[petejh]

One minute we’re talking about how to politely persuade some people not to walk on a wall, the next we’re proposing permit access to the countryside, and regulation to enforce compulsory insurance and qualifications for climbing small pieces of rock. Because that’s what you’re implying is inevitable, aren’t you, Matt? I love the way it only ever takes you about ten minutes to decide the only possible outcome is some sort of apocalyptic catastrophe.

Any of that is far bigger than the BMC anyway.

As a lifetime resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land, it strikes me that a policy of polite but persistent education / outreach using modern methods and a well-judged voice is infinitely preferable.

+1 wad.

[abarro81]

Overall it is quite frankly weird that a climbing organisation wouldn't champion  climbing and promote participation. What the ORG has said is they think we can do that but with a few caveats.

I think the response to that is likely to be that it's not really a climbing organisation, it's an organisation which represents climbers. Thus, if promoting participation were deemed bad by the members due to its impact on the crags or even due to impact on their fun days out, it would/should be beholden upon the BMC to not promote participation. Clearly if most members support widening participation then this does not apply, but you can easily see why people would decide to not be BMC members off the back of such a fundamental disagreement on the basis that they don't want to be supporting such actions via their subs and power of numbers.

[petejh]

As has been noted by T_B and others, the Fell Runners Association stance is one that could be considered:

The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.

http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php

If I had my chance to redo the Membership Survey now after having taken the time to think more deeply about it, and following the destruction of Whitehouses, my answers to the participation section would certainly be different!

+1. This is roughly the approach and outlook I'd like the BMC to adopt. But it's so far removed from their current approach, which reeks a little to me of empire building.

[Will Hunt]

Recommendation 8: The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause

As per the commentary for recommendation 7, this recommendation now has the addition of access, conservation and environmental considerations. The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of
the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.

I'm not really sure why this thread was split because all of this discussion is directly related to this point in the Organisational Review. Coming back to this, the caveats that have been put into the recommendation seem very woolly and non-committal at the moment (is the commentary on the recommendation binding in any way?). I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.

Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.

[teestub]

Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.

So your second sentence makes your first sentence redundant?

[abarro81]

I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.

+1

[Will Hunt]

Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.

So your second sentence makes your first sentence redundant?

Not entirely. I'm saying that increased participation does not have to be bad, if the effect of increased participation is matched by the spreading out of climbers' impact. This is possible.
However, I don't believe it will happen. The evidence shows that people's tastes in climbing accord with whatever is in vogue at the time. Even if, in years to come, the bouldering zeitgeist is replaced by a scrittly moorland bouldering fad or a return to trad bimbling, this just moves the problem to a different place. I suppose the challenge is to make it fashionable to be a non-seiging all-rounder.

[petejh]

I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.

+1

+1

The wording of the ORG summary pdf is also of interest in this.

I'd like to know the actual percentages of support for some of the 'hot' issues such as 'Encouraging Participation'; 'Olympics' etc. etc.

From what I've seen from the BMC literature regarding the member survey (I might have missed something) all we have is language hinting at the numbers.

Exact wording from the BMC summary linked to above:
'General support' for recommendations with a distinct sense that prioritisation is key..
'Overwhelming support' for measures to increase member engagement..
'Strong support' for review of membership packages..
'Support' for responsible expansion, but mindful of means and the potential for overexpansion..


Overwhelming, Strong, General, are all very different to just 'support' - which in theory could mean that overall 1 more person agrees than disagrees...

Seeing as encouraging growth in participation is such a hot topic, maximum transparency on the results of the survey would be welcome. (it may be out there-  I haven't seen it if so).

[asmallman]

All,

Have been following this discussion with interest for a number of reasons. Some points below:

1. I have been climbing for 10+ years and never been affiliated with the BMC yet I understand how to be responsible at the crags and the outdoors in general without any intervention from a governing body. Am I the only one? I think not.
I have seen bad examples of "crag husbandry" but I think for the vast majority of humans we want to look after nature and leave it as we found it. Inevitably, as numbers of climbers increase then the corresponding proportion of "bad eggs" will increase.
Personal accountability and ownership would help a lot with this, why rely on the BMC to educate? What can we as a community and as individuals do to change the situation for the better?

2. Initially I thought that "participation" was referring to climbers participating in BMC activities. I now realise this is not the case, however, I do think that this is the BMCs main issue. Why contribute to the growth of a sport when it is already growing due to it's generally increased exposure? Perhaps their efforts would be best spent trying to attract Member enlistment and advertise the benefits of this to the existing climbing community as a whole? (i.e. more money for re-bolting, education, crag maintenance) I would be happy to be a member if all the money was spent on was crag relationship maintenance, path improvement and facility improvement and not marketing the sport (even though multi-million pound corporations are doing that already for their own gain)

3. The fell running association point: I support this view and, as a fell runner myself, can see the benefits of not encouraging growth but supporting the members of the community who choose to take up the pursuit as valued participants. The benefit to the FRA is they have enthusiastic members who love the activity of running and want to preserve the environments in which they run, not because they have been drafted in to "have a go" by a marketing poster.
This could be seen as an elitist mentality but it is absolutely not the case, as anyone in the FRA would attest. If someone takes up fellrunning they can just go out and do it, as a result they want some more information and to contribute to the upkeep of their environment, so they joint he FRA. This should be the case for the BMC.

4. I can see no tangible reason to join the BMC other than for it to maintain/improve access relations and maintain/improve crag condition and and facilities. Any other informational aspects of the organisation are effectively superseded by the easier to access and more widely used sites such as "the other channel", 8a (gads) and general climbing media.

Apologies if this is just a repeat of others views but I feel this issue warrants my first post on this channel if it involves a major institution and, at worst, our rights to access. This may be different for those involved heavily in the BMC, as some on here are, but as an outlier my views may be more representative of the wider community.

[teestub]

Not entirely. I'm saying that increased participation does not have to be bad, if the effect of increased participation is matched by the spreading out of climbers' impact. This is possible.
However, I don't believe it will happen. The evidence shows that people's tastes in climbing accord with whatever is in vogue at the time. Even if, in years to come, the bouldering zeitgeist is replaced by a scrittly moorland bouldering fad or a return to trad bimbling, this just moves the problem to a different place. I suppose the challenge is to make it fashionable to be a non-seiging all-rounder.

Remind me where you climbed this weekend Will? 

[Will Hunt]

Yes yes, but I spend countless weekends not eroding Almscliff, so that when there is no other option I can visit the place with a clean conscience.

[teestub]

This is a microcosm of the wider point though; it's not where people climb on mint spring days when it's been dry for weeks, and even the infamous The Path of the Penitent Mole at Numberstones End is dry that's the issue, but where all these additional climbers will end up on days like Sunday.

[tomtom]

Earl. Obvs.

[Will Hunt]

Earl. Obvs.

 

This is a microcosm of the wider point though; it's not where people climb on mint spring days when it's been dry for weeks, and even the infamous The Path of the Penitent Mole at Numberstones End is dry that's the issue, but where all these additional climbers will end up on days like Sunday.

A few days in the season when a crag is very busy isn't going to ruin the crag, provided that everyone observes the rule of not parking like a dickhead. The problem comes when, on those mint spring days that you talk about when everything's dry, everyone is still going to Almscliff. The rock will be eroding faster because of the higher absolute number of ascents it's getting. Ground erosion similar - a busy day won't ruin things provided there are less busy times when it can recover.

[teestub]

I disagree with your summary of the situation but am not going to drag us more off topic.

Would be interested to hear what other UKBers think about the BMC increasing participation?

Reading the ORG text again, it’s woolly enough that the BMC could come out definitively and say that in their interests in preserving the environment and finite resources outweigh any desire for the membership to increase participation.

[Offwidth]

I'd like clarity in how the ORG recommendation leads to more detailed policy, yet I think its perfectly possible and mostly beneficial to encourage participation in hillwalking and climbing, whilst its obviously not benefical at all to encourage more climbers to go to say Kilnsey.  Indoors has plenty of participation expansion possibility that will provide BMC with funding, assist education on those moving outdoors (most don't seem to want to very often) and build on 'elf' and fitness in SE terms. Plenty of hillwalking and climbing venues would benefit from more traffic. As others have said, its happening anyhow so the BMC should collect subs, educate, influence. Spreading the load and good ninjaship I think is higher priority in BMC member's minds than the average participant. I wonder how many BMC members will be walking along the wall at Almscliffe compared to non members.

The Monty Python Romans joke has always applied well to the BMC... why should I join and what do they do for me?  Its not just access and education (and the pantomime evil of competitions), its a massive lobbying force, it purchases crags at risk  its important for safety testing and dissemination, its 'mending mountains',  it supports mountain heritage, it supoorts mountain training, it produces Peak area guidebooks, and its internationalist in spreading its ethos in a world of distorted climbing games , access disasters and bad behaviour.

[Footwork]

If the question is - "Should the BMC actively seek to increase participation?" - then I would vote against.

Lets looks at what would get hit first.

I go to the climbing wall roughly two times a week, get there around 8pm and stay until 10. It's pretty busy at 8 (sometimes raging) and usually dies down by 9. more participants means the walls being rammed further still and I can see climbing walls introducing a max number allowed in at once, (smart rubber soles only lads, or you need a group of girls with you) otherwise it would become chaos and probably be negligent / health and safety violation. Do I want to turn up to the wall to be told its a 10/20/30min wait? No thanks. Of course, this is hypothetical. I don't have much free time during the week and it pisses me off already when there's a load of shit new climbers on the 50 board taking pictures. I'm looking at you Nathaniel 

Then there's the crags. I disagree with the sentiment that a good route/problem gets wrecked the more people are around. Some of the best bouldering moments have been burning random euro's off in font or topping something out to the chant of 1000's allez's. Who doesn't enjoy a mercenary army of spotters / pads and encouragement. But then there have been the days at demon wall roof where some idiot noob keeps touching the holds on your project and won't let them catch the wind / let the grease dry off. But I can't say, hey, do you mind waiting 10 mins. I remember wanting to get on a route at Malham. The guy's rope was hanging on it and I asked if I could pull it and have a RP go. He said no, he was waiting for the clouds to have a go himself. There was no cloud in sight. Malham and Kilnsey will become like Ceuse, where people leave 50pence at the bottom of a route to take a place in the queue.

I don't think increased activity will mean more people will go to different crags. It means Caley and Almscliff will get absolutely hammered, as will Malham and Kilnsey. Poor behaviour on wet/damp rock will ruin trophies like Zoo York. People will always try and shove their cars where they shouldn't. I've also been at the cliff with people from London and Newcastle at the same time because 'everywhere else is wet'.

Further points.

Will increase in participation increase shoe and chalk prices? If yes then this is a non argument.

[Offwidth]

More indoor climbers means more walls as demand is met. It seems to me we have several new walls every year right now, especially for bouldering,

I'd be amazed if the BMC had half of those climbers producing parking problems at Kilnsey in its membership.  A few good mates who do guidebook work and access work are not even BMC members (I'll forgive them ... putting something significant back in the community is more impotant than their membership). These venues already facing problems from local participation growth are doing so as sports climbing and bouldering are fashionable and too many climbers are sheep. The BMC my be gently blowing in the direction of increased climber numbers but it certainly isnt supercharging any change. Also the BMC is one of the few forces for good in looking to reduce honeypot issues and I'd guess the overall effect is more climbers thinking about other venues or turning elsewhere if its rammed when they arrive. The BMC also chat with the landowner and calm then down and put up helpful signage when some climbing moron did the latest dumb thing so you can climb at the honeypot at all.

[abarro81]

The question is not whether the bmc is good or not,it's whether the goal of increasing participation should should be theret

[tomtom]

It would be bizarre (understatement) if any organisation did not promote increased participation...

Except maybe the satire society....

Oh - brexit kinda falls into that category too...

So following this through if you don’t want the BMC to increase participation then you are either
 
(A) a nostalgic old fool who doesn’t give a shit about the generations below you or
(B) at the bleeding edge of cool - chuckling away, stroking your freshly waxed beard, sipping Guinness from a jam jar and pretending to like jazz. KnowIng it’s all just a game. Right?

[teestub]

Tom, an example of an association with a not dissimilar playground who are explicitly not pro participation was given above.

The point I think most are trying to make is that people are getting into climbing anyway, they don’t need the BMC to be actively encouraging more people. The BMC do have a role in trying to get these new climbers into their membership so they’ve got money to pay for Shark’s Beemer (amongst other things).

[Will Hunt]

Tom, an example of an association with a not dissimilar playground who are explicitly not pro participation was given above.

The point I think most are trying to make is that people are getting into climbing anyway, they don’t need the BMC to be actively encouraging more people. The BMC do have a role in trying to get these new climbers into their membership so they’ve got money to pay for Shark’s Beemer (amongst other things).

+1.

OW, when you say that the BMC is "gently blowing" in the direction of increased participation, I don't think we'll be able to say this when the recommendations are implemented. The review gives the BMC a clear mandate, nay, an instruction, to think of specific measures that it will have to implement to increase participation.

TT, it's not that weird to not actively seek to increase participation. All you have to do is not write and implement the increased participation strategy that somebody is going to have to do.

[shark]

My beemer wishes to make it clear that it was fully paid for before its rider was employed by the bmc.

[abarro81]

It would be bizarre (understatement) if any organisation did not promote increased participation...

Can't work out if that was a joke or if you just didn't bother to read the entire thread?

[Davo]

Just to add my two penneth: I think the BMC is overall a great organisation and I am a member via a club. If I wasn't I would join up. However in the membership survey I was unequivocally against trying to increase participation and still am. I don't buy the argument that just because climbing is likely to become more popular the BMC should promote it. Personally I simply want the BMC to concentrate on the core job of access and representation. I thought the fell running example was a good idea and made complete sense.

Dave