phrases out of the context of the rest of the document.

Before writing this off, I think folk should take a step back and look at the current situation. When was the last time bolts were removed? The only occasion I can think of recently was done by the bolter, after he stupidly placed them on a banned crag in a nature reserve. When was the last time bolts went in and caused access problems? At least three crags just in the last year. The fact that access was retained may make it all seem fine to the average climber, but be under no illusion the problems are not forgotten by the interested parties.

We also have a gradual spread of bolts onto supposed trad crags like Windy buttress. Again, I don't see a corresponding campaign of guerrilla bolt removal, even when the route in question has been widely agreed to have overstepped the mark. Why is another debate, but personally I would be very wary of attracting the wrong attention whilst trying to remove them.

With that in mind I think the policy needs to be relatively strongly worded. I don't think we need to worry about it giving carte blanche to the de-bolters - because they don't exist.

providing written confirmation that a few people stray outside of agreements?

That would be very useful to me. Instead of trying to apologise for such actions I could say, yes, this is out of order, look, it contravenes policy, the bolts will be removed and it won't happen again. IE, proving that we are capable of governing ourselves. Because if we don't others are very keen to do so and trust me, chief inspector twat of the ethics police will look like father christmas.

[shark]

If this policy is genuinely driven solely by access concerns rather than climbing ethics we can make the following amendments:

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

[Stu Littlefair]

Adam, to be honest, I can't argue with much of that.

 

[chris_j_s]

Adam, please don't get me wrong I very much appreciate the access work that people like yourself do on our behalf but it sounds slightly scarily like you want to prescribe what is in the agreement but still refer to it as a consensus agreement. i.e. anyone suggesting changes holding de-bolters to account as much as bolters is rebutted.

Such an arrangement, in my opinion, would always be problematic and not an example of (how did someone put it earlier?) the climbing community governing themselves but more an example of some rules that a few have imposed on others with no flexibility for those with alternative viewpoints.

The de-bolters may not exist at the moment but that doesn't mean they won't, possibly even as a result of the one sided bias of these 'rules' as they appear here.

Anyway, if I've spoken out of turn or understood your posts wrongly I apologise but that's my two penneth and I hereby give Stu's earlier post a +1 as I feel his suggested amendments make it a more balanced agreement.

[ChrisC]

Agree with most of what you say Adam so I'm not arguing against it from an access perspective, but from an ethics perspective is seems unnecessary for the reasons I said before.

When was the last time bolts were removed? The only occasion I can think of recently was done by the bolter, after he stupidly placed them on a banned crag in a nature reserve.

As mentioned on the previous page - The route that crossed Mad Dogs.

We also have a gradual spread of bolts onto supposed trad crags like Windy buttress. Again, I don't see a corresponding campaign of guerrilla bolt removal

I can think of one obvious example I mentioned previously too that shouldn't have been retroed.  Though I take your point about attracting the wrong kind of attention while removing them.

If a set of rules are needed to pacify land owners & help in access debates then lets have them, but lets tailor the rules/guidelines to that cause - presumably on a crag by crag basis.  Currently though this doesn't feel like a handy side effect of the proposed policy and not the reason it has come into existence.

[Lund]

If this policy is genuinely driven solely by access concerns rather than climbing ethics we can make the following amendments:

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

Sorry shark, I don't buy this.  It leaves far too much open to interpretation, and still means you can claim to be respectin' the crag whilst disrespecting everyone else.  "I for one think that archangel could do with a couple of bolts in it, as it's a bit too bold at the moment."

If I were to write this policy, then I would write it like this.

1. No bolting on a crag without permission of the landowner.

2. No bolting on a crag with existing trad routes on it, unless the rest of the area agrees this is a good idea by majority vote.

3. No bolting on crags of national trad importance unless the rest of the nation agrees this is a good idea by majority vote.

4. If you bolt on a crag without the permission of the landowner, expect to be prosecuted.

5. If you bolt on a crag in contravention of 2 and 3, expect to be lamped and your bolts chopped.

The rest of the policy is largely just people liking the sound of their own voice.

[Stu Littlefair]

As an interesting exercise, and since we all disagree on how to word a general bolting policy for the peak, can we see if we can agree on policies for specific crags?

To pick two examples; high tor and cheedale cornice?

[205Chris]

I also missed the last Peak Area meet so thanks Shark for highlighting this.

As someone who enjoys climbing on peak limestone I will probably be in favour of most things that are likely to help preserve access to the crags. Given that this seems more about access concerns than anything else I think it would make sense (if there needs to a bolting policy) to do it on a crag by crag basis rather than trying to develop a blanket policy. Other areas that have drilled gear policies (e.g. http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmcNews/media/u_content/File/access_conservation/fixed_equipment/Wye_Valley_Drilled_Gear_Policy.pdf]the Wye Valley[/URL] do it on a crag by crag basis as well.

Point 7 caught my attention. Given the furore over in situ quickdraws last year is it genuinely felt that replacing threads etc. is the right way to go and won't lead to more problems?

[Bonjoy]

 Everything I might have said has been said by others (I wrote a lengthy post before reading the whole thread and then deleted as most things were covered).
In short I can see the need for a policy and in practice I dare say the responsible rebolters will carry on putting bolts in sensible places, almost always without seeking formal (area meeting) permission and the gung-ho bolters will keep creating access problems. I see various flaws in the wording of the draft, but seeing as I wouldn’t feel beholden to follow it to the letter should I chose to start re-equipping again does it matter?
That said the bit about seeking permission to deviate from like-for-like when rebolting things is unworkable nonsense for complex and tedious technical reasons I will expand on if pushed. Hammer, Walnut, etc.

[Johnny Brown]

I think we got off on the wrong foot on this one. It would be nice if folk could maybe revisit it and reconsider, bearing the following in mind:

The bolt wars are over. This is not a clandestine attempt to create a mandate for Ken Wilson to debolt Clarion Call. What we are doing here is drawing up some guidelines for the future, not the past. I think bolting in the Peak, by and large, has reached a compromise most are comfortable with? Perhaps I'm being a bit naive here, but are there really any areas people are itching to bolt that aren't already?

With the new guide series at long last in production, its an attempt to summarise that compromise. Crag specific policies are great, but they rely on guides being current or folk referring to a web database. I don't see it as a unsurmountable challenge to create one policy which is broadly applicable. People are nowadays fairly sensible about this issue. I don't see anyone getting exorcised because a badly-placed bolt had been moved - that is not the spirit of the policy as I read it. However nobody wants to see crags peppered with unneccesary bolts do they? The main change I would seek to this policy is some mention of types of bolts and longevity. I don't like the fact we are already on the third (or fourth) generation of metalwork on many routes.

We do also have some classic trad climbing that is worth protecting. Last summer there was a widespread rumour, partly based on fact, that High tor had been retroed. The reaction from many old-timers I spoke to, Big Ron included, was that this was the inevitable beginning of the end they had long feared. I hope that isn't the reality. If a policy helps explain why to a new generation who may not value trad, I think that's worthwhile.

As I've said above, this would also be very useful for access work. Climbing on lime in the Peak continues to be under threat from all kinds of directions, and as I said above if we cannot be seen to police ourselves, others will seek to do it for us.

[Bonjoy]

I agree the document would benefit from some clear statements on equipment type. Personally I think it's totally unacceptable to use non-stainless bolts for new or rebolted routes these days. If the route isn’t worth the cost of stainless bolts, is it really worth bolting?

[shark]

Following on from the meeting and with help from Seb, Keith, Kristian, Bonjoy and Zippy I put an Alternative guidance document together which was sent to Ian Milward just over a week ago.

Further thoughts / refinements welcome:

Peak Area general guidelines to placing bolts and other fixed gear.

The issue of placing and replacing fixed gear is a can of worms especially in an area as intensively climbed and clouded rich in history as the Peak District. The purpose of these guidelines is to provide the current consensus view of what is acceptable good practice as well as raise awareness on problematic issues and the alternative views of the environment, other climbers, visitors, landowners and other users. In applying these guidelines attempt to use common sense, good judgement and consideration for other people weighing up the various (and sometimes conflicting) environmental, access, aesthetic, ethical, historical and safety factors . Phew.

These general guidelines are supplemented by crag-specific guidelines given in the crag introductions:

Environmental and Access

First and foremost you have a (potentially prosecutable) responsibility to be aware of the environmental impact and existing access arrangements when gardening and gearing new and existing routes. Crags are owned by a diverse range of landowners, some of whom are conservation organisations. Some crags are located in/on environmental sensitive areas and maybe classified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Such designation affords legal protection in the UK. SSSI’s are so designated by virtue of the fauna, flora, geological or physiographical features in the area, e.g. a rare or special lichen or plant or rock feature. Whilst any activity that could harm the special interest should not be carried out within an SSSI, other non-harmful activities are not restricted.

Climbing styles change with time and with them crags rise and fall in popularity. Routes may become overgrown and/or covered in ivy. Unless specifically ‘banned’ under conservation agreements, climbers should be encouraged to climb all developed routes lest they become reclaimed by nature. Where they have become overgrown re-cleaning activities should be undertaken sympathetically and if in any doubt after due consultation (with BMC office/Access Reps etc.)The Regional Area Database (RAD) on the BMC website tends to cover the major areas well but if in any doubt on the detail or for more esoteric locations then call the BMC Head Office before embarking on something that might jeopardise access not only for those routes but a whole crag !.

The Area Reps are in regular contact with the landowners and may need to confirm permission for what you propose and stipulations might be attached. For example a stipulation might be that you add a lower-off for a trad routes to minimise the impact of trampling at the top of a climb and on descent paths.

Aesthetics

Many, owners, visitors and climbers alike, often prefer crags to look as natural as possible. Consequently pay heed to the visual impact of any fixed gear as it could stick out like a sore thumb to some people. Be especially conscious if a crag is owned by Environmentalists and in open view of a footpath. Consider painting bolts and pegs to match the rock. Brightly coloured in-situ threads can be especially intrusive and in some circumstances replacing a thread with a bolt on a trad route might override climbing ethics on aesthetic and access grounds. In sensitive areas the use of chains belays should avoided with dual bolt lowers preferred.
Leaving in-situ “perma-draws” on long term projects to all intents falls into the category of fixed gear and the same issues apply. If you see in-situ draws or colourful carabineers in a place that you don’t like, be a brave soldier and take them out. You can return them to the owners via the lost and found boards on UKClimbing and/or UKBouldering.

Ethical and historical

In general the coexistence of bolt and trad routes in the Peak is a triumph of commonsense and compromise – let’s try to keep it that way! Be considerate of the history of a buttress or route.

It is generally not acceptable to detract from classic existing routes by adding inferior new routes either very closely adjacent or that cross through with fixed gear too close, especially if you can clip that gear from the classic route. Even when re-equipping sport routes consider the original character of that route in terms of any run-outs or the belay position. 

Greyer ethical areas apply to retro-bolting neglected existing trad routes. Whilst the first ascentionist doesn’t have absolute rights to the original route they will undoubtedly have an emotional stake (however esoteric the route) and generally speaking if they approve of the retro-bolting this is likely to reduce objections. So be considerate and contact the First Ascentionist for their views as your first point of call. In this day and age getting in touch via social media is usually quite easy.

If the first ascentionist is un-contactable (except via a medium) then sound out your ideas with other experienced local climbers or at the Peak Area Meet. This might be a bit of pain when you are at the crag with a fully charged Hiltibosch but in the longer term repeated placement and removal of fixed gear does nobody’s savour faire any good. If you are planning on doing something very ambitious like the wholesale retro-bolting of a large buttress of trad routes then in the interests of your personal safety gaining consensus backing it would be wise for you to add this to the agenda for a proper debate at a Peak Area Meet.

The following climbs are examples of routes (this list is by no means exhaustive...) which are of either classic/historically significant status and therefore (according to current consensus opinion) should NOT be retro bolted or crossed by new bolted lines despite being on crags which have substantial bolt-protected climbing:

Chee Dale:  Nettle Buttress - General Incompetence; Summer Wine; Terra Incognito
Chee Dale: Two Tier – Ninth Life; Mad Dogs and Englishmen
Chee Dale: Plum Buttress – Sirplum
Chee Dale: Chee Tor – Mortlock’s Arete (a re-gearing of the peg protected top pitch would present an ethical dilemma if they can’t be replaced like-for-like!); Golden Mile; Ceramic; Tequila Mockingbird (no extra bolts)

Safety

In general bolt spacing on sport routes should make the route safe with bolts positioned in the optimal place for clipping and in good rock.

Whether establishing new or re-equipping existing routes only 316/A4 stainless (or better) bolts and pegs should be used. Substandard bolts will corrode quickly and need to be replaced by shortly after  leaving unsightly scars and in some cases old studs in the rock. An example of particularly poor re-equipping is: Too Old to Bold at Rubicon which is already on its second set of rusty bolts. If you are still unsure about the type and grade of bolt to use then please seek expert advice or refer to the Bolting Guidance report on the BMC website.

If using ‘through’ style bolts then over drilling is highly recommend so that on (eventual) replacement they can be hammered home. If you are re-gearing a bolt route then the equipment and metalwork can be provided free of charge by the Peak Bolt Fund. There is a long list of Peak sport routes with dangerous gear and a shorter list of people with the time, aptitude and psyche to do the re-gearing. Volunteers to help spread the load are very welcome.“

Overstepping the mark

If you see a new piece of fixed gear which you judge is unacceptable what do you do? If you feel strongly enough, and the gear is easily removed, then remove it. The next step is to directly contact the person that did it (if possible) to get their justification and if possible reach a resolution.

If this isn’t reached then to get a consensus view you could debate it online or get it placed as an agenda on the next Peak Area meet. This generally enlivens the evening and helps bump up the numbers.

[205Chris]

I'm surprised it's been a week and no one has commented on this? Should this be taken as universal acceptance of the new wording 

Seriously though, well done to Shark et al for producing this. To me it makes more sense than the previous document that was circulated. While I agree that the Peak probably does need a bolting policy / guidelines I felt there were certain aspects of the old wording that were either unworkable or relied too heavily on the BMC peak area meets for clarification.

[mrjonathanr]

Firstly, well done on attempting to produce a viable 'statement of intent' as a point of reference. As JB has repeatedly observed, this evidence of self- management is helpful to maintain access.

Secondly, it's a bit wordy. Tight editing would improve impact on climbers and non-climbers alike. A work in progress?

[shark]

Secondly, it's a bit wordy. Tight editing would improve impact on climbers and non-climbers alike. A work in progress?

Yes. Ian Milward has edited it down already. There's a couple of quibbles to resolve. I'll post up the final version when it's done.

[mrjonathanr]

Cool, wasn't meant as disparaging so glad not taken that way. 'Savour faire' has to disappear completely for example. Cheers Simon. Jon

[mark20]

"Brightly coloured in-situ threads can be especially intrusive"
It might be worth adding that if people are going to replace threads/ab points, please chop away the old stuff and use cord/rope rather than tape if possible. Else we end up with a big mess (eg Chee Tor Meditation thread), we cleared loads of rotting tat away from Dovedale last weekend.

[shark]

The next Peak Area Meet has this on the agenda:

4. Limestone route restoration  Ian Carr
5. Peak Area general guidelines to placing bolts and other fixed gear

Ian Carr is the BMC limestone editor. I don't know the scope of what Ian is covering  though I understand he has been in touch with the Peak Bolt Fund regarding bolt replacement at High Tor.

In terms of the guidelines document I had not heard recently from Ian Milward but the last version I sent was as follows:

Peak Area general guidelines to placing bolts and other fixed gear.

The issue of placing and replacing fixed gear is a can of worms especially in an area as intensively climbed and rich in history as the Peak District.

The purpose of these guidelines is to provide the current consensus view of what is acceptable good practice as well as raise awareness on problematic issues and the alternative views of the environment, other climbers, visitors, landowners and other users.

In applying these guidelines attempt to use common sense, good judgement and consideration for other people weighing up the various (and sometimes conflicting) environmental, access, aesthetic, ethical, historical and safety factors . Phew. These general guidelines are supplemented by crag-specific guidelines given in the crag introductions:

Environmental and Access

First and foremost you have a (potentially prosecutable) responsibility to be aware of the environmental impact and existing access arrangements when gardening and gearing new and existing routes. Crags are owned by a diverse range of landowners, some of whom are conservation organisations. Some crags are located in/on environmental sensitive areas and maybe classified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Such designation affords legal protection in the UK. SSSI’s are so designated by virtue of the fauna, flora, geological or physiographical features in the area, e.g. a rare or special lichen or plant or rock feature. Whilst any activity that could harm the special interest should not be carried out within an SSSI, other non-harmful activities are not restricted.

Climbing styles change with time and with them crags rise and fall in popularity. Routes may become overgrown and/or covered in ivy. Unless specifically ‘banned’ under conservation agreements, climbers should be encouraged to climb all developed routes lest they become reclaimed by nature. Where they have become overgrown re-cleaning activities should be undertaken sympathetically and if in any doubt after due consultation (with BMC office/Access Reps etc.)

The Regional Area Database (RAD) on the BMC website tends to cover the major areas well but if in any doubt on the detail or for more esoteric locations then call the BMC Head Office before embarking on something that might jeopardise access not only for those routes but a whole crag !. The Area Reps are in regular contact with the landowners and may need to confirm permission for what you propose and stipulations might be attached. For example a stipulation might be that you add a lower-off for a trad routes to minimise the impact of trampling at the top of a climb and on descent paths.

Aesthetics

Many, owners, visitors and climbers alike, often prefer crags to look as natural as possible. Consequently pay heed to the visual impact of any fixed gear as it could stick out like a sore thumb to some people. Be especially conscious if a crag is owned by Environmentalists and in open view of a footpath. Consider painting bolts and pegs to match the rock. Brightly coloured in-situ threads can be especially intrusive and in some circumstances replacing a thread with a bolt on a trad route might override climbing ethics on aesthetic and access grounds. In sensitive areas the use of chains belays should avoided with dual bolt lowers preferred.

Leaving in-situ “perma-draws” on long term projects to all intents falls into the category of fixed gear and the same issues apply. If you see in-situ draws or colourful carabineers in a place that you don’t like, be a brave soldier and take them out. You can return them to the owners via the lost and found boards on UKClimbing and/or UKBouldering.

Ethical and historical

In general the coexistence of bolt and trad routes in the Peak is a triumph of commonsense and compromise – let’s try to keep it that way!

Be considerate of the history of a buttress or route. It is generally not acceptable to detract from classic existing routes by adding inferior new routes either very closely adjacent or that cross through with fixed gear too close, especially if you can clip that gear from the classic route. Even when re-equipping sport routes consider the original character of that route in terms of any run-outs or the belay position.  Greyer ethical areas apply to retro-bolting neglected existing trad routes. Whilst the first ascentionist doesn’t have absolute rights to the original route they will undoubtedly have an emotional stake (however esoteric the route) and generally speaking if they approve of the retro-bolting this is likely to reduce objections. So be considerate and contact the First Ascentionist for their views as your first point of call. In this day and age getting in touch via social media is usually quite easy.

If the first ascentionist is un-contactable (except via a medium) then sound out your ideas with other experienced local climbers or at the Peak Area Meet. This might be a bit of pain when you are at the crag with a fully charged Hiltibosch but in the longer term repeated placement and removal of fixed gear does nobody’s savour faire any good. If you are planning on doing something very ambitious like the wholesale retro-bolting of a large buttress of trad routes then in the interests of gaining consensus backing it would be wise for you to add this to the agenda for a proper debate at a Peak Area Meet.

The following climbs are examples of routes (this list is by no means exhaustive...) which are of either classic/historically significant status and therefore (according to current consensus opinion) should NOT be retro bolted or crossed by new bolted lines despite being on crags which have substantial bolt-protected climbing:
Chee Dale:  Nettle Buttress - General Incompetence; Summer Wine; Terra Incognito
Chee Dale: Two Tier – Ninth Life; Mad Dogs and Englishmen
Chee Dale: Plum Buttress – Sirplum
Chee Dale: Chee Tor – Mortlock’s Arete (a re-gearing of the peg protected top pitch would present an ethical dilemma if they can’t be replaced like-for-like!); Golden Mile; Ceramic; Tequila Mockingbird (no extra bolts)

Safety

In general bolt spacing on sport routes should make the route safe with bolts positioned in the optimal place for clipping and in good rock.
Whether establishing new or re-equipping existing routes only 316/A4 stainless (or better) bolts and pegs should be used. Substandard bolts will corrode quickly and need to be replaced by shortly after  leaving unsightly scars and in some cases old studs in the rock. An example of particularly poor re-equipping is: Too Old to Bold at Rubicon which is already on its second set of rusty bolts.

If you are still unsure about the type and grade of bolt to use then please seek expert advice or refer to the Bolting Guidance report on the BMC website. If using ‘through’ style bolts then over drilling is highly recommend so that on (eventual) replacement they can be hammered home. If you are re-gearing a bolt route then the equipment and metalwork can be provided free of charge by the Peak Bolt Fund. There is a long list of Peak sport routes with dangerous gear and a shorter list of people with the time, aptitude and psyche to do the re-gearing. Volunteers to help spread the load are very welcome.“

Overstepping the mark

If you see a new piece of fixed gear which you judge is unacceptable what do you do? If you feel strongly enough, and the gear is easily removed, then remove it. The next step is to directly contact the person that did it (if possible) to get their justification and if possible reach a resolution.

If this isn’t reached then to get a consensus view you could debate it online or get it placed as an agenda on the next Peak Area meet. This generally enlivens the evening and helps bump up the numbers.

[Paul B]

Ian Carr is the BMC limestone editor. I don't know the scope of what Ian is covering  though I understand he has been in touch with the Peak Bolt Fund regarding bolt replacement at High Tor.

Whilst I'm sure some routes will be discussed I believe its far from just this and includes (as an example) placing a few discreet lower-offs (at other crags) instead of using tiny bushes and tat (at the landowners request).

[shark]

It would be good if Zippy's old route Passion Wagon was rebolted with a lower-off.