Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.
They will be if people persist in ignoring agreed arrangements.
+1 to Dave’s comments about this in his latest weekly.
- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak
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.
Quote from: Jacqusie on June 15, 2022, 06:29:28 pmQuote from: Bradders on June 15, 2022, 12:34:27 pmBringing 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.
Quote from: Bradders on June 15, 2022, 12:34:27 pmBringing 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.
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.
Dave who? Where is this article? Chris says hi etc....
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).
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.
Interesting that you and Dave both make an appeal to the morals 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.
…the problem here was created by the restriction not the history of responsible access.
the history of responsible access.
Quote from: abarro81 on May 23, 2023, 03:08:15 am- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weakI 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:
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