it looks like the Woolpacks are from the photo of Audrey on their publicity pages.
Woolpack's will never suffer heavy traffic IMO. It's way too much of a slog to get to for boulderers and few if any will bother going a second time given the quality.
I'd like to know what possessed rockfax to think that having the woolpacks in a guide is a good idea.
Fucking dreadful idea. Even with a long walk-in they are still vulnerable to any traffic, and once they start going tits up that's it. As I've said before, this is a magical location that has the potential to be totally ruined by the misplaced interest of climbers.
There is some sandy rock up at the Woolpacks but we deliberately only documented problems on the solid rock. We also make a point of telling people that they are likely to encounter sandy rock if they climb on other undocumented bits of rock, so in that sense, it is easier now for visitors to focus on the good sections of rock. Whatever happens the place is never going to get popular.
No you misunderstand, by including it they're actually protecting it. QuoteWe're tyring hard to justify our actions by making up some half-hearted lame reasoning.Simple really
We're tyring hard to justify our actions by making up some half-hearted lame reasoning.
Since the Rockfax is definitely an original grassroots labour of love by local activists rather than a cynical "me too" cash-in effort we can safely assume Adrian, Audrey and Jamie will be along shortly to discuss the inclusion of the Woolpacks, a venue every other guidebook has seen fit to not document.
Secondly the inclusion of The Woolpacks is contrary to a loose treaty between the publishers & etc not to produce a guide to the area, the only intention being (unless its shameless filler) to encourage people to go there and in so doing accept that this will lead to damage which would not have occured but for the inclusion in the guide.
Quote from: Sloper on April 09, 2014, 12:50:26 pmSecondly the inclusion of The Woolpacks is contrary to a loose treaty between the publishers & etc not to produce a guide to the area, the only intention being (unless its shameless filler) to encourage people to go there and in so doing accept that this will lead to damage which would not have occured but for the inclusion in the guide.I wouldn't have inluded Woolpacks for the sole reason that I don't rate them for climbing and they put people off going to better bouldering on Kinder and Bleaklow. I tend to agree with what T_B said.Sloper the bit of your post I quoted above by its logic applies to the documentation of any new area, or problem for that matter. It also ignores/discounts the fact that when someone goes to crag X they are not at (and damaging) crag Y.
It also ignores/discounts the fact that when someone goes to crag X they are not at (and damaging) crag Y.
If you applaud sponsored climbers, pushing the boundaries and pushing out videos promoting the 'sport', if you boulder indoors regularly at one of the many bouldering walls, if you buy from bouldering brands, if you're a member of the ever-growing BMC, then you're supporting the growth of bouldering as an activity. You can blame Alan James if you like, but we all need to take responsibility for the growth in participation that is leading to venues like the Plantation getting totally trashed. Guidebooks are just one of the many ways that bouldering is promoted, and debate over the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the new Rockfax is a big fat red herring IMHO.
So is making a noise about unsuitable venues getting guidebook coverage not "taking responsibility"? Is being a BMC member funding access work not "taking responsibility". Or is the point being hat if we don't all quit bouldering then were part of the problem so shouldn't complain?
Quote from: dave on April 09, 2014, 03:10:13 pmSo is making a noise about unsuitable venues getting guidebook coverage not "taking responsibility"? Is being a BMC member funding access work not "taking responsibility". Or is the point being hat if we don't all quit bouldering then were part of the problem so shouldn't complain?I've just seen this pop up via FB, which I think is somewhat ironic ('GB Junior Bouldering Team hit Stanage') http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/ I'd be in support of the voluntary 'closure' of the Plantation to bouldering for a period. I'm not suggesting that we should all quit bouldering, but we should be prepared to modify our behaviour if it means honeypot venues aren't completely ruined. I understand why people don't like the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the guidebook, but I do think you're missing the bigger picture.
You're right Tom, that video is shocking - I don't think the BMC should be promoting heel hooking on the green traverse.