[teestub]

BMC member for 20+ years, largely due to the access work it does. Look at the access situations in the USA and Australia for comparison.  For much of this time I effectively paid twice through an individual and a club membership though I have stopped this donation as money is tighter than it was five years ago.
 

What access issues are you thinking about in the US Duncan? I've generally thought of access as quite good there in the National Parks and on BLM land and the Access Fund as a very proactive body in other cases.

[northern yob]

I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps. A lot of the youth comps which are extremely well subscribed probably(should ) make money, not cost the bmc money. The bmc by my reading of things has tried desperately to keep hold of Gb climbing (the comp  branch of it all) when it would have been much better for comp climbing if they were split (in my opinion) in my head at least this is because comp and indoor climbing is a potential cash cow rather than a drain on resources. As evidenced by “outside climbers not caring and not joining the bmc” the bmc is dying!! It’s only a matter of time before comp climbing is separate and maybe a portion of your wall entry each visit will fund the climbing team(which might result in them getting the support they deserve and require).

[sxrxg]

Things not good from the GB Climbing side either. Carl has clarified his reasons for leaving.
(NB the CCPG is the Climbing Competitions Performance Group which oversees GB Climbing and reports to the Board and the ABC is the Association of British Climbing Walls - effectively a trade body.)

Cost overruns within GB Climbing due to simple mistakes such as spending £27k on hire cars in Innsbruck despite public transport being free and then expecting to recover such fees from athletes.

How long were they in Innsbruck to spend £27k on hire cars 

Yetix, if it was a US situation where there was an Access Fund with comps separate, would you be happier to throw some cash in their direction then?

Yes

I'm a BMC member but only by proxy of being a club member. I wouldn't consider upgrading to full membership or joining if i wasn't a club member, I would however donate to an access fund in a similar way that i currently donate to mountain rescue.

[Teaboy]

I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.

You are completely wrong, I’ll write a longer answer later but the annual reports are pretty clear. In 2021 £327k was spent on comps and £453k on access. In previous years it was much narrower, 2020,  £268k to £283k

[northern yob]

I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.

You are completely wrong, I’ll write a longer answer later but the annual reports are pretty clear. In 2021 £327k was spent on comps and £453k on access. In previous years it was much narrower, 2020,  £268k to £283k

Even more reason to split it all…. I can’t believe it’s not possible to support comp climbing properly( which the bmc definitely doesn’t do) with the funding and potential revenue streams from both sponsorship and some kind of indoor climbing tax.

It certainly shouldn’t be affecting the funding going to access (possibly the only thing the bmc does well at) either way I’d say it’s a clusterfuck of the bmc’s own making and proves it’s not fit for purpose.

[Bonjoy]

Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.

I'm not a member. Not for any particular reason, I've just never given it any thought, it's never been mentioned by any of my climbing mates, I've never had any interaction with them, etc. I'm sure if I went and read up on what they do it would make me feel guilty about not being a member, like when I buy food that's not organic.

That's not strictly true Liam. I've corresponded with you regards hold stabilisation and access at Hawkcliffe and Panorama. I did mention I was BMC access officer. Plus others on UKB are part of the BMC as volunteers, as I was for 10 years before I joined the staff. My point is that these interactions aren't always obvious, just like the benefits of the BMC's existence aren't always obvious.

[shark]

I'd split any indoor climbing involvement out of the BMC to the ABC and let walls run indoor climbing and the BMC run outdoor climbing....

Even if they wanted to as a Trade Body with commercial interests it would be highly unusual for them to become a National Governing Sporting Body - unique even?. I suspect Sport England and GB Sport wouldn’t allow it on governance grounds / conflicts of interest.

[User deactivated.]

Would be interested to know how many keen outdoor boulderers/ general climbers on here aren't members. Anecdotally I know of a lot of people who climb a lot outside, care about access but aren't BMC members.

I'm not a member. Not for any particular reason, I've just never given it any thought, it's never been mentioned by any of my climbing mates, I've never had any interaction with them, etc. I'm sure if I went and read up on what they do it would make me feel guilty about not being a member, like when I buy food that's not organic.

That's not strictly true Liam. I've corresponded with you regards hold stabilisation and access at Hawkcliffe and Panorama. I did mention I was BMC access officer. Plus others on UKB are part of the BMC as volunteers, as I was for 10 years before I joined the staff. My point is that these interactions aren't always obvious, just like the benefits of the BMC's existence aren't always obvious.

Ah yes, that conversation did happen. My bad.

I will say that i'm reading everyone's comments with interest. Just because I'm not a member now doesn't mean I won't be tomorrow. I've just never given it any thought until now.

Some of the views in here, that it's an investment in ourselves, I can understand, and are tempting, but then seeing that hundreds of thousands of pounds go to something I don't even enjoy watching doesn't help.

[tk421a]

I'd split any indoor climbing involvement out of the BMC to the ABC and let walls run indoor climbing and the BMC run outdoor climbing....

Even if they wanted to as a Trade Body with commercial interests it would be highly unusual for them to become a National Governing Sporting Body - unique even?. I suspect Sport England and GB Sport wouldn’t allow it on governance grounds / conflicts of interest.

Why would commercial interests necessarily be an issue with being an NGB? The FA has commercial interests and is the NGB for football? DAV runs climbing walls as well as being an NGB, not sure how well they function / how the access / comp split goes in Germany. Also the ABC itself doesn't really have any commercial interests, its members do.

I would also support commercial walls more directly supporting comp climbing, if I believed the body running it was fit for purpose.

Supplementary crazy idea: BMC had £2m cash at bank end of 2021. Build 2 climbing walls, profit. Ringfence profits, fund sport climbing.

[abarro81]

fund sport climbing

You mean comp climbing presumably?

[tk421a]

Yes sorry, comp climbing, which someone decided to also name sport climbing 

[petejh]

Is this bollocks - comp climbing finances and governance of comp climbing becoming a distraction to the rest of BMC matters - not just pretty much exactly the bollocks that many people said would happen when ‘Climb GB’ first reared its head and started all the introspection and BMC governance waffle? Followed by lots of governance wonks talking governance lingo about how essential comps were to their own job roles ‘The BMC’.
Quelle surprise.

[mrjonathanr]

I’m a BMC member twice, through different clubs. Prior, I was an individual member.

It’s the only body that represents my interests through its access work. Simple self-interested desire to keep being able to go to the places I want to go to, as others have said.

Not bothered about comps, but very happy for young climbers to be supported, if it’s done in an effective way.

[duncan]

What access issues are you thinking about in the US Duncan? I've generally thought of access as quite good there in the National Parks and on BLM land and the Access Fund as a very proactive body in other cases.

The Access Fund only came into existence in 1991 as a spin-off from the American Alpine Club access committee which was formed in 1985. By this time many horses had already bolted. Even so, they appear pretty supine in respect to many of the issues US climbers face.

In some ways US climbers have a more challenging starting point. Much climbing or potential climbing in the US is on private land and the cliffs are completely off limits. There is no right to roam and the second amendment makes civil disobedience unattractive. There is also the complex legacy of Native Americans land rights.

There are many national parks where, as you say, access is theoretically protected but these are frequently governed by entry fees, permits, and labyrinthine bureaucracy including regulations around fixed gear. Their European counterparts have generally managed to avoid all these.

A few examples...

The Gunks has some of the best climbing in the US  and certainly the best close to NY. It costs $20 a day to climb there. One of the best cliffs, Skytop, is only open to clients of a particular guiding company. If a pair of you fancy doing the classic and historic Supercrack - 7b+ on gear and one of the hardest in the world when it was climbed in 1974 - it will cost you $340 each (or $265 each if you Be Like Jerry and only need half a day). This is like paying to do London Wall.

Eldorado Canyon, classic area near Boulder Colorado.  There is an entry fee to the park of course, there is also a timed reservation system for vehicles in summer. If you want to climb a new route with bolt protection you have to apply to the Action Committee for Eldorado who will permit - or not - the fixed gear. On reflection, perhaps not such a bad idea. I nominate Shark and Neil Foster to head the peak committee: we might have had fewer Gibson retrobolting atrocities!

Red Rock, Nevada. Of course you have to pay to get into the climbing area. You also need a permit if you think you’re going to be back “late” (eg after 5pm in winter). What is the rationale for this? I have no idea but it keeps people in a job I suppose.

Yosemite! The rules and regulations are so complex that it’s probably best to just link to the NPS page. You need a permit for any overnight climb (I think it’s hilarious folk attempting the N face of the Eiger don’t need a permit but people biving on Washington Column do...). This was introduced as a pilot scheme in 2021. To the surprise of absolutely no one the scheme is now permanent. The Access Fund were completely supine about this. One particularly delicious item is that booking a campsites in Yosemite is now a lottery system. You pay a $10 deposit to enter the lottery, non-refundable if you’re unsuccessful.

The US is the land of the free for access to climbing - like many other things  - just as long as you’ve got good money, good connections, good lawyers, and good know-how for negotiating bureaucracy.

[James Malloch]

This discussion just made me join. I always got membership for insurance when i was at uni, but started getting cover elsewhere and never renewed my membership.

Just the fact that i was climbing at crookrise this week makes me think i should re-join.

[mrjonathanr]

Duncan, thank you for that detail. I didn’t put free access in my short post above, but certainly had it in mind.

You’re examples  reinforce that.

[teestub]

In some ways US climbers have a more challenging starting point. Much climbing or potential climbing in the US is on private land and the cliffs are completely off limits. There is no right to roam and the second amendment makes civil disobedience unattractive.

There are many national parks where, as you say, access is theoretically protected but these are frequently governed by entry fees, permits, and labyrinthine bureaucracy including regulations around fixed gear. Their European counterparts have generally managed to avoid all these.

I think this is the key bit, that they are starting from a very different position, where there are vast areas in which there are free access, and as such not such a pressure on access to the few open spaces near to cities as there is in the UK,  which I guess is what lead to the right to roam initially.

An annual National Parks pass is $64, so probably about the same as a tank of gas for a Sprinter!

There are some more positive examples of access groups working with land owners too I think, isn't quite a bit of RRG on private land? Maybe I've misunderstood that.
 

[Fiend]

Interesting discussion. I joined the BMC earlier this year, on the surface to get travel insurance but in reality because I was feeling guilty about eating my own weight in sandwiches and chips at various area meetings (God I wish I had the mental disorder / tolerant digestion to have REDS)... It turns out as well that the latest issue of Summit - which was skin-crawlingly dire - makes a good emergency resource when loo roll runs out.  But I've always had a lot of respect for their access work, and especially the guidebooks when they still did those. As shark says:

For all its faults supporting a strong and influential representative body that owns crags and has successfully maintained access at so many crags is a good idea.  We are better off in this respect than most countries. Withholding membership isn’t going to improve matters.

But conversely, despite being someone who enjoys watching climbing (although not with any particular interest in British comp climbers winning - selfishly, I'd rather have world class crag access and maintenance than world class comp climbers), I know exactly where the primary focus should be...

This is surveyed but I can't remember the date of the last one. As far as I remember, access has always been the BMC's most important role as far as its members are concerned. Competitions have been one of the least important.

The cut in access funding and increase in funding of competitions appears to be going directly against the views of the membership.   This may or may not be related to a new-ish CEO who is from a competitive sport administration background, doesn't climb, and appears invisible to members like me.   

I very much agree with this and don't like the sound of the last bit.

Although...

I might be completely wrong and nowhere have I seen any evidence, but I don’t think competition climbing costs the bmc anything….. the national governing body of an Olympic sport receives funding from sport England to help finance comps.

You are completely wrong, I’ll write a longer answer later but the annual reports are pretty clear. In 2021 £327k was spent on comps and £453k on access. In previous years it was much narrower, 2020,  £268k to £283k

(I actually came on thread to post that first stat as I remember Andy Say mentioning it.) That sounds like a yearly IMPROVEMENT in the access vs comp funding balance?? If that trend can continue...


And finally....

I heard a very interesting rumour about the kilnsey sale recently. If it’s to be believed it’s been sold to an interesting buyer…. Not the bmc!

Its being turned into Depot yorkshire?

Quite probably true, and probably why they still CAN'T PUT TWO SODDING FANS IN THE DEPOT MANC TRAINING ROOM.

[cheque]

There are some more positive examples of access groups working with land owners too I think, isn't quite a bit of RRG on private land? Maybe I've misunderstood that.

It’s on private land but it’s climbers who own it. Muir Valley is a big area and is owned by a nice old climber couple who bought it all when they retired, PMRP (contains the Motherlode and Chocoate Factory), Miller Fork etc. are owned by the Red River Gorge Climbers Coalition which is a local organisation set up to buy land with crags on. Graining Fork Nature Preserve sounds nice and friendly but is basically a way for a bunch of rogue climbers to stop people climbing on Roadside crag (one of the earliest sport areas to be developed so has lots of famous routes) without paying them, like the situation Duncan describes at one of the Gunks crags.

As Duncan also says above, you can’t climb on most non-climber-owned private land in the States (southern states in particular) because the landowners are within their rights to shoot you dead.

The land in the Red is both easy to buy and very cheap because there’s not really anyone else who wants it. Oil companies own the mineral rights to the whole region so can just drill for oil anywhere that isn’t state park or forestry commission land so private landowners there are just stuck with areas of basically jungle with rocks in that they can’t turn into anything useful- selling it to climbers is quite a good deal for them so they’re not going to negotiate access, they just tell you how much it’ll cost.

So while there’s lots of access to crags (and probably more to come- every time one of these parcels of land is bought there are suddenly cliffs that no climbers have ever seen, let alone climbed on) it’s hardly a utopian model, it’s just good for the south.

[mark20]

It turns out as well that the latest issue of Summit - which was skin-crawlingly dire - makes a good emergency resource when loo roll runs out. 

It's never been particularly good. I guess rock climbers, particularly keen boulderer/sport types who use ukb make up a tiny minority of BMC membership and the magazine content will never be reflective of us, but even so a lot of the articles are fairly bland and feel a bit 'dumbed down' to me. I think there is a real possibility to make Summit better, there must be loads of BMC members who could contribute a good article and photos. If the BMC emailed out all members asking for contributions I think they would get a load of good stuff
"Off the beaten track VS-E3", "Lancashire quarries revival", "Dogs of the UK climbing scene" 

[danm]

BMC member for 20+ years, largely due to the access work it does. Look at the access situations in the USA and Australia for comparison.  For much of this time I effectively paid twice through an individual and a club membership though I have stopped this donation as money is tighter than it was five years ago.

I am a BMC member, and for me their role in lobbying for and being a contact point for negotiations regarding access is my principal reason for remaining so.
I’ve no issue with the BMC spending money on competition climbing, but I often wonder: what proportion of BMC members see themselves as principally indoor/competition climbers? (not a rhetorical question, I genuinely don’t know if this has ever been surveyed).

This is surveyed but I can't remember the date of the last one. As far as I remember, access has always been the BMC's most important role as far as its members are concerned. Competitions have been one of the least important.

The cut in access funding and increase in funding of competitions appears to be going directly against the views of the membership.   This may or may not be related to a new-ish CEO who is from a competitive sport administration background, doesn't climb, and appears invisible to members like me.   

As an employee it wouldn't be right for me to get into a discussion about some of the things quoted that I believe to be misrepresentations, but I will chime in on this one - I climbed with the CEO last week. This non-climber trope is wheeled out regularly, use your own judgement to consider why.

[Wellsy]

Yeah honestly I think Summit is pretty poor. I don't like it personally and I think it's only of interest to a tiny segment of climbers due to essentially being UKTrad/UKAlpine: The Magazine

Not that it shouldn't have those things but bouldering does exist and is very popular it would be nice if Summit covered it.

[UnkArl]

This thread prompted me to renew my BMC membership; I’d let it lapse a few years back. It cost me all of £32.93

[andy moles]

Yeah honestly I think Summit is pretty poor. I don't like it personally and I think it's only of interest to a tiny segment of climbers due to essentially being UKTrad/UKAlpine: The Magazine

I am of the trad segment, to a large degree, and believe me: I still think Summit is poor.

Once in a while there's something decent. Mostly it's gloss and commerce and nothing of real interest. Probably a symptom of how thinly the BMC is spread across divergent scenes: all it can give is the lowest common denominator of each.

[cheque]

Probably a symptom of how thinly the BMC is spread across divergent scenes: all it can give is the lowest common denominator of each.

I’ve always seen Summit as emblematic of the nature of the BMC. It’s got to cover trad, comps, sport, bouldering, non-comp indoor climbing, hillwalking, ice climbing, fellrunning, ski mountaineering, etc etc so it ends up being something that most people say “pfft there’s only ever one interesting thing in each issue, if that” about.

When I’d only been climbing for a year or so I used to read it cover to cover and find it fascinating and informative. Now I just flip through it, think “that’s a nice picture” a few times, make a mental note to go back and read one article that looks interesting. A week or so later I pick it up again, read the article and chuck it in the recycling. I don’t think the magazine’s changed that much, I’ve just become more experienced and less interested in types of climbing I don’t do.

I feel like whether I see it as “it’s alright really, does what it’s intended to” or “what a waste of time, why do they spend my money on this, blah blah blah” is up to me and I’m going for the first option because life’s too short.