[petejh]

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

This is the fundamental point in the debate really.

You think the BMC 'would be mental' not to work to increase participation.

A large number of us think that this isn't about the BMC; and that the BMC should take a back seat to the greater interests of current and future outdoor climbers, who - just like fell runners - don't appreciate any effort by a seemingly self-interested BMC to increase numbers of people (while recognising that increases will happen, and education is important) engaging in a potentially disruptive activity that takes place in a fragile limited environment.


Talk of Sport England funding is missing the point - lots of climbers couldn't care less if the BMC doesn't jump the hurdles required to get SE funding. I'm unconvinced it needs greater funding to carry out the most important core of its activities -  which current members have voted in the majority to say are: access, conservation, purchasing crags under threat, education/ spreading good practice.

[abarro81]

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?

1. I presume you don't sport climb in the UK much. Or boulder on limestone for that matter. Forward planning + UK conditions != happy climbers.

2. Why on earth would anyone ever be in favour of this as compared to not encouraging growth? The fact that you can think of a crap solution to a potential problem is not a reason to attempt to enhance/speed up the problem!

[Offwidth]

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

Ironic grinding turns, since its sports climbing venues facing much more participation pressure than than trad. Ken certainly thrived on debate.

I do wonder if the Yorkshire area access team had many more volunteers could some access pinch points have been avoided (if nothing else on weekends with perfect conditions giving up a few hours to wait and chat to climbers about to park badly at Kilnsey).

[highrepute]

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?

1. I presume you don't sport climb in the UK much. Or boulder on limestone for that matter. Forward planning + UK conditions != happy climbers.

2. Why on earth would anyone ever be in favour of this as compared to not encouraging growth? The fact that you can think of a crap solution to a potential problem is not a reason to attempt to enhance/speed up the problem!

1. More unhappy that having to queue for routes or access being removed for a reason relating to the number of people at a crag?

2. If overcrowding is a problem then the ticketing system directly addresses it.

(also playing devils advocate here)

[highrepute]

giving up a few hours to wait and chat to climbers about to park badly at Kilnsey

A nice idea

[asmallman]

In fact, I do sport climb in the UK as my main form of climbing and when I go south I tend to go to Yorkshire Limestone ie Malham. I don't boulder on limestone at all as I am part of a fortunate few to have access to lots of hillsides dripping in empty boulderfields....sorrynotsorry. I agree regarding forward planning, it works and has worked for me in the past.

Hence while I understand crowding is an issue at good sport crags, it's not a showstopper. Simply an inconvenience. In my ten years of sport climbing it hasn't got that much busier, just people appear to park more carelessly and generally take less care of their surroundings unfortunately.

If you read my next paragraph in that post I talk myself out of the permit idea, as, in reality, I do not hold this view. It is simply a solution which has been implemented elsewhere in the climbing world and works to solve the issue of crowding there.

Note, need to get faster at typing as I am lagging by about 3 replies each time...

[petejh]

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.

This is my own experience of 'volunteering' in a climbing context - i.e. It's mostly about what you as an individual decide to do or not do, and much less about doing it because the BMC or some other organisation leads the way.  It's very often individuals who make things happen, not organisations.
The argument often made in these debates, especially by Offwidth, is that we need the BMC to organise all the good voluntary work done within climbing, and therefore de-facto we should be supportive of growth of the BMC and increasing funding to the BMC. This is plainly false - a huge amount of 'voluntary' work within a climbing context goes unnoticed, unannounced and isn't directly organised by the BMC. However, where the BMC is great is in the background supply of funds or materials - I'm talking about fixed gear mainly but other stuff too. That isn't a massive cost in the big picture, but it carries a massive impact to the quality of a climber's experience. Same goes for crag access. Without which we wouldn't have much to experience.

I think organisations like the BMC are best when they're in the background, and not leading and trying to be bigger for the sake of being bigger. That isn't to say I don't think the BMC don't do great work - I think they do.

[spidermonkey09]

Re sport climbing, I'm in asmallman's camp here; I don't think overcrowding is that much of a problem on the whole. And yes, I live in Yorkshire and predominantly climb on the limestone in the summer. When conditions are good there is a good spread across Malham, Kilnsey and Gordale. When they're bad, it can be a bit busy but totally manageable. When they're terrible, the known permadry spots are rammed. Its all fairly straightforward and predictable. I don't buy that its busy all the time on my own experience; I've only had one or two really bad sessions where I couldn't get on the route (Zoolook and Sticky Wicket) towards the end of the season when they were one of the only things dry.

Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.

[asmallman]

Can Dan Turnip of this parish do a nicely edited video of Yew Cogar, Gordale, chapelhead scar to generally raise the profile of other crags which are equally as good? Such videos may already exist in Quality Chufftown vids.

This happened a few years ago with Northumberland bouldering after Nick Brown made a few quality vids of bouldering there. People flocked and things got busy for about 2 years but it seems to have died down a lot now from my own experience. Hepburn is a good example of a once underused crag swelling and becoming very popular which alleviated pressure on others nearby such as Kyloe and Bowden(s)

[abarro81]

 
highrepute you've missed the point. A ticketing system might 'work', but the discussion is about avoiding needing one. If you don't think a ticketing system would suck ass then you're hitting the crack too hard.

asmallman: != means "does not equal", not "equals". Forward planning on UK conditions is about as much fun as going shopping then discovering that the shop you went to has no food and there being no other shop nearby. (All while the hommies over the road much on delicious millefreuille to add insult to injury.)

RE: crowding vs not, when I moved to Sheffield (about 10 yrs ago?) I spent a few years going to Malham/Tor/K without ever seeing anyone on anything harder than about 8b unless it was Steve. Nowadays if you want to climb a good 8c you will be in the queue. Not that anacdote gets us anywhere since.... The discussion is about whether the BMC should have promoting climbing written into its being, and whether it should promote it. So whilst it might be acceptable now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned about what it might be like in the future 

[JR]

Two points abbarro1:

Like offwidth said earlier, the BMC can and will prioritise access etc over raising participation.  That'll be driven by the views of the majority of members.

It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it.  Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future.  The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.

Ticketing systems are taking it to the extreme, but it wouldn't be incomprehensible, for example, that a farmer/landowner says no more than X climbers or no access at all.  Avoiding or managing those situations in the future, if participation does continue to increase, which is happening irrespective of the BMC's position, won't happen without increased resource and effort, both volunteer and from the BMC/ACT.

[abarro81]

Like offwidth said earlier, the BMC can and will prioritise access etc over raising participation.  That'll be driven by the views of the majority of members.

That's good. Although it does presume that things set in motion can be undone/fixed, which isn't always the case.

It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it.  Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future.  The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.

[T_B]

Bat Route became very popular once it went up to 8c. No one even considered it 10 years ago.

Same with Mandela until Ste flashed it.

Is there are queue below The Yorkshire Ripper?

The popularity of some of these routes has little to do with the general increase in number of folks climbing and more about fashion/laziness/logbooks/soft touches/social media. IMO.

[Offwidth]

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.

This is my own experience of 'volunteering' in a climbing context - i.e. It's mostly about what you as an individual decide to do or not do, and much less about doing it because the BMC or some other organisation leads the way.  It's very often individuals who make things happen, not organisations.
The argument often made in these debates, especially by Offwidth, is that we need the BMC to organise all the good voluntary work done within climbing, and therefore de-facto we should be supportive of growth of the BMC and increasing funding to the BMC. This is plainly false - a huge amount of 'voluntary' work within a climbing context goes unnoticed, unannounced and isn't directly organised by the BMC. However, where the BMC is great is in the background supply of funds or materials - I'm talking about fixed gear mainly but other stuff too. That isn't a massive cost in the big picture, but it carries a massive impact to the quality of a climber's experience. Same goes for crag access. Without which we wouldn't have much to experience.

I think organisations like the BMC are best when they're in the background, and not leading and trying to be bigger for the sake of being bigger. That isn't to say I don't think the BMC don't do great work - I think they do.

Thats complete nonsense what you acuse me of.  I've always supported volunteering inside or outside the organisation here and elsewhere. I've said again in this thread I'd rather people volunteer than donate or join, but at least do something (most climbers still do nothing at all).

If we had no BMC we would have to invent one to help coordinate things like national access themes, lobbying, educational and safety work.

On my alleged views on BMC growth...I'm more concerned at the moment with shrinkage. thats the current funding reality in  difficult and busy times and all the negativity on the BMC can't help recruitment, especially from well established climbers. The growth in participation within the BMC remit I strongly support is indoors and in hill walking . Hill walking paths need better monitoring: I'm worried about numerous areas where a stronger hillwalking BMC membership could help alongside other walking organisations. I was particularly shocked by the state of named major paths around Forest of Dean whilst taxi driving for a recent NC meeting. Fences have sprung up all over the north Peak, blocking freedom to roam and ease of  access to moorland climbing. Also the more mundane eg  littering, like the dogshit bags around Pendle Hill that is annoying the farmer so much he is putting up angry signage. My view on climbing participation is it only trad that currently needs more traffic and then only away from honeypots. Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation. These access issues are concrete and need help now and were caused by bad behaviour of experienced climbers (what beginners climb at Kilnsey and Whitehouses).  I find hyperbolic speculation about the effects of BMC mission statements in this context very unhelpful.

Background or foreground input from the BMC depends on the circumstances and scope of the issues in their remit.

[asmallman]

Agreed abarro81, we're getting a bit off-topic and discussing the impact rather than the issue itself, which is a hypothetical situation and therefore speculation.

Back to the main issue and to repeat myself, climbing is booming at the moment due to a number of factors and this is evident in the amount of indoor walls and indoor participation as a gateway to the sport. Good. More facilities are available and the community is fuller and people are enjoying climbing.

The sport is growing without the BMCs input and it feels it is getting left behind. It is therefore an internal marketing issue for the BMC and it needs to raise it's profile in the climbing community. A campaign to promote the sport is like pouring a bottle of water down an waterfall and saying, "I'm helping" but you're left with the same waterfall and an empty bottle.

IF those people choose to go outside they will gravitate towards the best and most well known areas first, good. We have no right to deny them access to the best the UK has to offer. In general, I have not felt such a detrimental impact to my access to quality limestone sport climbing over the past decade as a result of the increased participation enough to prevent me from doing the activity. Sure I get annoyed with busy crowds but hey, I'll get over it.

If a couple of weekends of the year you can;t get on your 8b project. Good. you're good enough to enjoy all the high quality high 7s the limestone has to offer.

 

[highrepute]

It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it.  Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future.  The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.

I don't understand what is here for you?

I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.

Do you see it differently?

[Offwidth]

Incidently, although we don't have ticketing, numerous number limitations  happen already in the UK.  Many crags have a seek permission from the landowner before climbing access instruction, others have a 'no groups' access message, some say no access, so if you must go keep a low profile. Green guide group advice is commonly go elsewhere if a crag is very busy. Don't take your dog is another limitation due to specific access issues on some crags.

[tomtom]

Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective

(a) how many crags/places/sites are there where people can climb (for free) outdoors in the UK?

(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?

I would guess
(a) more than a thousand
(b) less than ten

[JR]

I don't understand what is here for you?

I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.

Do you see it differently?

Correct.  And the tide will turn eventually, but given the sector figures (particularly from indoor), it won't be a for a good while yet.  The point is, the BMC should actively support the organisations that have a narrow remit around participation, where they're doing it responsibly (de facto they do that through umbrella funding, but there's also general partnership etc) and influence if they're not.  If walls are going to start running "going outdoors" sessions, then BMC is better supporting that via "how to do it responsibly and not damage access, use the RAD" campaigns etc (as they do already and should increase).  And via clubs too.  Simply coming out against the whole thing doesn't get us anywhere.

[petejh]

Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.

Quite simply - why?

[Offwidth]

Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective

(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?

I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.

[Offwidth]

Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.

Quite simply - why?

Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining.

[petejh]

I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.

So why is it a good thing for the BMC to encourage even one more person to climb?

[asmallman]

Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective

(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?

I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.

Can't say it's a problem at all North of the Border, geographically closest thing with issues regarding overuse is probably Bowden (as stated  without saying it by offwidth).

Sport climbing-wise only Dunkeld really gets busy but it has about 4 lines on a wall so if 3 groups show up then you have to wait. But then all you have to do is communicate with another human being and come to a compromise and maybe even make a friend...but we can't have that eh

[petejh]

Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.

Quite simply - why?

Because it will risk being seen as an outside interefering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that, like walls and group instruction. You don't facilitate benefical change by being on the outside complaining.

I don't care.  I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?

What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.