[slackline]

With regards access, the BMC trades on its influence and how it is perceived by the public who come into contact with it. Competition climbing, is soon to become the thing that the layperson thinks of when you say "climbing" to them. If the organisation splits then there's a real risk that the access work will suffer as, in the eyes of a layperson, British Climbing or Climb Britain or whatever (the hypothetical governing body of the comps) becomes the principal organisation of note and influence, and the BMC is perceived as a gaggle of moaners who can easily be ignored.

[/quote]

When you refer to 'lay person' do you mean joe public who has never climbed, has no intention to and no interest or do you mean someone in a position to influence the flow of money towards supporting climbing competitions and/or access issues but has no direct experience or involvement?

I'm not convinced that the BMCs perception by the public is that relevant since the amount of funding the BMC receive has been pretty small  e.g. £1,287,850 over 2009-20012, strange that it states this is for "grass roots mountaineering" and the includes competitions under that umbrella, maybe they should have also mentioned "conquering" mountains.  Don't have time to dig up more but the article states its a 61% increase on the last four year cycle.  Anyway, I don't think this amount is massively influenced by the lay/general publics perception of climbing, what is more likely to influence it is the number of BMC members when the applications are submitted along the lines of "Look our membership has increased by 35% in the last four years and now stands in excess of XX hundred thousand, any chance of a bit more cash this time round please."  That in itself can be misleading given the number of people who seem to have no interest in competition (albeit based on a very small and likely biased sample).  I doubt there are many lay people who go around actively trying to prevent the BMC from obtaining government funding.

If some sort  of split did come about the perception of any two resulting bodies would hinge primarily on their activities and conduct subsequent to the split, i.e. how they go about campaigning and trying to effect change rather than a default position of "this body supports competitive climbing at international events and is therefore good, whilst this group over hear all they do is moan about not having access to grotty sea-cliffs, disused quarries, bleak moorland and unusable upland hils/mountains and are therefore bad".  There are other bodies/associations who campaign to maintain access to land such as The Ramblers Association, they don't as far as I'm aware have a competition agenda but are no doubt at risk of being perceived as a group of 'moaners' for wishing to preserve access to the countryside.

I don't give a crap about comps but I think that all climbers (or hill walkers for that matter), whatever their bag, should be united under one representative body. I didn't used to think this. What changed my mind was the realisation that the BMC could take on a wider brief and still carry on delivering on all fronts. If they were sacrificing other work in order to focus on comps/hill walking etc, I'd be opposed to the broadened scope of the organisation.

Perhaps some data to enlighten us as to whether the rise of support of competitions or hill walking has diverted time/money/effort from the other more traditional areas of activity?  The 2015 annual report, would need to collate a good few years worth though to get this picture and I've not time to do it.

I think if "churches" are too broad they can be at risk of losing their focus by being a jack of all trades and master of none, pretty much most things are constrained by time/money.  However, if the aim is to unite, then why not also work towards unifying The BMC, SMC and Mounaineering Ireland (who cover Northern Ireland)?

[Johnny Brown]

This isn't so much an internal issue as one created by external forces.

Sport England will only give money to a sport's governing body, and they require the sport use it to increase participation and elite performance in competition.

This is in fairly direct conflict with the original aim of the BMC which is to not govern but be a representative body, guided by their membership. Climbing/ hillwalking is unusual as it is more of a pastime than a sport, with indoor competition being viewed as no more than a sideshow by most participants. That membership has also traditionally been happy to let participation grow organically.

[danm]

A huge number of climbers come into the sport from the comp and indoor scene, ,to me it seems very artificial to split that from the outdoor side. In many ways, walls are the new clubs, it's where we make friends, see our mates and plan weekends away. Although I have no personal interest in comps, I love the psyche and the cross-over. On a pragmatic side, climbing will become more popular with or without the BMC because it's fucking ace, at least some of those new people are more likely to listen to access info from a body they've heard of because they run the Olympic team. That's my take anyway.

[Will Hunt]

I haven't really got time to respond in great deal, Slacks, but my point wasn't made with regard to money. It was more about influencing landowners.

If some sort  of split did come about the perception of any two resulting bodies would hinge primarily on their activities and conduct subsequent to the split, i.e. how they go about campaigning and trying to effect change rather than a default position of "this body supports competitive climbing at international events and is therefore good, whilst this group over hear all they do is moan about not having access to grotty sea-cliffs, disused quarries, bleak moorland and unusable upland hils/mountains and are therefore bad".

Actually I think you've got this wrong. The unique SlackBot algorithm will think like this but, frustratingly, other people do not. Normal folk (I think) will not bother to separate out the different activities that an organisation carries out and judge them each on their merits - that would require more than 3 seconds thought. People will see Shauna getting gold (and people will watch, believe me, and Shauna will be everywhere and people will listen to her, enraptured. You've seen it with other Olympians whose sports the general public don't know anything about. Adams, Brownlees, Skelton, Yarnold), and the commentator will say "now let's go to Such-and-Such from the BMC for their take on things", or Shauna will thank the BMC for supporting her through her comp career. It will improve the BMC's "brand", people will hold the organisation in higher regard, and this will transfer over the access work.

Plus what Dan said.

[petejh]

I've been trying to think of a similar pasttime with links to olympic sport as well as an access agenda in the background. I suppose British Canoeing (formerly the BCU) have a similar though smaller agenda. Responsible for access work for weekend-warriors on the rivers, overseeing Olympic participation/representation/funding/training.
Seems to work for them?

Still seems like an obvious split to me. But Will's points make sense.

[slackline]

I've no idea who those Olympians are you refer to (since I don't watch the Olympics or any sports beyond snooker which many would argue isn't a sport).

[DELETED LONG REPLY]

I don't care at all about competitions to continue vague conjecturing so bow out of this discussion/thread.

[shark]

A few points with respect to comps and the antipathy expressed by dave, dolly, iesu, PaulB and ashton6.

The BMC represent climbers and hill walkers reflecting an increasingly fragmented sport which is a good thing from a choice of activities but makes for a more complex membership which is almost certainly less homogenous than it once was in views and outlooks. In response the BMC is trying to recognise and communicate and provide services to the different groups in a way tailored to their different needs. We are at an early stage with initiatives like this. But ultimately 80% of revenue is from membership fees so the more members the more we are able to do - an indoor climbers memebership fees help support the access and conservation cause as much as a dave or a PaulB.

More specifically the comp climbing side runs to a large extent on specific Sport England grant income and the budget is small compared to access and conservation - just look at the staff list. The reason we or rather Rob can manage to run a heavy schedule of comps on not much money is because of the massive goodwill and efforts of volunteers and walls who help run and support these events. 

So for those against comps you should realise that membership income by and large is heading in other directions and hopefully will stand even more on its own feet if I am able to secure outside sponsorship. The outside money we are also looking to generate will also be directed towards the teams (about 80 athletes and 20 support staff) most of whom currently have to largely pay their own travel and expenses to compete internationally.   

I appreciate that you might be against comps on ethical rather than just money grounds. The same was the case against sport climbing and bolting in the 90's. Fashions and outlooks change. There might be a few perceptions changed if a Shauna, William, Jim, Molly, Aiden etc get a podium place in 2020. 
 

[shark]

Ive just been pointed to the Membership Survey from 2010 (one for you to disect Slackers) and the lowest priority work programme for respondents was comps and the British Team

[Iesu]

I'm pretty sure i didn't express antipathy towards comps and didn't intend to give that impression. It's more that comps have absolutely nothing to do with my life and I *hate* climbing indoors in general.

For me it's more that I share some of the concerns about increasing load on honeypot areas from the unwashed masses coming into the "sport" via indoor climbing (full disclosure: as a youngster much of my early exposure to climbing was indoors).

I have an internal grumble (gas?) regarding the increasing prevalence of incredibly unsightly donkey marks all over honeypot crags being the result of "indoor climbers" venturing outside and having a different attitude to the rock (i.e. less respectful). Call me a grumpy old codger. The plastering received by places like Almscliffe is pretty bad and to the casual observer casts climbers in a pretty bad light i would say.

I totally take on board the comments about growing the BMC's membership base and hence funding. I thought JB's comment about the inherent conflict in the dual role was particularly interesting.

[shark]

I'm pretty sure i didn't express antipathy towards comps and didn't intend to give that impression. It's more that comps have absolutely nothing to do with my life and I *hate* climbing indoors in general.[/url]

Yeah sorry - antipathy a little strong what you was this:

I share some of the reservations about the BMC promoting comps

Call me a grumpy old codger.

You're a grumpy old codger 

[Iesu]

Should have added that I agree with whoever said "if not the BMC then who?" in terms of there needing to be some kind of participant representative body.

[dave]

I'm pretty sure i didn't express antipathy towards comps and didn't intend to give that impression. It's more that comps have absolutely nothing to do with my life and I *hate* climbing indoors in general.

For me it's more that I share some of the concerns about increasing load on honeypot areas from the unwashed masses coming into the "sport" via indoor climbing (full disclosure: as a youngster much of my early exposure to climbing was indoors).

I have an internal grumble (gas?) regarding the increasing prevalence of incredibly unsightly donkey marks all over honeypot crags being the result of "indoor climbers" venturing outside and having a different attitude to the rock (i.e. less respectful). Call me a grumpy old codger. The plastering received by places like Almscliffe is pretty bad and to the casual observer casts climbers in a pretty bad light i would say.

I totally take on board the comments about growing the BMC's membership base and hence funding. I thought JB's comment about the inherent conflict in the dual role was particularly interesting.

+1

I also didn't express antipathy, rather that I worry that increased uptake in climbing via comps won't prove to pay for itself in the longterm in terms of increased pressures on outdoor crags, both access and erosion etc.

[Iesu]

It's just like Brexit isn't it? As in, we won't know what sort of outcome we've set ourselves up for for at least a generation if not more 

[nai]

For me it's more that I share some of the concerns about increasing load on honeypot areas from the unwashed masses coming into the "sport" via indoor climbing
 "indoor climbers" venturing outside and having a different attitude to the rock (i.e. less respectful).

Remember reading stuff like this in mags 30-odd years ago and scoffing at those beardy old men with their ridiculous notions.

[Oldmanmatt]

You know, I think there's just more people. As in the pressure on outdoor venues is a function of increased population overall rather than climbing walls.
I dare say it's a bit of both, but I wonder if the percentage of the overall population, who head out into the hills has changed much from 30 years ago?
Most people who come into the wall never venture into the wild. Those that do, I feel, already did (in other activities, like Kayaking etc) or would have anyway. As in, they were looking for a way into climbing and coming to a wall was the obvious route. Had there been no wall, they would have joined a club or similar; they were coming anyway.

As regards comps, most newbies have never heard of them. Very few of the kids/youth who "comp" with us climb outdoors (some, of course, but less than you'd think). Very, very few adults compete at all, except "fun" comps.
On the other hand, there are far too many lads with Shauna posters on there bedroom walls...

A split is needed. A sub-division, better. Because the BMC's influence is needed for the next generation and their attitude to the outside etc; but better service of their needs and aspiration as athletes is also important and without the club system support (as other sports have, such as your local Olympic Gymnastics club etc), the BMC is the logical source for that support.

If anyone is interested in that split, I'd volunteer, by the way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Johnny Brown]

Just for clarity, I absolutely don't support a split.

[shark]

I also didn't express antipathy

Sorry again 

rather that I worry that increased uptake in climbing via comps won't prove to pay for itself in the longterm in terms of increased pressures on outdoor crags, both access and erosion etc.

Talking to Steve Dunning at the Depot a lot of the newcomers seemed surprised that a. people climbed outside b. would want to and c. would travel the world to do so.

The general reports I am getting is that the crags are getting less busy

[petejh]

Talking to Steve Dunning at the Depot a lot of the newcomers seemed surprised that a. people climbed outside b. would want to and c. would travel the world to do so.

Marketing manager for The Depot now as well? Good tag line!

[tomtom]

Less people chuffing but more bouldering (both outside) imho..

[dave]

Hmm maybe Shark has a point, I mean numbers of people climbing at CragX has been in decline steadily since summer.

[Duncan campbell]

A huge number of climbers come into the sport from the comp and indoor scene, ,to me it seems very artificial to split that from the outdoor side. In many ways, walls are the new clubs, it's where we make friends, see our mates and plan weekends away. Although I have no personal interest in comps, I love the psyche and the cross-over. On a pragmatic side, climbing will become more popular with or without the BMC because it's fucking ace, at least some of those new people are more likely to listen to access info from a body they've heard of because they run the Olympic team. That's my take anyway.

When I said what I said it was with What Will and Dan have said. Nowt to do with money but more to do with British climbing's face and who people who have seen climbing on the telly will then go to if they have an access gripe?

Plus, although I'm not into comps doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported if other people are into them. Climbings a broad church innit.

[Muenchener]

The general reports I am getting is that the crags are getting less busy

Sport crags with easy routes over here are generally seething anthills

[Johnny Brown]

Just for clarity, I absolutely don't support a split.

To continue, after the ipad was snatched away from me...

I think it would weaken both sides to separate. However I do think they need to recruit one or two people who are really passionate about the indoor and comp scene. The impression I get is that there are an amazing number of passionate 'real' climbers working there (to be applauded), but no one who really cares about comps. Back when the team was struggling to fund travel a PR firm was used to seek sponsorship - only to find that with major sponsors interested the office was not replying to their emails.

Nothing against re-branding a sub-division as, ooh, Climb Uk or something like that, but I think all under one banner would be better.

[shark]

Hmm maybe Shark has a point, I mean numbers of people climbing at CragX has been in decline steadily since summer.

Sod's law that its actually dry too

[mikenty]

Like many I was an occasional BMC member for when I needed insurance. But following their work in saving and purchasing Craig Y Longridge 10 years ago my membership has been on direct debit and will continue to be so. The small crag would have been a massive loss to many local climbers.