UKBouldering.com

Topic Split: More proactivity by BMC in access (Read 1975 times)

Carliios

  • Guest
It’s ODG now  ;)

Lol oops   :)


On Facebook BMCwashing: Dave T Says the adverts were delayed while they agreed two roles to replace Robs old role (a FT access and conservation role for England; and a contractor role to cover the Land and Property management) and that he  (Dave) will be providing interim cover. I wish Rob the very best  ... he has been brilliant over the years.

Dave's new role was 4 days a week from the start.

The job adverts for both are out now: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-jobs
Fully agree with how good Rob D has been, very highly thought of by all the access reps I know too.


No wonder we’re losing access left right and centre, they need to pull a finger out and get this sorted asap :chair:
As Rob D is still in post for another three weeks, I can't see how him leaving can be the cause for any recent access problems. Not to play-down the help Rob has offered (especially with some of the more complex or time consuming access negotiations), the majority of access work in the Peak is done by volunteers, so I'm struggling to understand your point.

The signs at Churnet have been up for months and very little if anything has been done to speak with the owners as far as anyones aware.

Same with griffs, access issues for ages and no one from BMC has made any effort to contact the farmer or update anyone. And what collective responsibility, isn’t that what the bmc is for, I get volunteers do the legwork but when talks fall through they should be more involved. I do donate to them cause I do think they do good work but they could put more effort in with access issues imo

Stabbsy

Offline
  • ****
  • junky
  • Posts: 763
  • Karma: +52/-0
If you want to moan about the BMC’s lack of effort on access issues, maybe take some time to pick some good examples?

The signs at Churnet have been up for months and very little if anything has been done to speak with the owners as far as anyones aware.

Limited access signs have been up at Wright’s for a while. Limiting access is totally within the owner’s rights. Negotiating access always works better coming from a position of strength - say, for example, after climbers have collectively followed the rules for a period of time. Collectively, we’ve shown we can’t follow those rules and we’ve lost access. What negotiating tactic do you propose the BMC take to reinstate access? How about “Aww, go on, we promise we’ll follow the rules this time, honest”? As I understand from the other channel, the new signs say closed until a certain date (1st July). Surely the obvious approach is to abide by the ban and see what happens now and then try to actually follow the rules?

Same with griffs, access issues for ages and no one from BMC has made any effort to contact the farmer or update anyone.

Jon has asked numerous times on here for people at the crag to try and get the farmer’s contact details. It’s not as easy as going to the nearest farm and knocking on the door - land ownership doesn’t work like that in the UK. What more can the BMC do until that initial contact is made?

Don’t get me wrong, they’re both crags I’ve visited regularly in the past although not for a few years and I feel the loss. However, I don’t see there’s much the BMC can do at this stage in either case.

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4
As Stabbsy points out those two examples are perhaps the worst you could have picked, because they're plain wrong. If signs up at a crag aren't working and the agreement ignored, that's because climbers are at fault, not down to the BMC.

Perhaps I could politely suggest that if you think you could improve things, to volunteer your time to the Peak Area? There's a meeting on the 5th.

Carliios

  • Guest
The churnet example is actually quite good I think personally. The signs for are only placed on the one gated entrance, there’s 3 different approaches into Wright’s rock, 2 of which aren’t signposted so that already makes it easy for people to miss the new rules.

Secondly the rules themselves are weird and unenforceable, how can you make sure there’s only 6 people at Wrights rock at any one time? I think in these cases it would be good to have a professional body with history in dealing with sensitive access issues instead of leaving it to random climbers or volunteers to resolve.

I’m a stickler for following the rules where access issues exist so I’m not one of the rule breakers you mention.

With griffs, surely the bmc would again have some sort of way of finding who the landowner is and then contacting them directly, I very much doubt they’d need to go door knocking.

I will be attending the meeting and trying to get more involved for sure because it would be nice to regain access to these wonderful venues!

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4

I will be attending the meeting and trying to get more involved for sure because it would be nice to regain access to these wonderful venues!

First things first, thats good to hear and best of luck getting involved.

The churnet example is actually quite good I think personally. The signs for are only placed on the one gated entrance, there’s 3 different approaches into Wright’s rock, 2 of which aren’t signposted so that already makes it easy for people to miss the new rules.

Secondly the rules themselves are weird and unenforceable, how can you make sure there’s only 6 people at Wrights rock at any one time? I think in these cases it would be good to have a professional body with history in dealing with sensitive access issues instead of leaving it to random climbers or volunteers to resolve.

Just on this though; presumably people who visit the crag either a) own a guidebook, which means they should be aware of the need to check RAD when it comes to clmbing outside or b) use ukc instead of a guidebook, which means access info is even more prominent. They have to be using one of these tools or how else do they know where to park, how to walk in and where the problems are when they arrive? I'm happy to be told otherwise on this, is there a new platform of information I'm missing? I basically don't believe that people are climbing there outside of Fri/Sat/Sun in ignorance of the rules; there is every opportunity to learn about them. The more likely scenario is people are just ignoring them which reflects badly on us as climbers.

Re the rules. They are enforceable; if you turn up at the crag and you/your group's presence would make it more than 6, then you climb somewhere else in the valley! Any 'professional' access mediator is still going to have to reckon with the fact that we aren't negotiating with a body like a national park with a responsibility to allow reasonable access, but a private landowner with absolutely no requirement to let anyone in. I'm at a loss to how you think a professional body (whoever/whatever that might be) would bridge that gap? If anything, in my experience a more professional, 'suited and booted' approach could actually have the opposite effect; a lot of times people are willing to allow informal, occasional and under the radar access but a more codified and formal arrangement awakens fears of liability etc, so its easier for them to just say no.


With griffs, surely the bmc would again have some sort of way of finding who the landowner is and then contacting them directly, I very much doubt they’d need to go door knocking.


Try picking a patch of land near where you are right now, ideally a farmers field, and trying to find out who owns it. Its really, really difficulty. The vast majority of land ownership information in England isn't publicly available. Its not as simple as who lives in the nearest farm as quite often they are just the tenant farmer and the landowner lives miles away, down south or even in another country. In two recent examples in Yorkshire repeated doorknocking has been our only recourse and our access rep (volunteer) is still none the wiser as to who actually owns the crag. So actually, that often is the only way; its time consuming, boring and often fruitless. Hence the repeated pleas from Bonjoy for climbers at Griffs to actually open their traps and ask a polite question at the crag instead of just pretending its someone elses problem (this is a more general moan now, not aimed at you!)

 This is a good resource if you want to explore: http://map.whoownsengland.org/.





Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
Re Griffs. The landowner has now been identified. A volunteer called in to establish contact. Unfortunately the right person wasn’t in on the day, so they could only pass on a message and our contact details. Assuming no contact is made we'll make another in person visit. Probably best not to expect miracles, an overnight solution, or a running commentary though.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
I'm sure this is so obvious that it's been tried, but was there nothing available on the Land Registry?

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth

Just on this though; presumably people who visit the crag either a) own a guidebook, which means they should be aware of the need to check RAD when it comes to clmbing outside or b) use ukc instead of a guidebook, which means access info is even more prominent. They have to be using one of these tools or how else do they know where to park, how to walk in and where the problems are when they arrive? I'm happy to be told otherwise on this, is there a new platform of information I'm missing? I basically don't believe that people are climbing there outside of Fri/Sat/Sun in ignorance of the rules; there is every opportunity to learn about them. The more likely scenario is people are just ignoring them which reflects badly on us as climbers.


It's apparent with several recent incidents across England that there are some real issues on the way we flag crag access via RAD. Those identified on the other channel include: new climbers not using standard information  (I personally think numbers of these must be tiny); lazy climbers who know the place well and don't need information and don't check RAD or read forums; those using old guidebooks pre RAD; newish people not reading modern guidebook introductions and genuinely unaware RAD exists; obvious improvements that could be made to RAD (on RAG ratings I'd like a change to black where access is forbidden and red for the very sensitive areas where we might lose access.... too often these sensitive sites are amber or green); improvements that could be made to visibility of RAD on UKC logbooks.
 
I think the biggest problem is laziness... just ask around if those you know always use RAD.  You might be shocked..... I was. We certainly need the 'belt and braces' of RAD and signage.

Then there are those who don't give a shit and climb despite knowing about negotiated  restrictions.

m.cooke.1421

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +5/-0
I'm sure this is so obvious that it's been tried, but was there nothing available on the Land Registry?

This will only give you the details of who owns the title to the land. It may be an individual but it could also be a business or a trust with offices elsewhere. The land could be rented out under a long term agreement to someone else who would then have management control of the land. This person/organisation can then even rent out the land to someone else on a short term basis or they could employ contractors to manage the land. None of this is recorded online as far as I am aware and any of them could be objecting to people climbing.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
At this point in the thread the truism should be rolled out that 'a landowner objecting to people climbing' has never been an especially strong deterrent to a significant proportion of climbers. Whether you think that's OK or not is another question.

Access exists on a spectrum from explicitly prohibited and actively enforced, to explicitly allowed and actively encouraged. Most places we climb lie somewhere between those extremes - it's often a tacit acceptance but the 'computer says no'. If you're a follow the letter of the law type of person then you won't be climbing on the slate anytime in this lifetime. If you believe in a blanket approach to avoiding climbing anywhere near nesting peregrines and raven's (rather than a case-by-case approach currently used in some areas) then likewise you should rule out large parts of Llanberis Pass in spring. We don't do that because it doesn't seem to make much sense or difference on the ground (and/or sometimes some people really are some combo of selfish/lazy or just twats). But following strict definitions we perhaps shouldn't be there according to some people. That's access for you - so much is the individual's perceived validity of any restriction.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 12:03:39 pm by petejh »

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2574
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker

Access exists on a spectrum from explicitly prohibited and actively enforced, to explicitly allowed and actively encouraged. Most places we climb lie somewhere between those extremes

Well there’s not much outside those extremes! In North Wales a large amount of the climbing lies at the actively encouraged doesn’t it, being on access land?

I think over the last decade or so the combination of access to information and number of climbers has probably meant that the previous laissez faire ‘no one has said no so far so I’ll take that as a yes’ access style is just going to lead to more and more issues.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8
This is maybe true in some cased, but to a large extent it is still the standard opening gambit. And as an access volunteer this has always been the received wisdom passed down to me by older and wiser heads. Arguably it's better to have a period of climbing at a venue with ambiguous access rather than a ban from day one. In many cases even popular long established venues have access that exists in this grey zone and always has. There is also the principle that it's easier to defend an established pattern of use then to lobby for a new one. It's easier to show that X years of visits produces no accidents or hassle for the owner, than it is to sell the idea future visits will produce this result.
That said I think there are plenty of cases where being reactive is very predictable going to lead to a ban, and I agree climbers as a whole could do better at identifying these instances and acting on them.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
In North Wales a large amount of the climbing lies at the actively encouraged doesn’t it, being on access land?

I think there's just a lot of climbing in N.Wales. Without knowing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were to go through individually each crag's specific permitted access you might be surprised how many there are where climbing is tacitly accepted rather than actively agreed.

I think over the last decade or so the combination of access to information and number of climbers has probably meant that the previous laissez faire ‘no one has said no so far so I’ll take that as a yes’ access style is just going to lead to more and more issues.

I agree, which is why I'm not in favour of what the BMC is doing to grow numbers of people getting into climbing. To be blunt, I think the desire for growth and associated funding/status off the back of competition climbing's status risks the unintended consequence of damaging some aspects of climbing in the outdoors. 

Climbing in the outdoors has often been carried out under a principle of 'better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission' and it's how many treasured climbs have come into existence. This doesn't work with large increases in numbers and formal approaches to seeking access.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2022, 12:35:55 pm by petejh »

Offwidth

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1767
  • Karma: +57/-13
    • Offwidth

I think over the last decade or so the combination of access to information and number of climbers has probably meant that the previous laissez faire ‘no one has said no so far so I’ll take that as a yes’ access style is just going to lead to more and more issues.

I agree, which is why I'm not in favour of what the BMC is doing to grow numbers of people getting into climbing. To be blunt, I think the desire for growth and associated funding/status off the back of competition climbing's status risks the unintended consequence of damaging some aspects of climbing in the outdoors. 

Climbing in the outdoors has often been carried out under a principle of 'better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission' and it's how many treasured climbs have come into existence. This doesn't work with large increases in numbers and formal approaches to seeking access.

Given it's impossible to stop the participation growth, isn't it better that as many people as possible support BMC access aims?

The current published growth aims in the annual report are in any case too often exaggerated (although there was a brief flirtation with a higher growth proposal under the previous chair)... the latest proposed numbers roughly  keep a fixed proportion of membership in climbing cf participantion,  compared to trends pre-pandemic.

I'm not at all convinced most access flash points are down to growth in numbers as they mainy honeypot... it's  probably more about bad behaviour from a small minority of those who should should know better in my view.

The stuff about Sport England increased engagement funding and UK Sport elite competition funding has risks but unless staff resources on access decrease (they have increased recently) that would mainly be membership foot shooting for political reasons.

I'm more worried about how the current staff transision is handled and the link in that to key access volunteers, given we have lost the two main England and Wales access officers in a short space of time. Dave's monthly zoom calls for key access staff across all areas should help in that.

Jacqusie

Offline
  • ***
  • stalker
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +5/-1
No wonder we’re losing access left right and centre, they need to pull a finger out and get this sorted asap :chair:


As others have said, there's not really any causal link here between Rob leaving and the access problems you identify Carlos.

We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, and access negotiations for climbing did take place in Staffs, it was Climbers who put these at risk. The BMC's bargaining power reduced overnight really.

The BMC head office Access team works closely with the local area volunteers, as it is the latter who have an ear to the ground in these matters and often the work is done in the background so it's never publicised a great deal. The BMC meetings are the best places to discuss these matters and understand the work and restrictions that are often imposed due to less than reposnsible behaviour from climbers, but other times just a landowner exercising their rights.

I had the pleasure of working with Rob on many Access matters over the years for the Peak area and he has done a fabulous job during his tenure, dare I say the best Access officer the BMC employed in his role and he has worked tirelessly to protect access in the Peak and UK as a whole. I wish him all the best in his new ventures.

Carliios

  • Guest
No wonder we’re losing access left right and centre, they need to pull a finger out and get this sorted asap :chair:


As others have said, there's not really any causal link here between Rob leaving and the access problems you identify Carlos.

We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, and access negotiations for climbing did take place in Staffs, it was Climbers who put these at risk. The BMC's bargaining power reduced overnight really.

The BMC head office Access team works closely with the local area volunteers, as it is the latter who have an ear to the ground in these matters and often the work is done in the background so it's never publicised a great deal. The BMC meetings are the best places to discuss these matters and understand the work and restrictions that are often imposed due to less than reposnsible behaviour from climbers, but other times just a landowner exercising their rights.

I had the pleasure of working with Rob on many Access matters over the years for the Peak area and he has done a fabulous job during his tenure, dare I say the best Access officer the BMC employed in his role and he has worked tirelessly to protect access in the Peak and UK as a whole. I wish him all the best in his new ventures.

Could the BMC not inject more money into education like they did with their respect the rock series? That was great because they got well know climbers to participate who then went on to share those videos across social media which is far more likely to be seen than RAD/UKC.

A lot of younger and newer climbers are more likely to use something like Instagram to get information about climbs and crags as opposed to more traditional mediums. Could they not spend money on say social media ads to notify of things like access issues to reach those audiences?

What about working more closely with land owners, possibly offering volunteers (I would be happy to volunteer) to do things like crag cleanups, fixing fences and signposting and maybe reaching out to climbers who are in the area.

Maybe I’m being too bright eyed but these are a few things that spring to mind that could help ease access issue tensions with land owners.

Bradders

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2785
  • Karma: +135/-3
I'm not at all convinced most access flash points are down to growth in numbers as they mainy honeypot... it's  probably more about bad behaviour from a small minority of those who should should know better in my view.

I don't agree with that at all; it's plain to see with all of the recent access issues that the volume of people climbing at these places has corresponded exactly with problems arising.

Take Griffs; years ago it was a niche micro-venue which was popular with a small group of climbers keen to use it for training. These days it's been rare to go there and not find at least a couple of other people there.

Wright's Rock again, the number of climbers for example in London has increased massively, helped by the explosion in the number of walls in London, and where's their closest rock, that happens to also be suited to their typical style? More people go, the landowners see them more and more frequently, a few behave badly / break the rules, and so it goes.

Totally agree with your point that though that the cat is now out of the bag, and the BMC should therefore put its funding towards educating people on access issues. I think that's a subtle distinction; a lot of talk is about growing the sport but really I think it will grow anyway without help!

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4

Take Griffs; years ago it was a niche micro-venue which was popular with a small group of climbers keen to use it for training. These days it's been rare to go there and not find at least a couple of other people there.


Think you're broadly right in your post but Griff's is non-standard because its hardly entry level difficulty, so most going there will be experienced climbers. As to the wisdom of said experienced climbers doing a load of new linkups, adding them to ukc and publicising them on insta, all at a venue where access was at absolute best not allowed but tolerated at a low level...sometimes climbers are their own worst enemy.

matt463

Offline
  • *
  • regular
  • Posts: 50
  • Karma: +0/-0
Is it the possibility that outdoor climbing doesn't really scale that well?

Ultimately people are attracted to the locations they see/hear about on youtube, instagram etc. Which is why it's also popular to post about these places. It was absolutely a sustainable activity in terms of access and crag 'health' in the days when "there was still grass beneath the boulders".

I know this is probably off-topic but I wonder how access agreements will develop in a world where corporates are buying large parcels of land. Particularly in Scotland right now to help offset their carbon emissions.

Bonjoy

Offline
  • *****
  • Global Moderator
  • forum hero
  • Leafy gent
  • Posts: 9932
  • Karma: +561/-8

What about working more closely with land owners, possibly offering volunteers (I would be happy to volunteer) to do things like crag cleanups, fixing fences and signposting and maybe reaching out to climbers who are in the area.

The BMC has resources for this and it's a standard part of access discussions already to offer this sort of assistance to landowners.

Carliios

  • Guest
Yep that’s good to hear that’s already part of the process! I guess maybe focussing on the more educational side of it by doing paid ads on their socials, videos (respect the rock type vids) and reach outs to well known people to share info would be a good start. Also attending things like local wall competitions and maybe having small stalls there to speak to climbers could also be beneficial.

shark

Offline
  • *****
  • Administrator
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 8697
  • Karma: +625/-17
  • insect overlord #1

I think over the last decade or so the combination of access to information and number of climbers has probably meant that the previous laissez faire ‘no one has said no so far so I’ll take that as a yes’ access style is just going to lead to more and more issues.

Quote from: Petejh
Climbing in the outdoors has often been carried out under a principle of 'better to beg forgiveness than ask for permission' and it's how many treasured climbs have come into existence. This doesn't work with large increases in numbers and formal approaches to seeking access.

Yes Pete - this is a point regularly made by Henry Folkard the main Peak Access volunteer. It’s quite often the case that a landowner is happy to turn a blind eye to wild camping or climbing but won’t want to formally agree acceptance that might have implications in terms of precedent or liability and letting sleeping dogs lie is the best approach. In other cases it’s better to reach more formal arrangements with landowners/managers like of NT or Derbyshire Wildlife. It is the role of the paid and unpaid BMC access reps to identify the best tactics on a case by case basis and the best way to deal with issues when they flare up.


Droyd

Offline
  • **
  • addict
  • Posts: 111
  • Karma: +38/-0
Given some of the issues that still plague the BMC, I question whether it's reasonable to expect it to do much more than it's already doing specifically in terms of outreach to people that aren't paying attention to/aware of things like the RAD. More broadly it also seems a little unfair to suggest that the BMC have failed to resolve situations like the one at Griff's in terms of the assumption that it was the BMC's responsibility to resolve them in the first place.

It was only five years ago that the crustier members of the organisation filed a motion of no confidence on the basis of some mad bullshit that essentially stemmed from the BMC putting more into indoor comps. People like that are obviously outliers, but given the majority of BMC members are hillwalkers, mountaineers, and trad climbers, what would be the response were the news to come out that the BMC is allocating funds to an initiative to work with Instagram influencers to safeguard access to bouldering crags that vanishingly few of the membership have even heard of/care about, and still fewer would even want to climb at?

That's not to say that the BMC shouldn't bother, and obviously they've already done some good work with the 'Respect the Rock' series, but I wonder if we need to do more individually and as a group to hold other individuals and companies to account in terms of spreading this information. I think that that’s particularly important in cases where these posts and bits of content that are behind the disconnect between newer climbers and the BMC/RAD in the first place are proving to be profitable, whether that be content generated by individuals to fulfil/chase sponsorship deals or companies to market products and services. In the thread the other week someone mentioned that the Lattice video about bouldering in the Churnet made absolutely no mention of the access problems there, which seems to me be pretty poor if you consider that video for what it really is - an advert for Lattice - and the likely outcome of it being posted - more visitors to the Churnet (and ones who are unaware of access issues!).

If we post on social media we get something out of it: as an individual that might be a simple connection with other people, the dubious honour of a Third Rock 'Brand Ambassadorship', or maybe even a pair of shoes; as a company, posting will generally grow the customer base and thus increase revenue. But perhaps that platform should come with the expectation that, if you're going to post about and thus commodify climbing venues, you need to highlight important access issues in those posts. My sense with the Wright's Rock ban is that all of a sudden everyone was posting about how a small minority had ruined it for us all by not sticking to the rules, but in the last year or so I've seen loads of posts and media showing ascents of Simple Simon, Fingers, etc. and not one that's mentioned anything about the rules or the tenuousness of the access. Which is to say that there was a good deal of both constructive 'stay away' messaging and less constructive 'people have been logging on days when they shouldn't have been climbing there, let’s try and name and shame them' finger-pointing, but that wasn't preceded by any kind of 'here's a video of me at a place where we need to tread carefully' kind of messaging.

TL;DR: In addition to spraying hashtags and green ticks everywhere, Insta-wankers need to give their followers access briefings. Maybe with a Range West-style pass system?

steveri

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 565
  • Karma: +33/-0
  • More average than you
    • Some poor pictures
We’re all about the metrics at BMC NW, and the latest campaign has seen a 10% increase in traction. With your help we can get past 40 followers. More awareness of the RAD starts here: https://instagram.com/bmc_northwest

Come on, still space on the early adopters programme, going fast #bemoreRAD

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal