[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.