[asmallman]

Someone read my ramble! huzzah!

TT - I am neither a bitter old bumbly or a beany/vest combo kombucha drinker but I do fail to see why the BMC should implement this policy, which would drain their funds, when the sport is already growing exponentially due to increased exposure generally (via commercial organisations, media coverage and the dreaded Olympics). This seems like a duplication of efforts and, therefore, a waste of resources.

Myself, and a few others on here by the looks of it, feel that the BMC would benefit from a general shift in climbers views towards the organisation and increased uptake in membership by the already growing community, rather than by growing the community without any effort to increase the percentage of those, like myself, who have never bothered to join.

Having said all this, after some research I do think I will consider joining as I now have the guilt of unknowingly taking advantage of the BMCs good work for a decade...

[tomtom]

Some facts.

1. I’ve not read the entire thread. Sadly work and travel got in the way.
2. Sharks BMW was Not paid for from the BMC’s coffers. I have it on good authority it was financed by his people smuggling operation (he hides the fact he owns a string of aquatic themed nail bars across West Yorkshire).
3. I was trying to be funny.

But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing. The BMC has to try and ride with the wave rather than just let it slosh over them and disappear off into the sunset.

[asmallman]

This is no place for jokes, climbing is about bureaucracy and facts! No room for joy and creativity here, we'll have no shouting here!

Point taken and agreed with, raising the profile of the BMC alongside the increasing profile of the sport generally is a good thing. If only I were a freelance marketing consultant...

[tk421a]

This is a long post, I think there are a couple of different angles that haven't been brought up. Hopefully it's got some interest to some.

I've been following a lot of this the last couple years. I'm a BMC member, but only rarely (once or twice a year) climb outdoors in the UK, with most trips being abroad. I joined to go to the climbing coach symposium / do MT courses. Currently working at a wall.

1) Indoors vs Outdoors
Whether or not outdoor participation is increasing - it's indisputable that indoor participation is increasing. Recommendation #5 specifically highlights indoor climbing as "an important activity to the majority of its members". If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window. Walls will be looking to increase participation individually, and also as an industry (see ABC's moves - https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/overview-2018-ceo-graham-atkins/). The BMC could be for increased indoor participation, but does not mean it's for increased outdoor participation. If the BMC doesn't participate, what is its strategy / relevance indoors? Even if it's support is luke warm does it have a place? Comp climbing (including YCS etc) moving to be run by the ABC / other organisation?

2) Increasing participation - through promoting it widely or removing barriers / widening access.
Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation

3) Where does funding come in?
Shark - I realise that SE funding is not directly mandated to increase participation and is focused on the Youth stuff. However, their strategy is titled "Towards an Active Nation" and the headline is "We'll spend £250 million to combat inactivity as part of five-year strategy". I'd be surprised if they were to provide funding that was not seen to increase participation. What will the BMC do if faced between (a) a systemic reduction ~20% reduction in funding (based on 2016 accounts). Does the BMC represent members' interests only, or an organisation that takes responsibility for climbing as a activity - and receive directed funding.

/ramble over 

P.S. I'd imagine increase in participation will decrease shoe prices - increased volumes for manufacturers / distributors / retailers, increased competition  as well.

[Yossarian]

What i’ve noticed in the SE is that it’s the walls themselves that are massively driving participation. Our local wall has hugely popular kids clubs which have a waiting list in the 1000s. Admittedly a proportion of that is the white Range Rover brigade who want to offload kids for a couple of hours at the weekend, but I’m fairly sure that a good proportion will end up watching YouTube vids and decide they want to go outside. Ditto in London, where though the walls have a higher entry age for kids, the progress curve is steeper.

The way I see it, the real impact of increased numbers is going to come in 5-10 years time.

[mrjonathanr]

If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window.

As Yossarian points out, a proportion of índoor only climbers will evolve into outdoor climbers so the issue does not disappear entirely.

There’s a need to think ahead and consider if we (BMC members) are happy with likely outcomes of policy.

[Teaboy]

But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing. The BMC has to try and ride with the wave rather than just let it slosh over them and disappear off into the sunset.

You've failed to grasp the argument, this is not about the BMC increasing its membership from an ever increasing pool of climbers it's about increasing that pool through its own efforts to the detriment of existing climbers. The growth is happening anyway and unfettered growth is not good for all climbers, if you are a mid extreme climber in the Lakes you'd probably love to see more climbers, if you are a wall owner ditto but if you are a sport climber in the north then you will be affected by these increased numbers.  Let's face it, these walls are full of kids and young adults climbing V6 and upwards after a few months, full of experienced climbers training like demons if they want to do roped climbing they are not going to go and 1-4-7 their way up a VS in the Lakes but will head for Malham and Kilnsey and get on the 8s. If you wanted to do likewise there are very few alternative venues, you can't just go to a different crag. If you climb in upper 8s and 9 there are even fewer venues. Bare in mind too that many of these classic routes share starts or finishes, there are probably only a hundred or so independent grade 8 routes in Yorkshire (I don't want to give the impression I climb them, I'm arguing for a friend!)

[abarro81]

But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing

Not sure I buy this, certainly not without further explanation. Why would it be mental to be target at those already participating, especially those newly participating who may need education, rather than outreach to those not participating?

[T_B]

Presumably the increasing participation aim is to do with receiving funding? I can only think that's what would make sense. It would be good to know definitively.

Indoor climbing is booming, but I'm still not convinced there are more people overall at the crags. My concerns are the environmental impacts at places such as Stanage Plantation, but that's not about more users per se. I'd blame the rise in social media/climbing logbooks and the herd mentality.

Selfishly I'm less bothered about parking at Malham/Kilnsey. Though I will say we effectively lost access to Blue Scar by upsetting the landowner and that was down to very experienced climbers.

I wonder if the 'problem' is that big. Annoying if you have a project at Kilnsey, but I tend to avoid the honeypots in the Peak now (or go at unsociable times) as they're so busy.

[abarro81]

Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation

Broadening membership does not necessarily have to imply actively targeting increased participation, given that many climbers are not members.

[Muenchener]

ethnic minorities

This one clearly not helped by a cabal of crusty old white guys driving a - by all accounts excellent - President of Colour to resign.

(Or does that belong in the other thread?)

[tk421a]

Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation

Broadening membership does not necessarily have to imply actively targeting increased participation, given that many climbers are not members.

True. Although I'd say that probably BMC membership isn't far off being representative of climbers across the age / gender / ethnicity. Therefore if the BMC were to be less white / male / old then increasing participation would be necessary through widening access. (The whole gender / ethnicity access issue is its own  )

If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window.

As Yossarian points out, a proportion of índoor only climbers will evolve into outdoor climbers so the issue does not disappear entirely.

There’s a need to think ahead and consider if we (BMC members) are happy with likely outcomes of policy.

Yep. However, I'd be surprised if more than a few % of new indoor climbers venture outside regularly.

[spidermonkey09]

I think my point of view mostly aligns with TT's in that I think the BMC has to be seen to be encouraging participation as an umbrella group representing climbers. I think to not do so would fuck the organisation long term, appearing aloof, elitist and full of grumpy old bastards. I appreciate very few of those expressing reservations on here fit that category but I do think thats how it would appear to those who will start climbing organically. Perception is everything.

To be honest, I think that impression exists among climbers anyway (surprised at how many of those commenting here aren't members for example; perhaps a reason why?) and will only get worse unless they take steps to address it rather than fudging the issue, as Shark has referred to.

 That said, there is clearly significant dissent on this and I'd also like to see how the BMC intend to promote participation whilst also protecting access/environment.

However, I'm not sure the longing comparisons to the FRA are wholly appropriate. Fell running is not an accurate comparison to climbing in my view. It differs in several key ways; there is no indoor fell running community as far as I'm aware, and I suspect the existing community is strongly concentrated in the mountainous regions of the UK rather than spread across the country. This is the opposite of climbing, which I would guess has a much bigger community, has a massive indoor dimension and is spread right across the UK. No stats for any of this but I don't think you can just transpose  the FRA policy across. Happy to be proved wrong!

[Teaboy]

Presumably the increasing participation aim is to do with receiving funding? I can only think that's what would make sense. It would be good to know definitively.

Quite, it is the question I've been seeking an answer to, someone on the UKC thread said their is link to funding but that has been contradicted by another trustworthy source. However, even if it is most external funding is usually ring fenced for particular projects, and those re not usually access related which, in my view, is what the BMC should primarily be about.

Selfishly I'm less bothered about parking at Malham/Kilnsey. Though I will say we effectively lost access to Blue Scar by upsetting the landowner and that was down to very experienced climbers.

I wonder if the 'problem' is that big. Annoying if you have a project at Kilnsey, but I tend to avoid the honeypots in the Peak now (or go at unsociable times) as they're so busy.

It obviously isn't as 73% voted I favour growth in participation (although given the confusion on this and the UKC thread I wonder if everyone truly understood the question/implication) however if you sport climb or climb on Southern Sandstne or Boulder at Stange it may be an issue and if it is it's certainly not one that going to get better and increasing participation is only going to make it worse.

[JR]

As one of the ORG members it's pretty interesting watching this discussion and as a climber of >20 years I'm all too sensitive to these access, environmental, conservation vs participation/growth concerns and sit along nodding to many of the concerns. However, it seems that there's one of these false dichotomies going on as has happened in many of the discussions across this process i.e. the BMC can only be X or Y.  Part of this broader issue is that the BMC has to communicate what it is to members on X and Y.

Take all this in context (and in the context of other recommendations made):

• The BMC is the representative body for climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers (includes indoor climbing and being the GB for competitive activities)
• The BMC has an Access and Conservation Trust already (ACT) - you can donate directly and top-up a donation when you join the BMC
• Access is a major (the highest) priority for members
• It's recommended the BMC looks at how it uses ACT (and its governance of it) in R22
73% of the members surveyed were pro increasing participation (survey available here: https://johnroberts.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BMC-Organisational-Review-Member-Survey-Report.pdf)
• Participation has increased (look at the climbing wall market growth (both walls and participation - 1 million unique people climbing indoors per year)
• Climbing wall regulation is being mooted already with the AALA consultation (https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/abc-feedback-aala-review-submitted/)
• When the next "Active Lives" stats come out on March 22 it's highly possible that by their measures CHM will overtake football participation (a big chunk is hillwalking)
• The part of the sport we're generally discussing in this thread is a relatively small part of participation numbers overall, but is also growing in absolute terms (subset data is limited)
• People are transitioning to those parts of the sport via the walls, and I know anecdotally that walls are being asked by customers to support their move outdoors.
• The BMC effectively actively promotes those aspects and more already through it's own marketing, BMC TV videos, grant funding etc as not all this is accessed solely by members
• Like it or not, climbing is in the Olympics and that will continue to drive participation increases in the general population, mainly to walls.
• The BMC is the whole sport SE funding channel for charities and schemes like NICAS (110k+ young people gone through the scheme 5050 gender split), Mountain Training, ABC etc.  One joint bid goes in, and the BMC distributes the money to the sector (it can't do that at the moment because BMC doesn't meet the governance requirements of such an "umbrella organisation")

What does that look like in the real world:

The BMC can "responsibly" support participation and growth (that's happening around it), climbing walls, the ABC (and responding to things like tha AALA consultation), organisations like NICAS/NIBAS and increase support for ACT and use it to actively campaign to reduce participation where there are real conservation/honeypotting/access issues or at least promote spreading participation and impact.  The BMC can't stop the current changes in participation but it can try to positively influence them.  The BMC is already more than an access organisation, and we've tried to create recommendations that balance all that.

The BMC as a whole could take a backward step away from its current trajectory, and potentially isolate itself from partners, both within the sector, and also SE and government.  If that happens it's very likley that another organisation will have to take on the mantle of being that umbrella organisation, with all sorts of potential negative effects across the sector, including limiting the BMC's influence wholsesale.  What we've tried to do is avoid recommending that fragmentation, and get the sector working together a bit more effectively, broadly within what's already happening.

And finally, our recommendations aren't fixed in terms of implementation from here on it, and it's up to the BMC to look at how best to implement a strategy around R7 and 8 on the basis of its broader context (if it, and the membership wishes to).  It's got to get that balance right, so these discussions are important.  I'd probably urge everyone with concerns to raise them, thinking about the broader contextm, and get the BMC to promote ACT and how it's used as a charitable subsidiary, and how it supports volunteers.  And did you donate to ACT when you joined or renewed?

And for what its worth, and as a member, I suspect the FRA will have its own crunch point in future given the rise in skyrunning and all that.  It's 7% of the size of the BMC and it's not really comparable in scale, nor in the breadth of activities it represents.  As a long time fell runner too, I'd admit, it's a pretty niche sport, why would you want to participate as it's generally sleeting, you've lost your breath, as well as your place in the field and on the map, you've run out of energy, and then you fall in half frozen cowshit? 

[asmallman]

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".

Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.

Separately, I think we are talking about the effect of increased participation rather than the idea of it.

I would love if more people had the joy of climbing in their lives. I agree with abarro and T_B that the increase in indoor numbers isn't directly proportional to the increase in those climbing outside. Without facts, we are all just going on effectively how we feel and that comes with the negative bias of only remembering the bad days at the crag when it's busy rather than the days when you have a nice day at the crag. Has the mean number of climbers over the years actually increased outside?

Answer: We don't know.

Caveat: Have just read JRs reply as I typed this - Mucho waddage for providing information and providing an element of quantitative data. I, for one, didn't realise that direct contributions can be made to the ACT and shall do so.

[abarro81]

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".

Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.

Fuck. That. Shit. Not the cost, just the whole idea of having to decide in advance, book you ticket, blah blah blah. Similarly, I have no issue paying to be in a park in the US but having to get permits from a limited number would piss me right off. Should probably not go to Hueco in a hurry!

[Teaboy]

@JR (didn't want to quote the whole thing).

Thanks for the reply John but this isn't about the activities the BMC is involved in (I've absolutely no beef with any of these) but why it needs a policy of encouraging "growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents".
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?

[Teaboy]

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".

Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.

No it fucking wouldn't! It's the exact manifestation of the issue I'm afraid of: people who want to go climbing but being prevented from doing so because there are too many climbers. The issue of too many climbers is not to increase the number of climbers which is what a policy of encouraging growth does.

I recognise that none of this matters if you don't believe there are, or going to be, to many climbers but it is my contention that there may soon be. This is based on two things:
Growth in outdoor climbing will come mainly in bouldering but in second place will be sport climbing.
We have very limited sport climbing resources in the UK.

[JR]

All good questions, but it is about the bigger picture for the whole organisation.

1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?

Broadly, yes, but not "just" because.  You're missing the bigger picture.

2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?

When we did the survey BMC was though to do a good job generally, in access too.  In the last few months, we've had whitehouses, almscliff issues and more.  This won't improve with increasing participation, but nor will the BMC's ability to effectively support all these concerns if it rejects its place in the wider landscape.  Do you donate to ACT?  Will you if you leave the BMC as you said on UKC?

3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?

Participation is already there, the BMC is catching up with what's going on around it.  A reasonable strategy for it will need to be discussed and debated - get involved and influence rather than walking away from your membership.  Given the limited resource for sport climbing in the UK, it will need to be very carefully done, and you care.

[Offwidth]

@JR (didn't want to quote the whole thing).

Thanks for the reply John but this isn't about the activities the BMC is involved in (I've absolutely no beef with any of these) but why it needs a policy of encouraging "growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents".
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?

The BMC is membership led and access is their top priority. It is precisely because of the BMC good work that participation issues would be much less serious than if the BMC took a back seat on participation.  Logically, given the views of the members and how they will drive priorities,  any increases in participation will always be secondary to specific access pressures. The idea the exec will run riot because of a few words encouraging responsible increases in participation is rather ludicrous in such context. The BMC are constained to look at access issues first and foremost.

I'd add something to JRs excellent post, as ACT donations to me, although generous and very useful, are not the most effective way to help. The most effective actions are to volunteer to help BMC local area access teams, crag clean ups etc.  As a climbing community it would be great if as many of us as possible talk to climbers who are potentially causing access issues by their actions, be we BMC members or not.

[JR]

Not often said, but with Offwidth

[yetix]

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".

Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.

Fuck. That. Shit. Not the cost, just the whole idea of having to decide in advance, book you ticket, blah blah blah. Similarly, I have no issue paying to be in a park in the US but having to get permits from a limited number would piss me right off. Should probably not go to Hueco in a hurry!

+1

[asmallman]

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".

Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.

No it fucking wouldn't! It's the exact manifestation of the issue I'm afraid of: people who want to go climbing but being prevented from doing so because there are too many climbers. The issue of too many climbers is not to increase the number of climbers which is what a policy of encouraging growth does.

I recognise that none of this matters if you don't believe there are, or going to be, to many climbers but it is my contention that there may soon be. This is based on two things:
Growth in outdoor climbing will come mainly in bouldering but in second place will be sport climbing.
We have very limited sport climbing resources in the UK.

Apologies lads, just playing devil's advocate and trying to suggest an alternative to simply reducing the growth of the community. It was Hueco I had in mind but this is much larger in scale to the single crags we are discussing. I know it would be an inconvenience but would it really stop you if you knew that on a prime day you had access to a crag with the correct number of similarly forward planning and enthusiastic people at it?

To my mind, this would only happen at a select few sport crags in the country (Malham, Kilnsey (why does no-one go to Gordale or Chapel Head?!), LPT, Raven Tor... although this would be impossible to police and organise and is therefore never going to happen.

To add a general point, engaging with the BMC rather than detaching is the only productive way forward. "voting with your feet" doesn't work as it simply leaves the BMC full of people colluding and inflating their own views rather than settling out at the mean view of the community. After all, the only reason any of us are writing on this thread is WE CARE.

I agree with offwidth regarding community involvement, I took part in a Dumby clean up day for a couple of years (the only two times it happened that I can remember) and it was great and certainly helped rid this unique climbing/outdoor pub in to a nice place for a few days. This was all done through the local people rather than through the BMC.

[SA Chris]

If you put your ear to the ground you will hear the sound of Ken Wilson turning.