[abarro81]

Without over arguing semantics, that pretty much seems like the definition of elitism to me. The 'elite' (established/experienced climbers) deciding or pushing for rules/ideas that benefit them at the cost of new/inexperienced climbers.

I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics.  As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.

Why is climbing selfish in of itself? I've always thought it was a very inclusive and sociable community.

I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.

I think it’s hypocritical to think here’s something I think is amazing, I don’t want other people to be encouraged to find/enjoy it.

I think we use "hypocritical" differently. Merriam-Webster definition covers how I think of it: "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel". I don't claim I'm a selfless person and then say "fuck growing the sport", I'm ok acknowledging that it's a selfish view to hold.

[Fiend]

If being elite means "having an elite understanding that outdoor climbing is quite different to indoor climbing and includes a whole lot of things like flora and fauna and damageable rock and landowners and livestock and the general public and parking issues that need respecting and considering" , then +1 for elitism.

[Wellsy]

I think it's tricky cos like, if more people Weightlifted, that'd only be good for Weightlifting, there's no finite resources of Eleiko plates or anything

But rock is fragile, it gets damaged, there is a finite amount of goes we can have on certain grit problems, problems with access etc. So having more people on em would potentially cause problems. I'm torn. I used to be all for more people engaging in the discipline (I don't think of it as a sport). But these days I'm not so sure.

[Carliios]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

[northern yob]

Without over arguing semantics, that pretty much seems like the definition of elitism to me. The 'elite' (established/experienced climbers) deciding or pushing for rules/ideas that benefit them at the cost of new/inexperienced climbers.

I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics.  As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.

Why is climbing selfish in of itself? I've always thought it was a very inclusive and sociable community.

I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.

I think it’s hypocritical to think here’s something I think is amazing, I don’t want other people to be encouraged to find/enjoy it.

I think we use "hypocritical" differently. Merriam-Webster definition covers how I think of it: "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel". I don't claim I'm a selfless person and then say "fuck growing the sport", I'm ok acknowledging that it's a selfish view to hold.

No but you were encouraged/shown climbing by someone who shared with you it’s joys.

And you are saying you are against others being shown/encouraged into the same thing

It might not fit the definition, I certainly can’t be arsed to be looking up or referencing dictionaries so I’m happy to just call you a selfish Cnut as opposed to a hypocritical selfish Cnut.

No offence meant, where I come from Cnut is often a term of endearment.

[Droyd]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

This is actually quite interesting because I recently got a sneak-peek at the new Bouldering Bobat video. Working title is 'You WON'T believe how many CLEARLY WRITTEN SIGNS we ignored to CLIMB at this BANNED CRAG'.

[SA Chris]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

Who do you suggest working with?

Should everyone have an app linked to the GPS phone that triggers a warning when they are approaching a crag where there is currently a restriction in place?

[abarro81]

Never fear, I have no objection to selfish cnut 

It's not that I'm opposed to people being shown the opportunities per se, more that I dislike general efforts and sentiments to "grow the sport". So, for example, Ive got nothing against Caff doing outreach work to inner city kids for the BMC or whatever but I dislike so many walls going up everywhere and broad statements (from climbers, companies, organisations or whatever) about how more participation is necessarily good. It makes more money for a subset while also making various things worse... I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board). It's not like I'm saying I have the answers, just fuck any advocating generically for growing the sport

Carlos: it may be very 20th century but there does appear to have been a sign on the gate. Not sure you can get better dissemination than that!

[Carliios]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

Who do you suggest working with?

Should everyone have an app linked to the GPS phone that triggers a warning when they are approaching a crag where there is currently a restriction in place?

Well for starters there’s plenty of people I see complaining about it on here but I haven’t seen them post about it on their Instagram. Maybe reach out to the likes of bigger climbers like Molly, Aidan etc who have large followings and get them to share it on their stories for example. I just think there’s more we could be doing to get the message out there rather than complaining on a forum.

[Carliios]

Never fear, I have no objection to selfish cnut 

It's not that I'm opposed to people being shown the opportunities per se, more that I dislike general efforts and sentiments to "grow the sport". So, for example, Ive got nothing against Caff doing outreach work to inner city kids for the BMC or whatever but I dislike so many walls going up everywhere and broad statements (from climbers, companies, organisations or whatever) about how more participation is necessarily good. It makes more money for a subset while also making various things worse... I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board). It's not like I'm saying I have the answers, just fuck any advocating generically for growing the sport

Carlos: it may be very 20th century but there does appear to have been a sign on the gate. Not sure you can get better dissemination than that!

You do realise there’s like 3 different approaches into wrights rock and only the gate has a sign right?

[abarro81]

Nope, I didn't, sorry.. I've only ever been the normal way

[mr chaz]

And you are saying you are against others being shown/encouraged into the same thing

Clearly you can also be in support of sustainable levels of participation, as opposed to growth

[spidermonkey09]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

I think this is meant well but there are myriad ways to find out about whether you're allowed to climb somewhere or not, if you know how to get there you have had the opportunity to learn about access arrangements. I simply don't believe that people clmbing there on weekdays are unaware of the restrictions, and if they are they're fucking idiots. Im finding the constant apologia for people who who are either lazy, ignorant, or selfish (or all 3) slightly wearing. Everyone else manages, they can too. I agree its not an indoor/outdoor thing; its a tosser thing!


Also, everyone always says 'work with centres' regarding access issues; why would centres do this? 95% of their clientele never climb outside, why would they waste valuable marketing material/ promote social media posts on access when they could do marketing that might make them some money/ be directly relevant to their business? Some walls are helpful with stuff like this but they don't have to be,its just nice that they do.

On the same topic, MTS or Aidan might do the odd story about access for a local crag but they can;t be expected to do that foir the latest changes to access for Windy Choss Clough. Also, by definition insta stories or similar are transient, there today gone tomorrow; online databases where information is fixed are infinitely better places for this.

[JamieG]

I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics.  As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.

That is quite a leap you've made there! Of course I don't think avoiding overpopulation is elitist (or dumb). But if you told me only certain people that met certain requirements could have kids then yes I would consider that elitist (and depending on the requirements maybe other -ists too).

Replace 'good climbers' with 'established climbers' in you last sentence and that is pretty much what you are saying.

I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.

With that definition, just being alive is selfish. Not a very useful definition. I was using it more in the sense that you want to do something deliberately to exclude someone else. Also climbing (or any hobby really) isn't pointless, they are incredibly good for you mental and physical wellbeing, which is hardly a selfish goal.

If being elite means "having an elite understanding that outdoor climbing is quite different to indoor climbing and includes a whole lot of things like flora and fauna and damageable rock and landowners and livestock and the general public and parking issues that need respecting and considering" , then +1 for elitism.

And where did you get this 'elite' understanding Fiend. You weren't born with it were you. Education and experience.

[JamieG]

Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.

This type of thing is a good idea. I feel it is more about education and getting the information out there if is not being picked up.

[abarro81]

But if you told me only certain people that met certain requirements could have kids then yes I would consider that elitist (and depending on the requirements maybe other -ists too).

But that's not what I'm saying, is it. I'm saying I wouldn't want numbers to increase significantly and making no comment on the other parts (i.e. your "requirements" or "certain people") - that's just in your head. Like I said above: "I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board)"

Replace 'good climbers' with 'established climbers' in you last sentence and that is pretty much what you are saying.

I'm saying advocating for an expansion in the number of people climbing is stupid, just like I think advocating for an expansion in the number of people on the earth is stupid. The analogy works quite well in my head - you'll have to help me understand why you think it doesn't? If my position on climbing is elitist then I'm struggling to see how you don't take the same stance with general population? 

I don't consider either to be "elitist", though I'm happy to consider either as being "selfish". Similarly, I wouldn't consider objecting to open borders as "elitist", even though I could easily characterise it as "selfish". I think we're getting lost in semantics here though - I can see why you would choose to include it, but I think you'd have to include the analogies as elitist too and I think it ends up being a useless word if you do that. Essentially I think I consider there to be a difference between excluding those who already want to do activity x (or are already alive in the analogy) and not actively increasing the number of people who want to do x (or are alive in the analogy).

Not a very useful definition. I was using it more in the sense that you want to do something deliberately to exclude someone else.

I'm happy to accept that my definition of being "selfish" isn't very useful... though I don't see how destroying the planet by driving to the crag is anything other than selfish. We just generally think of it as being ok enough that the fun is worth the selfishness. I think the selfishness of not aiming to expand climbing in a generalised way would be worth it, you don't... that's fine. Most people decide that the selfishness of going on a climbing holiday is worth it, but some admirable souls don't... you/they might be holier than me, but I'm still going on my holiday and I still say "fuck growing the sport".

[Droyd]

Something that's quite interesting here is the fact that I think this idea of getting things 'into the 21st century' clearly speaks to the fact that the vast majority of climbers don't use UKC (and a vanishingly small number of people use UKB) - particularly in the context of bouldering, and even moreso when you get into places like the Churnet, which are an unfortunate mixture of fragile (rock and access), day-trippable from most parts of England, friendly (positive holds and generally not knacky), and fashionable (In Memory of Mr Fox seems to have gone from being featured in Peakoterica to having multiple ascents every weekend).

This is interesting because I think that, if you're used to using UKC, it's easy to believe that it/the broader community that it represents is the British climbing community in digital form - that if there's an issue at a crag, popping something on UKC and the RAD will deal with it because obviously everyone will see it. The reality is that there's an entire parallel world on Instagram, where people use their accounts as multimedial logbooks and get all of their information from what they see other people doing on there, to the extent that they don't even look at guidebooks. I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate, and someone recently claimed Alpha SS as an FA.

I'm not really sure what the solution is, however, as Instagram stories (indeed all content on there, when you consider the timeline format) are fleeting in nature, but we do need to bridge that divide. Maybe in the same way as people have started to put token shots of themselves brushing ticks off in their short films they could have a quick sequence of them checking the RAD? Possibly Louis Parkinson could take a quick break during his next follow-along Catalyst Coaching core livestream to exhort his viewers to always check access notes? Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.

[Fiend]

And where did you get this 'elite' understanding Fiend. You weren't born with it were you. Education and experience.

I think part of it came from being raised semi-normally by my parents, and the rest was from a combined Masters in Crag Ethics And Rocket Science.

Stuff like "there's not a carpark like the climbing wall but double yellows and no parking signs in front of a gate mean no parking" ,  "there are no litter bins 5m away like at the wall so we take our rubbish out" , "the house we walked past owns the land and crag so if they say no access after 5pm that means no access after 5pm" , "there are no kit lockers like the climbing wall but the footpath beneath it has people walking so we don't build a barricade of our bags" , and "it's the countryside not a fucking nightclub so we don't need the bluetooth speaker on" .....if anyone doesn't get that then they don't need educating they need to be discouraged from ever taking up climbing. Obviously stuff like "don't climb on wet rock" , "brush tickmarks and chalk off" and "put down pads to stop erosion" is a bit more nuanced and might warrant regular beatings to drum it into the riff-raff.

[spidermonkey09]

Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.

If you google 'wrights rock' the ukc page is the first result. How do people work out where to park, or how to get from the parking to the crag, without either a guide or by googling it?

I think your post, while interesting, undersells ukc. Its one of the bigger climbing websites in the world. Sure, the vast majority of climbers probably don't use the logs, but I'd be willing to bet a vaster majority use it in some form or another, if only to check parking and approach descriptions. Once they're doing that, theres no excuse for ignoring the access part.

[JamieG]

But that's not what I'm saying, is it. I'm saying I wouldn't want numbers to increase significantly and making no comment on the other parts (i.e. your "requirements" or "certain people") - that's just in your head. Like I said above: "I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board)"

No, because I'm also not saying this - I'm saying advocating for an expansion in the number of people climbing is stupid, just like I think advocating for an expansion in the number of people on the earth is stupid. The analogy works quite well in my head - you'll have to help me understand why you think it doesn't? If my position on climbing is elitist then I'm struggling to see how you don't take the same stance with general population?  I don't consider either to be "elitist", though I'm happy to consider either as being "selfish". Similarly, I wouldn't consider objecting to open borders as "elitist", even though I could easily characterise it as "selfish". I think we're getting lost in semantics here though - I can see why you would choose to include it, but I think you'd have to include the analogies as elitist too and I think it ends up being a useless word if you do that. Essentially I think I consider there to be a difference between excluding those who already want to do activity x (or are already alive in the analogy) and not actively increasing the number of people who want to do x (or are alive in the analogy).

Okay, fair enough. I guess maybe not elitist then, but still rubs me a little the wrong way. Climbing has given me a lot of joy and I don't thinking wanting other people to enjoy it makes me an idiot. Although I am an idiot in many other ways.

[abarro81]

You're right, idiot was the wrong word to use.. but I still think it's nuts (in an admirable but idiotic way   )

[JamieG]

I'll take that.

I think one of the problems is that certain areas seem to get fashionable and see increased attention leading to issues. Whereas other areas are just never busy. I live in the Chew valley and there is plenty rock out this direction, but you rarely see many climbers out here, despite being less than half an hour from the centre of Manchester. I don't know how you encourage climbers to spread themselves out more and not always go to the honeypots.

[Jacqusie]

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.

[sdm]

Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.

I haven't been to Wright's since the access issues first flared up last year, been giving it's wide berth to avoid contributing to the problem. But the consensus among climbers who I've talked to elsewhere around Churnet has been that, if one was to go to Wright's, the best approach would be to park at Peakstone in order to minimise the chance of disturbing/being seen by the landowners. It sounds like you wouldn't see any signs if you approached from there.

Of course, the people who are thinking of using that approach are doing so because they are already aware of the access issues so I would expect them to check UKC/RAD/UKB/Facebook etc for any updates before setting off. I expect the number of people approaching from the Peakstone side without being aware of any of the access issues would be zero.

The reality is that there's an entire parallel world on Instagram, where people use their accounts as multimedial logbooks and get all of their information from what they see other people doing on there, to the extent that they don't even look at guidebooks. I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate,

While I agree with your general point on guidebooks, I think Anston is about the worst crag you could have used to support your case given that the guidebook hasn't been available for love nor money for almost a decade.

and someone recently claimed Alpha SS as an FA.

[Bradders]

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.

I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate

I've no idea why anyone would bother with sit starts for either of those; they're often damp, have chossy rock, and add nothing in either quality or difficulty.