[Offwidth]

Cheers Jon. To be clear I have no criticism of you whatsoever: I think you are doing a fabulous job. However capable hard-working and enthusiastic someone is in their work role, we can't assume they can magically force immediate change on things that take time, nor be available every hour of every day. My biggest concern is no amount of BMC effort will more than dent the damage caused by those idiots who should know better: improving that situation really needs significant community pressure....

[Durbs]

Isn't the crux of the issue - sadly - not how do you ensure people check access, but actually adhere to the rules/advice?

Jim has said he's asked people to leave, and pointed out the access rules - and people have had the audacity to challenge him?
So no matter what solutions are implemented, if people have this much arrogance - they'll do what the fuck they want.

[mrjonathanr]

Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.

[spidermonkey09]

Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.

Not all banned crags are equal though, as is discussed on the other thread.

[mrjonathanr]

They will be if people persist in ignoring agreed arrangements.

[mr chaz]

 +1 to Dave’s comments about this in his latest weekly.

[Will Hunt]

They will be if people persist in ignoring agreed arrangements.

This isn't the case.
I climb at a crag that is, on paper, banned but not banned at all in practice. Using the logbooks there is useful for subtly advertising to others that access is possible and gives information about what is clean there.

[User deactivated.]

+1 to Dave’s comments about this in his latest weekly.

+2

[sdm]

Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.

I think the update that UKC added to the logbooks this week are positive. If someone clicks on a climb at a banned crag such as Wright's, there is now a big red banner at the top of the page that is impossible to miss.

Nobody could use UKC to find info about climbs at Wrights now without being aware of the current access situation.

I presume they've added the same to the Rockfax app?

[abarro81]

That's a good addition to UKC

Re Dave's thing, I didn't find it a convincing piece at all. Which is weird, since I probably agree with what in theory is its core argument. A few bits that stuck out:
- The proportion of visits involving misbehaving isn't what's relevant if you live there, it's the absolute frequency/volume. Not knowing the proportion is irrelevant.
- "there’s no suggestion that the ‘bad behaviour’ of climbers at Wright’s amounts to anything other than simply being there" ... Meanwhile "with their bluetooth speaker blaring out" 
- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak
- Lots of the old trick of writing things that it's hard to disagree with but that aren't really relevant to the core point in what seems like an attempt to make the whole piece seem more convincing (works if reading fast, backfires if not)

I'm sure there's a good article to be written on broad access rights, but for me this was not it.

[Moo]

Yeah I have to say that I came away from reading Dave’s piece that if everybody took his stance then access issues would become worse and bonjoys job would end up being even more difficult.

I do however totally agree with his assertion that access in the England is a shambles from a legislative viewpoint and something needs to change.

How we get there as a community needs to be a very delicately trodden path however given that we are largely relying on people’s sympathies rather than any significant resources.

[spidermonkey09]

Dave who? Where is this article? Chris says hi etc....

[Bradders]

- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak

I don't think that was the argument he was making at all. It's that, as I pointed out when the rules were publicised, they were unreasonable and unachievable and therefore always doomed to fail:

Playing devil's advocate; I get that the landowners have every right to make the rules (although that's a wider debate  ), the six person limit seems both strange and very hard to comply with. Why six? Why not four, or eight? Why does allowing six at a time make access allowable?

Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't. Particularly in the context of access only being allowed on select days as well; giving an extremely narrow window of opportunity for a large and growing community.

Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't.

There doesn't need to be any rules full stop. We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, but sadly it's beyond some people to comprehend this, look after them and respect the owners wishes.

Access was negotiated for climbing in a nature reserve and the very agreeable conditions were part of the negotiation.

That's some of the most polite access signage I've seen - such a shame it's been shat on.

Perhaps reasonable is the wrong word to use. How about achievable? The existing rules seem to me designed, or destined, to fail, as indeed they have.

The point around access to private land is a complex one; there are many people including myself who believe our current laws on access and the right to roam are completely wrong. They favour landowners who hold sway over vast areas of the English countryside, restricting what in my view should be a default right of access for responsible recreation.

It looks like almost the entirety of Dimmingsdale is CROW access land. Why is that part of the dale so special? Other than the whims of an individual landowner.

Which, cynically, I imagine was the goal all along. Set it up to fail, escape blameless when it inevitably does.

I thought Dave's point around historical access was most important though, compounded by the situation across the rest of Dimmingsdale as I mentioned above. Climbers have been visiting Wright's Rock for decades and there is therefore a strong historical precedent of access, which combined with the fact that the rest of the dale is CROW access land to me makes the previous rules and subsequent ban morally indefensible (albeit sadly legally so).

That said, I've never actually been and I understand some parts of it are fairly close to the landowner's house? In which case sensible policies like no lamping, small groups, etc. as are frequently practised at loads of other venues make reasonable and proportionate sense.

Dave who? Where is this article? Chris says hi etc....

https://www.penninelines.com/emails/wrightswrongs?fbclid=PAAaZzjhNrnnsbC5JqxNXUll7PpVhbcUmkccZ04pohjbRMuYlB2_Y0PigW7L8

[Bonjoy]

From speaking to the landowner I think one thing that is maybe underappreciated by some climbers is the type and level of noise that is causing offence. Due to the proximity, shape and angle of the crag, noise makes its way quite efficiently to the house below, this is sometimes made worse by wind direction. So, any enthusiastically shouted encouragement or post-send praise is very likely to be heard from the house and this is causing offence, especially so when it includes swearing. I had/have offered to draft a new sign (currently the sign is produced and written by the landowner) which retains the bold headlines but goes into greater depth below, and to make up a small reminder sign to place at the crag itself, as I felt this was perhaps not fully grasped by all visitors.

[teestub]

I thought Dave's point around historical access was most important though, compounded by the situation across the rest of Dimmingsdale as I mentioned above. Climbers have been visiting Wright's Rock for decades and there is therefore a strong historical precedent of access, which combined with the fact that the rest of the dale is CROW access land to me makes the previous rules and subsequent ban morally indefensible (albeit sadly legally so).

After reading Dave's piece I was quite surprised to see that, as you say, the majority of climbing in the Churnet including bits included in the 'Wrights Rocks Area' on UKC are on access land, and as such not at risk.

Interesting that you and Dave both make an appeal to the morals of the landowner.

[mrjonathanr]

I don’t believe that rules were set as an elaborate strategy to deny access over the longer term. Working with the landowner to understand what they hoped the rules would achieve and minimising annoyance is much more constructive.

As more climbers come into the sport there will be more pressure on access. The jump from an indoor culture to the outdoors will be a factor for some and that needs to be supported. If there’s a wider culture of dos and donts selfish behaviour should be  more isolated and hopefully, that bit easier to call out. Thanks for your efforts with this Bonjoy. Educating people to coexist is key to keeping access. Look at Eagle Tor.

[spidermonkey09]

I'm with Barrows, that piece says nothing useful. Its all very well wanting land reform (i do as well) but sentences like this are basically exactly the sort of debates the landowner was having with climbers at the crag, which are totally unhelpful.

Be responsible, behave in the right way but don’t be walked over. Don’t just tug our forelocks and accept whatever crumbs we are thrown from the table.

I don't buy that the landowner never wanted climbers there, he just didn't want them there in the way they were there before. I agree Wrights should be public land, but it isn't. We have to deal with the world the way it is.

[Bradders]

Interesting that you and Dave both make an appeal to the morals of the landowner.

Well we've no legal grounds, so what else do we have if not to appeal to the morals and kindness of the landowner?

I don’t believe that rules were set as an elaborate strategy to deny access over the longer term. Working with the landowner to understand what they hoped the rules would achieve and minimising annoyance is much more constructive.

Yes, this would be the best outcome, while also communicating to them the importance of the place and history of it. 100% not accusing the owners of some sort of nefarious plot.

There has to be an element of common sense as well; it reminds me a little of something my sister told me about recently after walking Hadrian's Wall. Apparently people had bought houses with gardens adjacent to the Wall, whereby the longstanding walking route quite rightly went through the gardens, next to the wall, rather than taking a significant detour. The new owners then tried to close the walking route, as if they had some expectation that people wouldn't want to walk along the wall!

Of course that goes both ways though and clearly we need to be better at limiting noise etc. I can totally appreciate that having the sound of people shouting and swearing wafting in through your living room window would be very irritating!

[Johnny Brown]

It's worth looking at the OS map to get an idea of the anomaly that restricting access to Wright's presents.



Wright's is in Threap Wood. Note that almost all the surrounding valley side woodland is open access. Sod's law that the best and most popular crag is in the little exception. The woodland areas that aren't are pretty much all de facto open access too; the whole area has been used for recreation for many years. Note also that the nearby nature reserve of Hawksmoor is also open access; clearly the National Trust don't believe access and conservation are incompatible here.

I suspect the owners bought the wood with lots of worthy plans but no idea climbers were even a thing; I doubt the sellers would have been at pains to point it out. I don't get the impression that the access agreement was designed to fail but it does suggest a level of naivety - I'm not aware of any similar agreement (in terms of limited days and times and self-policed numbers) operating successfully anywhere else in the country. In short, I don't think it has a realistic chance of succeeding.

Labour have just committed to looking at a 'right-to-roam' in England and even if they don't go the whole way it seems highly likely that an area like this would be included in a review of CRoW. So medium term I suspect even a total ban will be reversed. However either is at least a couple of years away.

Over the years doing access work I've become rather cynical of respecting bans in the hope that the landowner will have a moment of peaceful reflection followed by a change of heart. All it seems to engender is the impression that they can make climbers disappear on a whim, which tends to suit them very much. Here we also have the access issue being conflated with behaviour at the crag. I suspect were the arbitrary restrictions removed it might be easier to encourage good behaviour.

[Offwidth]

Andi posted this on the other channel

"I'd like to add that, having spoken to the landowner, one of the things that really seemed to have irked him is when he's approached "climbers" who have been breaking the agreed access, they haven't left but instead tried to enter philosophical debates with him about land ownership and have said they'll happily climb until the police come etc... It doesn't take many of these encounters to really knacker a relationship."

As such either people are saying the landowner is a liar or much of the speculation here and on the other channel is nonsense. This is clearly mainly down to poor action of a tiny number of opinionated idiots. Dave clearly didn't know rhis when he wrote his piece.

[Johnny Brown]

I don't know Steve, I suspect 'man massively restricts access and then is surprised to get push back' is exactly what Dave was raising an eyebrow at. Not having witnessed any of the encounters first hand I wouldn't be so quick to label either party as idiots, and am pretty disappointed that your position seems to be to consistently to do so for climbers. I'm not advocating for people to behave like twats, but the problem here was created by the restriction not the history of responsible access.

[Tony]

…the problem here was created by the restriction not the history of responsible access.

That is one perspective. To the land owner, “the problem” may have been inconsiderate behaviour.

I don’t have any first-hand proof of such at Wrights but a casual wander in Cheedale of a summer evening or to Malham or Raven Tor would suggest that some climbers can be somewhat inconsiderate, even rude. This is not to deny that some are very polite and courteous. Heck, some are (like every other human) even both. To be considerate takes self-awareness and that takes thought and thus (some) effort.

Human behaviour seems particularly affected by group size. Members of even very modest sized groups can appear to show little regard for others not within their group, perhaps due to diffusion of responsibility.

I am an advocate for vastly improved access to land and waterways in England. The guidance on what constitutes land exempt from open access in Scotland is that which is “intensively managed for the domestic enjoyment of the house.” Some landowners will feel hard done by, that they never anticipated access and it devalues the worth of their property. (Given that the price of land and housing has generally increased more than interest rates, I’m sympathetic but unconvinced by this argument.)

However, I am also for considerate behaviour and respect for others (from all) using the land. Some general self-awareness and consideration of others would be nice.

[spidermonkey09]

the history of responsible access.

Which looked at from another perspective, need not be taken into account by the purchaser as we never had a legal right to be there. Anomaly or otherwise in the context of Dimmings Dale as a whole, thems the facts. Sods law etc as you say given its the best bit of rock there.

Even if land reform did take place, which would be very welcome, given the proximity of this patch of land to the owners house I bet there would be mechanisms for an exemption etc.

[abarro81]

- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak

I don't think that was the argument he was making at all. It's that, as I pointed out when the rules were publicised, they were unreasonable and unachievable and therefore always doomed to fail:

"Rules imposed on users - who are human beings and hence by definition flawed, make it inevitable that at some point those rules will be broken" and "the restrictions were always doomed to fail, aside from the clumsy nature of the rules themselves" seems pretty close to what I was saying. It may well be that Dave meant to say what you were saying, but it didn't come across like that to me.

Despite Dave's assertion that the rules "were simply in response to the owners presumably not wanting climbers present", presumably they were an attempt to create a situation where it wasn't noisy and busy but by using something more quantifiable than "don't be noisy and don't turn the crag into a shitshow". There may well be better ways to achieve those things, or at least the noise part, but it would still rely on people following rules or guidelines at least reasonably closely. It doesn't seem hard to understand why the owner would think that putting vague guidelines in place wouldn't work if people can't even follow clearly laid out rules... even if it may actually be that the vague guidelines with some reasoning attached would in fact achieve the outcome more easily?

I wouldn't be so quick to label either party as idiots, and am pretty disappointed that your position seems to be to consistently to do so

Arguing back when asked to leave somewhere that you don't technically have a right to be does seem kind of, I don't know, idiotic though doesn't it? There's a time and a place for making those arguments and surely it's not when someone's likely to be a bit pissed off with you?! It seems a bit like being told off by your boss for being late and deciding that that's the perfect moment to engage on a discussion about how you think flexible working should be a universal right; at the very least it's bad tactics...

[Offwidth]

Hi Adam

I broadly agreed with your earlier post and would acknowledge the negotiated access arrangement was far from ideal but it was what it was, and I really don't see any excuse for the behaviour described. If climbers don't want to be called idiots  (I certainly don't consistently do that, only in very specific cases where I think it's deserved.... and in the context others here have called them worse)  and want to take such protest action there are plenty of way better targets, with landowners who unreasonably prevent any access at all. Was the access arrangement necessary for the ban to have occured, sure, the sufficient part was arguing about access rights and refusing to leave.

I also think the wide speculation (on both channels): risks undermining access negotiators and local access volunteers; was sometimes insulting to those new to the outdoors;  sometimes insulting to Londoners specfically .... why not start from trusting what our local access volunteers and Jon tell us.