To my mind this is matter for activists and individual situations sorted out at a local level rather than any top down policy.
No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.
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.
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?
In a similar manner anyone can sign up to this forum but not everybody does, would a consensus reached here be deemed representative?
Ian wanted me to point out this is very much a 'first draft' for discussion/debate etc at the next meeting.
For, say, Peak bouldering? I think so, yes.
QuoteFunny, 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
Quote from: Johnny Brown on March 19, 2012, 09:04:48 pmQuoteFunny, 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.
And you're a dick if you go around doing stuff that the majority doesn't want.
- 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.
Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable.
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 didn't see a representative cross-section of users
Needs rephrasing. 'Adequate' means nothing.
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.
If there's going to be a policy then:Quote from: shark on March 19, 2012, 11:19:58 amBolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable. Needs rephrasing. 'Adequate' means nothing.