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.
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.
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
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
ethnic minorities
Quote from: tk421a on March 15, 2018, 08:48:42 amRecommendation 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 participationBroadening membership does not necessarily have to imply actively targeting increased participation, given that many climbers are not members.
Quote from: tk421a on March 15, 2018, 08:48:42 am 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.
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.
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.
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.
@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?
Quote from: asmallman on March 15, 2018, 10:09:50 amIs 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!
Quote from: asmallman on March 15, 2018, 10:09:50 amIs 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.