[Johnny Brown]

I'm going to keep this vague as it covers areas where access is sensitive and only persists due to BMC agreements. Some of you may have seen a recent UKC thread which was pulled for this reason.

There is seems to be an increasing trend on Peak lime for what I'll call 'Spad' climbing - treating hard trad routes as sport routes, involving (sometimes protracted) sieges on top-rope in preparation for an eventual lead, typically on pre-placed gear.

I am not interested in the ethical rights and wrongs of this, at least not here. What I am bothered about is that this in several instances involves the installation of in situ fixed ropes, tat, and bolts to facilitate easy access to the top of the route(s). In the most topical example a load of this was removed recently (sparking UKC thread) only for it to be immediately replaced plus new bolts, despite attention being drawn to the BMC RAD entry which (quite unusually) specifically states that such activity is an issue and needs clearing with NGO landowner via the BMC.

The alternative to this via ferrata style arrangement involves leading a choice of routes, several starred, from HS-E2. Is this simply too much to ask of an prospective H7 or H9 leader? Do such climbers think their convenience is more important than jeopardising access relations here? Does climbing hard entitle you to ignore access agreements?

If you know what routes I'm referring to here please avoid mentioning them, the crag or the area. We don't want to make things worse or this thread will be deleted too. But genuinely interested in your perspectives. Thanks.

[Bonjoy]

In this instance placing new bolts and leaving ropes overnight has the potential to cause access problems. As a one off it might go unnoticed but it sounds like this one has got quite popular. I'm pretty sure it's not the sort of new normal that will go unnoticed for long.
Placing of unauthorised bolts two years ago was reported to the owner and created considerable headaches. As well as having to meet the owner on site to calm the waters, I had to take a day out to remove the hangers (after another UKBer had  already wasted a day doing the same thing 6 months earlier, only for the bolts to re-appear).
It would be good if this didn't carry on here.

[T_B]

What perspectives do you expect to get? Given the access sensitivities, it’s a bit short sighted to do this. I would really like to do one of the routes in question. If climbing there gets banned I would be pretty peeved.

Unfortunately people are also publicising it (positively) on socials. Ignorance is bliss?

[csl]

It’s a shame it has to be kept secret as I guess (pray/hope) those who are adding the bolts + access ropes are just unaware and having the information out there might prevent someone doing it again? (I obviously understand why we are not naming the area/route)

I didn’t get a chance to see the UKC thread but hopefully at least the thread creator and the recent ascentionists have been told, I guess they are the people most likely to have reinstated the via ferrata?

[teestub]

I guess, so many times, it happens too fast, you trade your passion for glory. It’s important that you don't lose your grip on the dreams of the past, you must fight just to keep them alive

[AlistairB]

We climbed the classic low E grade route to get up there last summer and were pretty shocked to discover the via ferrata arrangement and the amount of fixed kit up there in general. My first reaction to seeing the UKC thread about the chopping was "good" to be honest, I'm inclined to agree with JB that if people want that tick, putting the work in to access the route without leaving fixed gear shouldn't be much of an additional hardship, and maintaining access should always be the top priority.

[andy moles]

Can anyone describe exactly what is installed?

Without letting slip the name of the venue, which I'm sure no one could possibly work out from what's been said.

[ToxicBilberry]

It’s hard to give a perspective without getting into the ethics. On a basic level of the landowner doesn’t want bolts and fixed gear placed, then it seems straightforward. Don’t place them.

[Hydraulic Man]

The same landowner who is content to have over a 100 dogs on a dog walking meet on a summers afternoon like we witnessed last May.

I'm sorry but some perspective is required here.

[ToxicBilberry]

The same landowner who is content to have over a 100 dogs on a dog walking meet on a summers afternoon like we witnessed last May.

I'm sorry but some perspective is required here.

Is this false equivalence or a straw-man?

[webbo]

The same landowner who is content to have over a 100 dogs on a dog walking meet on a summers afternoon like we witnessed last May.

I'm sorry but some perspective is required here.

I might not agree with aspects of land ownership and how said land was acquired but as the the law stands. It’s up to the landowner who they invite on to their land.

[AlistairB]

Can anyone describe exactly what is installed?

Without letting slip the name of the venue, which I'm sure no one could possibly work out from what's been said.

I'm not sure what's there now, but last summer there was a "hand-rail" of tat running along the top of the whole buttress (though not visible from below), at least one bolt (possibly a whole two bolt lower-off IIRC) near the top of the E9 and then a fixed line running all the way to the floor down the HS, from memory with loads of in-situ knots presumably for clipping in lanyards. The fixed line wasn't visible from the main path as it's round the back, but it is certainly somewhere easily accessed by non-climbers which doesn't seem like a great idea.

Earlier in the day we experienced an E2 requiring an ab from a long dead tree surrounded by horribly loose rock, genuinely the worst belay I have had to use in many years. But I guess nobody has added any fixed gear there because they actually read the RAD.

[Fiend]

Sigh, and I thought this was another thread about bolting up Gogarth / Craig Y Forwyn....

Even more disappointed that it took me so long to guess the crag 

Obviously I agree with the general condemnation of this on both ethical and access grounds. I would be interested to hear what the people involved have to say.

[nik at work]

The same landowner who is content to have over a 100 dogs on a dog walking meet on a summers afternoon like we witnessed last May.

I'm sorry but some perspective is required here.

I genuinely don’t understand the point you’re making here?

[mrjonathanr]

I rather hoped this was about Dominic Cummings taking up soloing. Disappointing on so many levels.

[Jerry Morefat]

I guess if that's what the landowner wants, then their decision needs to be respected. However, I don't get the obfuscation in this thread. Presumably the landowner has already objected, so stumbling upon this thread (which I assume is the motivation for the obfuscation) isn't going to make a difference?

Interestingly the RAD doesn't necessarily rule out the placement of new fixed gear

The BMC has an agreement with the National Trust for fixed equipment in the dale. Put simply this is that like for like maintenance/replacement can take place as and when is needed but placement of new bolts would require agreement through the Peak Area meeting followed by approaching the National Trust for permission. There isn't a presumption of refusal by any means, but the National Trust understandably want to keep track of bolting activity in the Dale and in some cases they may need to apply for SSSI consent as landowner. The National Trust are extremely supportive of climbing in all it's forms in the Dale and it's important that we continue to cultivate our good relationship with them to ensure our needs as climbers are considered into the future.