2
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.
Recent Posts