[a dense loner]

i don't agree with it Jon, my point was if you're one of the people that doesn't care about access issues and you want to climb there you will but not posting about climbing there all over the net would be an obvious starting point from my pov.

[Johnny Brown]

Depends what you mean by 'care about access issues'. Most of the access we have now was only won by sustained responsible trespass convincing the landowner they might as well have a formal agreement and some control. But if you think we should all doff our caps to the landowner and respect their wishes however unreasonable that's fine. I'm not sure that approach ever won any access though. The big problem nowadays is fear of liability. You just can't convince landowners they wouldn't be liable.

[SamT]

Mods - should this be spit from the sika thread??

The access problem is very common in the caving world (generally down to the unfounded myths about liability) and far far more areas/sites are subject to bans, or formal access arrangements (often with a small fee payable). Many of the venues around castleton require to you knock on the farmers door and pay a couple of quid 'Trespass Fee'.  The current politics surrounding the CRoW act and access to caves across the country makes the EU in/out referendum politics pale into insignificance.

I've always marveled at how lucky as climbers we are to have incredible levels of freedom and access to the vast majority of crags.

Like anything in life, its not a black and white issue and every case should be taken on its own merit. 

You'd be surprised how far a nice bottle of plonk to the land owner at chistmas goes with retaining good relations and our caving club has a list of various farmers around the peak that we organise a bottle for at christmas.

Dense is right that by going to (or 'pirating' as its called in the caving world) banned venues, you risk spoiling any future potential access for the masses.
Lovejoy is right by that by going to banned venues, you potentially create a status quo of access, by dispelling myths about what access means for the land owner, or by a few dedicated protagonists, striking up a relationship and thrashing out a resolution.

There's a few cases in the caving world I could mention in the peak where by the old grumpy land owner has recently moved on, sold up, died or some such and the new owner has been very welcoming of cavers, sometimes wanting to organise someone to take them on a trip to see whats under their land!
If we'd all stayed away, never to have gone there 'because it was banned' we'd never have known about the change of land owner and their views on access.

As always, the answer it to remain reasonable, polite, listen to the landowners and try and work it out.  If they say no, they say no, and if you're still hellbent on going there, do it subtly and dont get caught!


 

[a dense loner]

Sound then Johnny I'll just go where I want when I want then. Can't wait for the bird restrictions to come back to stanage when I'll go and spend my time shitting in the nests.

[Mumra]

Back on topic, it seems a rather calm and collected attrition against climbers. Wouldn't it just be easier for someone to hack the holds off or spray paint the crag? (This is not a suggestion btw). It just seems a very minor way in the grand scheme of things to piss people off. They could have put resin in every hold upto head height without too much bother 

[lagerstarfish]

Can't wait for the bird restrictions to come back to stanage when I'll go and spend my time shitting in the nests.

you could spray on social media about how you are doing something that no-one else is doing

that's what all the cool people do

[masonwoods101]

Mumra they kind of have... im worried they will hammer the holds...

[Mumra]

Mumra they kind of have... im worried they will hammer the holds...

Idiots. Need their fingers breaking

[masonwoods101]

Gonna lay rat traps on the floor with white lightening as bait. Sould be effective in rotherham

[Johnny Brown]

The access problem is very common in the caving world

Dense is right that by going to (or 'pirating' as its called in the caving world) banned venues, you risk spoiling any future potential access for the masses.

Caving access is at least twenty-five years behind climbing, so I'm not sure how useful a comparison is. It's about to be proved legally that the last fifteen years you've been avoiding or paying for many caves you had a legal right to access.

Banned climbing venues in the Peak fall broadly into two types: those where the conservation value has been deemed too important, and those where a landowner doesn't like the idea.

In the first type, despite the ban, we have a good dialogue with the owner/ land manager and the issue is typically broader than the single venue. All the conservation bodies own several crags, and decisions are not down to the whims of individuals. There are no decent crags where we've agreed a ban, but a load of crap ones where it buys us goodwill elsewhere. And of course bird bans are limited in time and extent and demonstrate a good relationship, and as a rule should be adhered to (the odd ones are excessive).

At the ones owned by single landowners, they fall into those where a ban seems reasonable (crags that are basically in poeple's gardens), and those where it doesn't. Of those, they've all refused to budge in their position. Despite bottles of whisky, assurances as to their non-liability, all repeated. In many cases where access is uncertain it is better not to ask and get an official refusal than leave the situation as is. This idea that capitulating to a ban will somehow make the owner more likely to agree access is out of touch with reality. They are not interested in rewarding good behaviour. They are interested in getting rid of you. Avoiding a banned crag only reinforces the idea that an access issue will disappear if the landowner says no.

Access is only ever won by demonstrating a ongoing history of responsible access. That means low-key and well behaved. If you don't know what that means, for starters no dogs, no litter, no noise, no lights, no knocking down walls, no drilling, no damage to vegetation, no shitting.

[SamT]

Caving access is at least twenty-five years behind climbing

 

I think thats a little dis-ingenuous.  It just so happens that the vast majority of grit climbing in the peak is on land with access already thanks to Benny Rothman et al.  And much of the limestone climbing, Stoney, Wye valley, Raven Tor etc lies in areas where access has never been an issue.  Obviously Water Cum Jolly has had its issues, but the fact that the riverside footpath was extremely popular with walkers and not just climbers has made it hard to exclude climbers.

It's about to be proved legally that the last fifteen years you've been avoiding or paying for many caves you had a legal right to access.

I suspect your thinking of caves on CRoW land (mainly affects the Dales) and I'm not sure its something that is close to being resolved legally, if you know different, PM me - I'm all ears.
The Swallets around Perryfoot and Eldon Hill and much of the bradwell and stoney catchments are on tenant farmers land with no history of open access.
Anyway - we digress.

Cant disagree with following the common sense low key approach.

[Johnny Brown]

Sorry, re-reading that it does come across a bit harsh. But when the CRoW act came in it from my perspective it does seem the cavers dropped the ball spectacularly.

[Dolph]

Just to update on (Sika or whatever it was?), this has now been carefully removed and all climbs are back climbable. fortunatly this had not been done that well in the first place and came away very easily. I just hope that the signs work and whoever is doing this contacts the BMC, rather than hammering the holds off, or does it again.

[r-man]

Well done guys!

[masonwoods101]

Swear to god if some one hammers the holds now ill find them

[lagerstarfish]

excellent work guys 

[SamT]

 

glad it was 'restorable'

[andy_e]

There was a large fireplace which had recently seen a fire under impossible roof yesterday, plus someone had torn down the BMC signs and thrown them down the bank.

[danm]

Were the signs knackered or could you put them back in place?

[andy_e]

The one taped to a tree couldn't be replaced due to us having no tape and the one which was possibly attached to a board couldn't be replaced due to the board having been snapped and it was also damp and starting to rot.

[sdm]

There's a large chalked flat edge on the ground that has come off near the start of one of the problems on the right side of the roof. I think it is from Into the Black, but I'm not sure exactly where the lines go around this section of the roof. I was here yesterday and didn't notice it but it might have been there then.

It doesn't look crucial but I've left it behind the block on the right in case someone more qualified than me wants to put it back on.

[36chambers]

a hold came off Into The Black a few years ago, did it look like the one pictured in this thread? https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28179

It was originally left behind the block on the right of the buttress and I'm not sure it was ever put back on.

[Coops_13]

a hold came off Into The Black a few years ago, did it look like the one pictured in this thread? https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28179

It was originally left behind the block on the right of the buttress and I'm not sure it was ever put back on.

came off by itself did it? #fatboy 

[sdm]

http://imgur.com/a/Y80Qe2u

Hopefully the image works.

The hold and where it came from are circled in red.

Do you still have the video of you on it? I would be interested to see how the problem is climbed. It looks like there is a huge gap before the good hold on the lip. Maybe the hold that broke before never got put back on and that's why the gap looks so big?

[36chambers]

ah that's a different hold to the one I was referring to. The one I pulled off was the first hold Joe goes to with his left hand in this viddy at 11 seconds.



It looked like it had already been glued on once and, if I remember correctly, it left a pretty noticeable scar in the roof.