[Paul B]

Sorry Shark, I promised to reply but this week has been a bit hectic (and the debate seems to have moved on fine without me). Next week won't be much better so hopefully this doesn't come across as a grenade-and-run approach:

If we are for it with caveats we can base actions and decisions around it and similarly if we are against. The membership survey indicated that the majority are in favour of pro-participation overall.

Which is fine, and I accept that's the case but I don't hold that view (and I'm not overly fond of the Brexit means Brexit scenario).

Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits?

Simply put yes. I've done a fair amount of climbing the USA now including a 6-7 month trip and the worst part about it all is the red tape you have to jump through to climb.
My last trip (Nov ish) was to Red Rocks (for the 2nd time) and the permiting system actually indirectly restricts where climbers can and can't go (rather than causing any spread); although not overly relevant to the Big K, if you consider a route of ~10 pitches with either a walk-down descent or abseil, with a walk-in (and thus out) of up to 2 hours and combine it with a loop road that doesn't open until ~6AM and shuts at 5pm (a later exit permit buying you a whopping extra hour), with <12 hours of daylight you can see where I'm coming from. Then consider that you're liable for a fairly hefty fine if you're not out on time (and having to ring in and change your permit for a route should you change your mind etc.) then the permitting system detracts from the experience and in reality has zero effect on finding yourself gumby-f*cked on your route of choice as it doesn't police against it.

In the context of pro-participation this is turkey's voting for Christmas then campaigning to have it brought forward. I just can't see why anyone would want this in the slightest?

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.

But they're not are they? You've listed some good crags, with some good (and some truly great) routes that arguably should get more traffic but they don't have the volume of routes to go at and they're less reliable which makes them less appealing as somewhere to go and find yourself a redpoint project.

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.

I think you're way off the mark here Tom. Yes there is localised honey-potting under routes such as dead calm (but considering the number of variations this isn't surprising).
Talk to the Sheffield lot that venture north (usually on a Wed) and ask why they choose to do so. Sure, there's not a massive queue beneath the 'ripper but I'd think you'd be surprised by the routes (spread across the crag) that received attention this past year.

For me here's the crunch (and I'm wary of saying this as I've had many positive experiences with the BMC and a number of BMC staff from this parish): from contacting the BMC first about the parking issues at Kilnsey it took ~2 weeks to receive a response; IMO (perhaps I'm nuts) it's a crag that's of national importance and that just feels too slow. I'm not sure I even received a response to my last few.

As I voiced at the time (after attending the area meet specifically for this reason) there was the general feeling that it was treated as having been 'handled' which I'm just not convinced of.

It's a bit extreme but imagine there was an email from someone having visited Whitheouses that said "The farmer is walking round with a big hammer muttering about making us a few 'real problems', can someone have a word?" which was found 2 weeks later, along with a vandalised crag.

I just don't think the systems of old are ready for increasing pressures and if the mandate exists to grow participation with access still being the number one concern of the membership I think this needs addressing (and quickly).

[webbo]

This may have been mentioned before. I heard a BMW advert on Classic FM of all places, which had a theme of “Unleash your inner rebel” and they were advertising events to do this and first thing mentioned was bouldering events.
No wonder crags are getting fucked if this is how bouldering/ climbing is portrayed.

[mrjonathanr]

Personally I think two things about all this.

1 I'm a member and broadly, a fan of the BMC, believing that it does a lot of good work representing members' interests.

2 Serve the interests of its members is all it should do. Growing its membership from existing climbers is perfectly sensible but it has absolutely no business trying to expand participation. That is not its mandate (from me at least) and fundamentally in conflict with conservation aims.

caveat: those who want to explore the support should be supported eg youth meets, clubs and mentoring etc but supporting beginners isn't the same as actively seeking out new members.

[petejh]

.....
 I'm really puzzled why you look at the BMC through such suspicious eyes.

I don't entirely. I agree with both of jonathanr's points above and agree the BMC does a lot of great stuff.
I'd add that yes I'm naturally 'slightly' suspicious of a large organisation - because they are a large organisation. That shouldn't really need spelling out to anyone who's attracted to climbing at least in part because of the feelings it engenders of freedom, non-conformity, personal responsibility and adventure. 


When it comes to pro-participation, just ask 'who benefits?'.

It isn't climbers; it is the BMC. That's not the way things should be.

[shark]

When it comes to pro-participation, just ask 'who benefits?'.

It isn't climbers; it is the BMC. That's not the way things should be.

Who benefits? The participants for starters.

Participation is not just newcomers coming into the sport.Participation can be increased or decreased by existing climbers and hillwalkers doing more or doing less. 

There seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so.

Did you never share your toys as a child?

[reeve]

Did you never share your toys as a child?

Simon, this is your fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of most people who are against pro-participation. Personally I am very willing to share my toys with others who already want to play, but with a limited number of fragile toys to go at I am not going to go wandering the neighbourhood looking for people who probably aren't as interested in playing and are more likely to lead to the toy breaking.

[shark]

Pete posits that pro participation is purely a BMC empire building scheme as if there is no other possible reasons for backing pro participation. I think there is a higher purpose to share what we enjoy especially if we are what we claim to be, a national body beyond just members interests. To fundamentally shut down that pro participation is bad as Pete does can only be rooted in entitlement and selfishness. You can dress it up how you like. We all here participate. If participation is a problem then we are logically the problem. The BMC is potentially for responsible participation. The detail of that, as JR said,  is yet to be debated and worked out. I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.

[ferret]

I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.

Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?

[shark]

Well let’s assume I’m not a liar and you explain why my opinion is idiotic

[shark]

I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.

Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?

In answer to your edited post explain why a locally organised BMC climbing festival (of which there are many) and Caff teaching trad skills to newbies (possibly from under privileged backgrounds) is morally or environmentally different.

[mrjonathanr]

Hi Simon, climbing ... it's a life enhancing (and possibly for a lot of ukbers, life-defining) activity and few would discourage others from taking it up but there's a reasonable sense of concern about what pro-participation means in practice.

Personally I think the BMC should be massively welcoming and facilitating - but up to a point, supporting the interested rather than creating the interest.

It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies.

[Teaboy]

EDIT: Probably best not to let myself be drawn in further, I think most people are seeing this not about elitism or stopping people doing anything.

[shark]

Hi Simon, climbing ... it's a life enhancing (and possibly for a lot of ukbers, life-defining) activity and few would discourage others from taking it up but there's a reasonable sense of concern about what pro-participation means in practice.

Personally I think the BMC should be massively welcoming and facilitating - but up to a point, supporting the interested rather than creating the interest.

It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies.

"It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies." 

I understand the reasonable sense of concern and the consequences and that efforts are put in to mitigating that. I gave examples of a couple of pro-participative things that the BMC already does for new entrants and existing users, I think these are positive and should be encouraged - maybe other pro participation initiatives wouldn't be - a thousand teenage abseilers at Stanage for a day for example.

As a National body we should be in conversation on wider national issues of health and well being. The approach of being pro participation with responsibility sits well with me. A wholesale anti participation stance would be myopic.   

[shark]

There seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so.

It's a shame that after all this debate you are still coming out with this. This isn't about elitism, wanting to ban anyone or a sense of entitlement. Everyone is entitled to go wherever they want on exactly the same basis what I don't understand is the need to press gang people into going.

It is driven by selfishness but I don't see anyone losing out by not forcing growth whereas there are (or could be) losers with increased participation. If it was a case that me giving up my place at Malham lead to some significant, tangible improvement in someone's life then I'd have to consider it but some hypothetical improvement in someone's well being which will, at best, only be equal to my loss then no I'll choose me every time.

Maybe your views would differ if you were likely to be affected by the issues. How, for instance, would you would react if some third party's actions impinged on your access to, say, eatswood or Crag X?

You are honest enough to say it is driven by selfishness. The consequence of that is you are wanting to have more share of the sport and crags than the general population. On what moral basis? That you got there first?

If that's the position then it is equally reasonable to ask you to do less as it is for you not to enable others to enter the sport.

I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails  etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.

If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....   

 

[Teaboy]

I deleted my last answer because I didn't want to be drawn into the debate further, but obviously I wasn't quick enough, hopefully this will be my last contribution

You are honest enough to say it is driven by selfishness. The consequence of that is you are wanting to have more share of the sport and crags than the general population. On what moral basis? That you got there first?

No, not more, exactly the same. How many times does it need to be repeated that no one wants to stop anyone accessing the crags?

If that's the position then it is equally reasonable to ask you to do less as it is for you not to enable others to enter the sport.

I'm not asking anyone to do less though.

I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails  etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.

There are more chances than ever for people to enter the sport.

If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....

Like I said, if you are not really affected you're concerns are going to be different.

[danm]

Increasing participation isn't just a case of persuading people to climb who otherwise wouldn't be interested. It's about helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled, for under-represented groups, and so on. It's also about aiding the transition from trying climbing out to becoming a keen regular, or moving from indoors to outdoors, summer only to winter climbing and alpinism, and so on.

The wording of the recommendation, and every person I've spoken to who is for it are clear that this isn't about getting more numbers into the sport at any cost. It's about agreeing that as a body the BMC is in favour of increased participation (and why not, climbing and walking are flipping amazing) in principle but that this needs to be balanced with the needs to conserve the natural resources and environment in which we pursue many aspects of the sport.

Is this much different to other stakeholders, for example national parks, who have to balance allowing and promoting access to wild spaces whilst conserving it?

I see two major risks in not being involved in promoting participation (remembering this won't be a free for all but a calculated and targeted strategy) - 1) you risk losing credibility with other organisations, when your credibility is your best weapon when fighting your corner 2) promotion involves contact with new entrants to the sport, who you give up on the opportunity to influence for the better right at the beginning.

The FRA have been mentioned as a model to emulate. No disrespect to them, but that's a shit analogy to follow imho. Because they don't promote, loads of people end up doing variations on fell running such as sky running, and other challenge events, which have a different ethos, and often cause conflict by dodgy practices such as leaving out markers, placing anchors and leaving paint flashes. The FRA have no influence or credibility with these people, but at least their tiny membership is happy and can complain about those who don't follow the true path.

In summary, I think it's better to try and stay at the core of things and be an influential body. Concerns about over-use and saturation of venues are completely valid, but I feel are better dealt with by a strong and respected organisation, because if we aren't involved in promotion (and asserting some control over it) then someone else will do it who doesn't have the same care as we all do for the places we climb and walk.

That's a purely personal view by the way, democracy will take its own course and I'm sure there will be plenty of debate about this in area meetings and whatever other methods are available in the future for the membership to decide what they wish to do.

[mrjonathanr]

It's about helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled,

Massively in favour of that.

[ferret]

I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.

Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?

In answer to your edited post explain why a locally organised BMC climbing festival (of which there are many) and Caff teaching trad skills to newbies (possibly from under privileged backgrounds) is morally or environmentally different.

If we are talking about specifically targeting the under privileged versus putting on a get everybody come and try climbing open event, I think there is an obvious difference. The former could easily be thought of as a type of therapy or education, and organizations that specialize in helping these kind of groups run similar programs.
I think it's hard to really comment until the bmc provides some more detail on what they actually mean by increasing participation. I imagine there are ways that would be more acceptable to the current climbing population.
While queuing for routes sucks, I'm far more concerned about land owner conflicts, parking, erosion, polish, chipping, hold breakage due to wet rock, and general anti social behaviour.

[highrepute]

EDIT: changed my mind about posting

[shark]

I think it's hard to really comment until the bmc provides some more detail on what they actually mean by increasing participation. I imagine there are ways that would be more acceptable to the current climbing population.
While queuing for routes sucks, I'm far more concerned about land owner conflicts, parking, erosion, polish, chipping, hold breakage due to wet rock, and general anti social behaviour.

Yes I agree that defining what is meant by pro participation is the next step but that isn’t just the BMC proclaiming from on high - it is a ‘participative’ process

Also jeopardising access agreements isn’t just the preserve of newcomers. I can, but I won’t, give several examples of well known climbers knowingly flaunting existing arrangements because it suited them.

[petejh]

Pete posits that pro participation is purely a BMC empire building scheme as if there is no other possible reasons for backing pro participation. I think there is a higher purpose to share what we enjoy especially if we are what we claim to be, a national body beyond just members interests. To fundamentally shut down that pro participation is bad as Pete does can only be rooted in entitlement and selfishness. You can dress it up how you like. We all here participate. If participation is a problem then we are logically the problem. The BMC is potentially for responsible participation. The detail of that, as JR said,  is yet to be debated and worked out. I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.

Simon, it's completely reasonable to not want a large organisation to promote climbing to non-climbers. That doesn't ergo mean that anyone who believes this, believes that no new-comers should ever take up climbing. It's this sort of misrepresentation and straw-man building that weakens your argument not strengthens it.

The underlying point being - we don't NEED a large organisation to encourage everyday people to take up climbing. We never have. People with the nouse to do so will get into climbing anyway - more so than ever now we have walls in every city. It's bloody easier than EVER!.

The particular points made about providing access to the outdoors for young scrotes in troubled periods of their life are good for playing on the heart strings, and do have some merit. I feel I can actually comment from some experience - as I'm sure many on here can -  having once been a 'young scrote in plenty of trouble' but I found climbing through the army not the BMC. There are various organisations in the UK - perhaps not enough of them - providing this sort of 'outdoor therapy / education' to young offenders and disadvantaged kids; however show me the evidence of take-up and long-term benefit please.

Access for the disabled, I couldn't comment as I have no experience. Of course it's 'a good thing' and to be encouraged. That's a tiny side issue and isn't really the point here..

Which leaves the question, for what reasons would a large organisation such as the BMC want to encourage participation from everyday citizens - pure charity? Altruism for all those fellow citizens who haven't discovered the joy of sitting in the sheep shit in parisellas cave on a rainy day? Or who haven't experienced the exhilaration of spending 30 minutes hanging on bolt 4 of the oak trying to decipher the most efficient way to do the next move?  (Yes there are the sunny days on Fairhead or blasting onsight up amazing routes at Ceuse etc etc).
Is it unreasonable to wonder if it could not possibly have anything at all to do with securing available government funding and preserving (or building) the BMCs own self-importance?   

[Potash]

I am genuinely opposed to seeking to increase participation in climbing as I think it is genuinely dangerous and I think that encouraging people to do things that are potentially going to kill them is irresponsible.

Having almost killed myself climbing on a number of occasions and watched the slow tally of incidents amongst people I know, and have met, add up I feel that encouraging others is a step too far. If someone wants to solo hard (for them) routes I'll happily hold their coat and I deplore people trying to manage others risk taking. I'd never however encourage them.

I feel bad enough about teaching my wife to go out soloing! I don't want to feel culpable for little jimmy who got encouraged into it by the BMC (spending my subs) as well.

[Will Hunt]

It's also about aiding the transition from...summer only to winter climbing and alpinism, and so on.

This is interesting. If the definition is so broad as to include this then it could also stretch to "aiding the transition from hording honeypotter to inquisitive explorer", which is a good thing.

helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled, for under-represented groups

I would very much support this. Climbing is whiter than white at the moment (though I see that slowly changing - some of the Depot kids club have the look about them of people who will be on the comp scene, and perhaps outdoors, in years to come. Many of them are non-white.)

I see two major risks in not being involved in promoting participation ... 1) you risk losing credibility with other organisations

I don't follow the reasoning here. Could you elaborate?

2) promotion involves contact with new entrants to the sport, who you give up on the opportunity to influence for the better right at the beginning.

This sounds like maximising membership among people who have already started climbing is getting confused with increasing participation.


With regard to the assertions of "not sharing our toys", this is not a good argument. I'm happy to welcome any newcomers to the sport - providing they aren't of the Hipster Bluetooth-speaker-at-the-crag Crew. I just wouldn't rush out to get loads of new people into it.
The arguments about not wanting to deprive people of the great gift of climbing are also bogus. I'm sure if I'd happened to fall into kayaking, or skydiving, or curling, or cycling, or computer gaming, or painting little Warcraft models or any of the other millions of other things that there are to do with your time I would have been just as happy and fulfilled as I am now. I love climbing, but it's not a fundamental ingredient in living a rich and full life and the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.

[highrepute]

the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.

Is this really your interpretation of the policy as written?

Can you explain how you interpret it please as I'm struggling to understand how the above could be got to. Thanks

[Will Hunt]

the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.

Is this really your interpretation of the policy as written?

Can you explain how you interpret it please as I'm struggling to understand how the above could be got to. Thanks

Obviously we don't know what the policy is yet, but it hasn't stopped us speculating. It's not necessarily how I interpret the potential policy, but it has been mooted as a justification for it.

I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails  etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.

If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....

This from Shark is probably the most concerning thing I've read about this. It's not entirely clear, but what he's written there can be interpreted as "participation should be encouraged amongst anybody who might enjoy it" (and we'll deal with the consequences after the fact - worth noting that this doesn't align with my understanding of the recommendation which should insist that sustainability concerns are integral to the policy, not an add-on), which is where my missionary analogy came from.
It could also be that he's just saying "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up". The latter is wholly different from the former.
For a middle-class, straight, white, and to a lesser extent, male person, of sound physical and mental health, climbing is very much easy enough to get into. I'd support measures to improve the equality of access to climbing for people who don't fit into the aforementioned segment on the Venn diagram of humanity.