UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: Teaboy on March 13, 2018, 08:19:30 am
-
I still never got an answer as to why the BMC now (always did?) has a stated aim of encouraging growth in all areas it represents?
1. How do current members benefit from more people parking under Kilnsey, walk on walls at Almscliff or blocking gates at Whitehouses.
2. What growth rates do the BMC have in mind for annual growth of participants (not members as that's obviously different although ignored by most on the UKC thread)?
3. What, tangibly, does 'responsible' mean?
-
I still never got an answer as to why the BMC now (always did?) has a stated aim of encouraging growth in all areas it represents?
Can't find this written down anywhere. Got a link?
-
Can't find this written down anywhere. Got a link?
"The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause"
Item 8, on page 10
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-final-report has the link to download.
-
This relates to recommendations 8 and 9 of the ORG report which were amended in the update (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/Handlers/DownloadHandler.ashx?id=1569) on page 21 and 22 and reads:
In recommendations 7 and 8, the ORG has sought to clarify that the challenges of maintaining impact and relevance relate to membership growth, while potential access, conservation and environmental issues could result from growth in participation in climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering as a whole.......
Amended Recommendations
Recommendation 7: The BMC must understand and define the breadth of its membership and understand the balance between attracting new members and over-expansion so that it retains focus and relevance
This recommendation has been amended in order to remove the reference to access, conservation and environmental issues, which have been moved to recommendation 8. Following feedback, the ORG felt that the original recommendation potentially conflated the growth in membership with a direct environmental impact, which was not intended.
The ORG recognises that a growth in overall participation in climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering could have an impact on the environment. However, it believes that this is unlikely to be as a result of membership expansion, which would be largely drawing from existing participants. The BMC should focus on attracting new members, as required, to ensure it maintains a representative balance of all climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers, and therefore credibility in representing their views.
Recommendation 8: The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause
As per the commentary for recommendation 7, this recommendation now has the addition of access, conservation and environmental considerations. The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of
the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.
Teaboy aka tyler made his views known on this ukc thread (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_organisational_review_discussion_site-678645?v=1#x8742081)
.
-
Teaboy aka tyler made his views known on this ukc thread (https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/bmc_organisational_review_discussion_site-678645?v=1#x8742081)
Blimey!
-
I was fairly outraged by the motion of no confidence and followed that quite carefully.
I have absolutely failed to follow the organisational review, despite the BMC's valiant efforts to engage me in it (Grimer's Facebook interview etc). Most likely because it's not something I was ever particularly interested in seeing happen.
The issue of increased participation is something that does interest me. As I understand it, we're fucked. We can't get money from Sport England without attempting to increase participation (have I got that right?), and we need that money; at the same time, the crags are completely fucked.
While removing the mud that was on the roof crimp on Underhand at the weekend, I was talking to SpiderMonkey (of these parts) about access et al. He said we had to try and win the battles. I concluded that this is all we can do, since we've already lost the war. The crag was heaving and there were multiple examples of shitty behaviour. People were climbing problems that weren't dry; people were climbing with wet soles of their shoes (a lady trying Bancroft's Roof - when it was pointed out to her that her shoes were wet she made a half arsed attempt to clean them. When somebody told her her shoes were still wet, she adopted what one might call a "bitch face" and said "So?"); people walked on the wall (though fewer than have been recently reported).
Bouldering is now really popular, and is becoming ever more so. Although people have always bouldered, it's been a discipline in it's own right for something like 30 years. It's been accessible as a direct route into climbing for maybe a little less time. The first bouldering only walls started to become popular about 10 years ago. Even in this short time we have completely fucked the rock, lost access to crags, and seen the introduction to the sport of the kind of people who bring Bluetooth speakers to the crag. Abandon hope, y'all; climbing is fucked.
-
If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?
-
If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?
I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.
I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com
-
If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?
Let's pretend that there is a capacity limit for Almscliff (I personally think that there is) and that limit is reached soon because of all the experienced rock cats (some of whom might be BMC members). The BMC, through its policy of growth, converts 10 non-climbers and they now want to go to Almscliff. Your solution to this is for the 10 ERCs to go to their second or third choice crag to make way? In this scenario how has the BMC policy benefited its members and climbers?
-
Abandon hope, y'all; climbing is fucked.
Do you have an opinion on the role the BMC should be playing in this current state of affairs? I'm asking in this question in the context of the stated aim in recommendation 8 quoted above.
-
Hi Wil,
No it's not the case that Sport England won't fund us because of participation it's because our governance doesn't meet their requirements until we change our constitution.
SE funding is directed at specific projects and programmes of work. I'm not closely involved in this but it seems to me you could argue both ways whether it is pro-participation or not or pro participative in a way that affects crags usage. For example the talent development of the youth squad as a pathway to the national team is largely SE funded (or rather was) but arguable whether that is pro participation or not and if it is - so what!
Also participation is normally taken to mean introducing new people to an activity but could also be retaining people from leaving it or existing participants do more.
An extreme view is that anything positive that the BMC does or says could be deemed pro-participative. With it being such a trigger point for people like Teaboy clarity was sought and gained from the ORG as without it the direction and decisions on work programmes become muddled and potentially political
-
If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?
I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.
I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com
Not aimed at you personally, I'm just talking in general terms.
I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...
-
You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality. There isn't a ticketing system, it's first come first served. If the parking is full you should go elsewhere, even if you are Ondra. Many of the problems that we're getting are because people refuse to do this.
It's not impossible to do. A couple of springs ago I really wanted to climb on the Cromlech. We drove up the Pass and every parking space was full. We went to Ogwen and climbed on Tryfan and it was great. I bet that some of those people parked in the Pass were climbing at a lower standard than I, or hadn't been climbing as long - but it was our fault we didn't get a speck because we got out of bed late and had a nice breakfast.
In order to reduce the likelihood of carrying capacity being reached, people should be encouraged to see that, for the most part, the less popular crags are not inferior, they are simply less hyped. This will encourage them to explore other venues.
If places like Almscliff are utterly hoaching with beginners, punters and experienced rock cats alike, why aren't the experienced rock cats doing something about and going elsewhere?
I would normally be elsewhere, but the Cliff was the only place that was going to be dry and I only had a few hours in the afternoon.
I am doing my bit to try and encourage climbing at lesser known venues:
www.unknownstones.com
Not aimed at you personally, I'm just talking in general terms.
I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...
Almscliff is very rarely my first choice for all of these reasons (also I've done most of the good problems there that are within my ability, or aren't traverses, or in some other way shite).
-
I just know as an (aging) ERC if Almscliff was rammed with people, radios and dogs that it would automatically not be my first choice...
Nor mine but you've got to assume that as these are ERCs they have made an informed choice to go there but thanks (in part) to BMC policy it is now full. Who has benefited from the policy? Why is that policy there?
-
You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality. There isn't a ticketing system, it's first come first served. If the parking is full you should go elsewhere, even if you are Ondra. Many of the problems that we're getting are because people refuse to do this.
...
In order to reduce the likelihood of carrying capacity being reached, people should be encouraged to see that, for the most part, the less popular crags are not inferior, they are simply less hyped. This will encourage them to explore other venues.
What Will said. There is a real risk that objections to participation come across as incredibly elitist and selfish, even if they aren't. Just because someone has been climbing since the 70's doesn't give them a divine right to turn up and climb at a quiet crag at a time of their choosing.
Few things piss me off as much as someone arriving at a busy crag on a nice day, be it Stanage Popular or Almscliff, making a face and saying 'Jesus, bit busy isn't it?' What did they expect? It was the first nice weekend day in weeks, and the Cliff was the only place dry for miles around. Of course it was busy. By the way, this isn't a pop at you Will!
For the sake of balance, I was actually very heartened by the fact that, aside from the few examples of fuckwittery that Will mentioned (how did the mud in the crimp on Underhand even get there?), it was way better than it has been recently there, and the crag was rammed with climbers and members of the public alike.
At the risk of sounding like an incurable optimist, I think this is a plus side. A lot of people were out having a good time, there wasn't a bluetooth speaker to be seen, and hopefully those indulging in fuckwittery were called out, reflect on their actions and be better next time. Plus, I was one of the last to leave after a lovely half an hour soloing around in the twilight in perfect solitude. Things could be a lot worse.
-
You've assumed that the ERCs get first dibs on where they climb and, actually, this isn't fair at all and isn't reflective of reality.
You've missed the point completely, this isn't about who climbs best it's about growth leading to overcrowding, regardless of ability. If growth is encouraged who benefits? If it is not actively pursued who misses out? Some notional people who are unaware of climbing? Let's face it it's never been easier to get into climbing, numbers are growing anyway. If it comes to a choice between my place in the queue at Almscliff and someone who has been press ganged by the BMC I'd chose me, I want to know why the BMC would choose the other person because at some point that's what it will boil down to.
-
Fuck, you guys are making a lot of assumptions about what I'm meaning rather than what I'm saying. I'm not forcing anyone to go anywhere, nor implying anyone has priority.
Honeypots are honeypots for a reason, they are good 5* crags. But in my mind I take the same approach as I (used to) do with a must do winter route; remove 1 star for every climber on the route, as no matter how good it is, it's not worth climbing while shit is being rained down on your head and you are freezing your tits off waiting on a belay ledge.
Likewise a great crag is not that great if there are too many people there.
-
You've missed the point completely, this isn't about who climbs best it's about growth leading to overcrowding, regardless of ability. If growth is encouraged who benefits? If it is not actively pursued who misses out? Some notional people who are unaware of climbing? Let's face it it's never been easier to get into climbing, numbers are growing anyway. If it comes to a choice between my place in the queue at Almscliff and someone who has been press ganged by the BMC I'd chose me, I want to know why the BMC would choose the other person because at some point that's what it will boil down to.
Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional. Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse? I don't think it will ever come to the BMC prioritising certain groups as long as education continues apace. In any case, in time I suspect trad will have a resurgence, or wild/remote bouldering, distributing participants across the sport more widely.
At the moment there is a bouldering wave being ridden by a lot of people. Our challenge as ERC's is to ride that wave out, educate those who stick around and call out people who drop in. there endeth the surfing metaphor!
-
What Will said. There is a real risk that objections to participation come across as incredibly elitist and selfish, even if they aren't. Just because someone has been climbing since the 70's doesn't give them a divine right to turn up and climb at a quiet crag at a time of their choosing.
You too have missed the point, it's not about being against participation it's about being against trying to work out why encouraging growth is considered a good thing. What are the benefits of the BMC encouraging increased growth to the BMC membership and other climbers. What are the disadvantages of not doing so? And this isn't even about good behaviour, even if everyone behaves impeccably there will come a point when certain crags cannot accommodate more climbers at which point there's no point suggesting to someone who is 3 days into trying Zoolook that there are some VS's with no one on them at Attermire.
-
Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional.
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse? I don't think it will ever come to the BMC prioritising certain groups as long as education continues apace. In any case, in time I suspect trad will have a resurgence, or wild/remote bouldering, distributing participants across the sport more widely.
At the moment there is a bouldering wave being ridden by a lot of people. Our challenge as ERC's is to ride that wave out, educate those who stick around and call out people who drop in. there endeth the surfing metaphor!
Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.
Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.
-
Not a BMC member anymore as I no longer live in the B. When I was a member I paid my dues to fund Access issues and for the insurance.
I agree that it should not be the BMC's mission to grow the sport, rather it should try and grow the number of members within existing participants and spend the money on Access and Education. That is the only way I can see outdoor climbing being sustainable in the UK if growth continues at its current pace.
If there was a viable alternative to the BMC, concentrating on Access issues and Education alone, that is where my money would go.
Edit, I do support those kind of programs that take underprivileged kids climbing to try and give them a fun new experience and potentially broaden their view of life.
-
Likewise a great crag is not that great if there are too many people there.
Whilst this is true, with UK sport there are pretty limited options for large parts of the year. A busy Kilnsey might not be a great crag any more, but a wet Giggleswick, damp Cornice and underwater Diamond are even worse... I can fully understand why one might prefer the option of not getting more people into climbing to the option of having to abandon the best crags in favour of esoteric choss because too many people got into climbing.
Numbers are growing anyway, I agree, so why would the BMC not back what is likely to be a winning horse?
Not sure that analogy works - what does the BMC win by backing the horse as opposed to staying outside of the bookies altogether?
The more I think about it actually, the more I don't support it being part of the BMC's inherent structure/constitution/governing rules/whatever to widen participation. Climbing will likely grow without that, at a fast enough rate that we'll still be struggling with how many climbers there are. Why does it need to be accelerated more than that? Sure, it might make people happy. So might crack, but crack addicts aren't morally obligated to go repping for it.
-
Actually long term I see things going the way of the US with day use fees for areas, as I don't see funding for erosion control, increased parking etc being funded by the government or the BMC as neither will likely have the money to deal with increased numbers of participants.
-
Blimey "Teaboy", you're not this curmudgeonly in real life, is this what moving to deepest darkest Lancashire does to a man.......
-
Who benefits? Lots of people who might not otherwise have had their lives enriched by climbing; I don't think that can be dismissed as notional.
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Poor answer. I raise your homeless and give you starving children in Africa (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppealToWorseProblems).
-
Blimey "Teaboy", you're not this curmudgeonly in real life
Sorry, just spat out my cup of tea!
-
is this what moving to deepest darkest Lancashire does to a man.......
Must be a lot busier at Brownstones these days :shrug:
-
Whilst this is true, with UK sport there are pretty limited options for large parts of the year. A busy Kilnsey might not be a great crag any more, but a wet Giggleswick, damp Cornice and underwater Diamond are even worse... I can fully understand why one might prefer the option of not getting more people into climbing to the option of having to abandon the best crags in favour of esoteric choss because too many people got into climbing.
I was referring to the point in case of Almscliff. With a bit of effort from Leeds you could find a quiet dry bit of grit on a weekend if you tried / wanted. When I lived there I spent so many evenings that i would actively avoid it on a busy weekend.
Yes, there are indeed sometimes instances when there are no choices but going to the honeypots, but there are also many cases when a slightly more experienced climbed could make an educated choice if they bothered doing so, and were so bothered by the masses as to complain about it.
-
Just skimming the last posts on this topic and I think I got the gist.
I'll probably see Spidermonkey at the wall tonight so I'll try and cure him of his optimism there. Not everyone wants their lives enriched by climbing. I tried to enrich my wife's life with it and it ended in tears. Literally.
Teaboy, I'm not following your argument there. It sounds like you're implying that the people who are new to climbing are getting into it because the BMC encouraged them to. It seems pretty clear to me that the increased participation is down to a combination of two factors which have only aligned in the last 10 years.
1. Climbing is visible and looks appealing.
2. Climbing is very accessible.
It used to be that only condition 1 was met. Bonners and Brown and Dawes climbed routes on the telly. Steve McClure bat hung at Malham. Destivelle and Tom Cruise campused up dusty looking desert rocks. If anybody fancied a crack at it themselves they might join a local club and were subjected to the weirdos who inhabit such institutions (it's OK, I can say it, I am one of those people) and the expensive gear they'd have to buy. Otherwise they might pop into their local climbing wall and were immediately asked to tie a figure of eight knot or pay £70 to go on a course. At this point, lots of people will have given up. Not to mention that climbing was always bigged up to be really death-defyingly dangerous and this will have put lots and lots of people off. Bouldering is actively sold as being very very safe.
Now we have bouldering-only walls, and the only safety requirement is that you should recognise that falling onto your head may cause you serious harm. Then you're away, and once you've had that first sweet, sweet sup of climbing nectar you're on an ever more slippery slope to buying a pad and going to Almscliff so that you too can join the ranks of those who have got mud and tick marks on the rock before you.
The fact that these two conditions are now met (which the BMC has very little to do with) means that the meteoric rise in popularity of the sport is inevitable, and with the Olympics in 2020 it's clear that it has not yet reached it's peak. At this moment in time, I don't really want to see the BMC putting afterburners on this phenomenon and actively encouraging people to take up climbing. What the BMC should absolutely be doing is trying to engage all those people who have started climbing so that they can fill their heads with messages about good practice and not just going to the honeypots. And taking their money and using it to fund access work.
-
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.
Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.
Ahh I don't buy the 'whataboutery' line of argument I'm afraid. The fact that not everyone can enjoy what Will referred to as 'the sweet sweet climbing nectar' is no reason not to encourage some people to do so.
Re: potential future trad resurgence, I think this because what we're experiencing at the moment is a bubble, and I think eventually the bubble will burst/fizzle out. Secondly, I think a lot of people who go climbing outside are motivated by something more than that sweet gram post and footage of the send. Perhaps optimistically, I think a lot of them are attracted by the idea of being somewhere beautiful outside and the sense of solitude/escape that climbing provides. I think as bouldering become more popular people will move towards wild bouldering/chilled out bolt clipping/trad climbing. Just a hunch though, as you say, although I know plenty of psyched trad climbers who are new to the sport so there is some anecdotal evidence.
-
[/quote]
Not sure that analogy works - what does the BMC win by backing the horse as opposed to staying outside of the bookies altogether?
[/quote]
I would argue that by presenting themselves as the front of the movement rather than being reluctantly dragged along behind, the BMC place themselves in pole position to benefit from vast amounts of goodwill, increased member subs, more influence by being able to convincingly claim to speak for the community en masse, and hopefully more disposable income/bargaining power to invest in buying crags, access negotiations and agreements enshrined in law, which I think would benefit everyone. Just my view though :)
-
Just skimming the last posts on this topic and I think I got the gist.
I think you are missing Teaboy's point. He's saying he believes the BMC should NOT be actively trying to increase participation. The statement quoted above implies they are/will do in the future.
Your point that participation is increasing and we should convert those new participants to BMC members I'm sure is something he would agree with, but that's nothing to do with his point.
Personally, I think there is a bit o a bubble and I think a lot of the increase in participation from climbing walls will be short term for the individuals involved. I predict a lot of people getting into bouldering, getting obsessed and making fast gains only to plateau/get injured and move onto another pastime. It seems like a path to entry that will produce fewer "lifers" than the more traditional routes.
-
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.
Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.
Ahh I don't buy the 'whataboutery' line of argument I'm afraid. The fact that not everyone can enjoy what Will referred to as 'the sweet sweet climbing nectar' is no reason not to encourage some people to do so.
Re: potential future trad resurgence, I think this because what we're experiencing at the moment is a bubble, and I think eventually the bubble will burst/fizzle out. Secondly, I think a lot of people who go climbing outside are motivated by something more than that sweet gram post and footage of the send. Perhaps optimistically, I think a lot of them are attracted by the idea of being somewhere beautiful outside and the sense of solitude/escape that climbing provides. I think as bouldering become more popular people will move towards wild bouldering/chilled out bolt clipping/trad climbing. Just a hunch though, as you say, although I know plenty of psyched trad climbers who are new to the sport so there is some anecdotal evidence.
No diss, Jim, but I think a lot of what you've written there is very naïve :sorry:
-
Those comparing the growth in popularity to an economic bubble may wish to be mindful of the fact that a bubble occurs when a population heavily over-invests in an asset which cannot sustain such a high level of investment, and reflect on what this might mean for climbing on crags where damage to the rock is irreversible.
-
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.
Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.
Ahh I don't buy the 'whataboutery' line of argument I'm afraid. The fact that not everyone can enjoy what Will referred to as 'the sweet sweet climbing nectar' is no reason not to encourage some people to do so.
Re: potential future trad resurgence, I think this because what we're experiencing at the moment is a bubble, and I think eventually the bubble will burst/fizzle out. Secondly, I think a lot of people who go climbing outside are motivated by something more than that sweet gram post and footage of the send. Perhaps optimistically, I think a lot of them are attracted by the idea of being somewhere beautiful outside and the sense of solitude/escape that climbing provides. I think as bouldering become more popular people will move towards wild bouldering/chilled out bolt clipping/trad climbing. Just a hunch though, as you say, although I know plenty of psyched trad climbers who are new to the sport so there is some anecdotal evidence.
No diss, Jim, but I think a lot of what you've written there is very naïve :sorry:
Fair enough; I'm probably too idealistic! As ever the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.
-
I agree that it should not be the BMC's mission to grow the sport, rather it should try and grow the number of members within existing participants and spend the money on Access and Education. That is the only way I can see outdoor climbing being sustainable in the UK if growth continues at its current pace.
This sums up my feelings on the matter well: Let the growth happen (or not happen) organically, but try and increase the %age of climbers that are members to increase funding, rather than trying to increase the number of climbers to achieve the same aim.
-
If the BMC sees it as it's mission to enrich the lives of those who have never thought about climbing why not give money to a homeless charity, that way it can reach the people who's lives really need enriching without impacting the enjoyment of its members. Besides, how many of these poor lost souls do you bring in to the church, who do you leave behind to endure a life of misery/cross training/yogalates?
Still don't see who is winning with more and more people going to a finite number of crags.
You cannot educate everyone, even if you could not everyone will abide? Besides it's not about behaviour but numbers.
Other than a gut feeling why do you think there will be a trad resurgence? Andi if there is it won't stop people sport climbing g or bouldering. I font know anyone who has started climbing in the l AST 5years who goes read climbing.
I'm too old to wait, I'm falling apart as it is, and to your final point, I'll repeat, it's not about the behaviour but the numbers.
Right can't write anymore, work to do and I understand 73% want more people climbing so no point me continuing to argue my minority position.
Ahh I don't buy the 'whataboutery' line of argument I'm afraid. The fact that not everyone can enjoy what Will referred to as 'the sweet sweet climbing nectar' is no reason not to encourage some people to do so.
Re: potential future trad resurgence, I think this because what we're experiencing at the moment is a bubble, and I think eventually the bubble will burst/fizzle out. Secondly, I think a lot of people who go climbing outside are motivated by something more than that sweet gram post and footage of the send. Perhaps optimistically, I think a lot of them are attracted by the idea of being somewhere beautiful outside and the sense of solitude/escape that climbing provides. I think as bouldering become more popular people will move towards wild bouldering/chilled out bolt clipping/trad climbing. Just a hunch though, as you say, although I know plenty of psyched trad climbers who are new to the sport so there is some anecdotal evidence.
No diss, Jim, but I think a lot of what you've written there is very naïve :sorry:
Fair enough; I'm probably too idealistic! As ever the truth is probably somewhere between the two extremes.
Nah, you’re fine.
I wrote about this somewhere else (or possibly earlier in this thread, cannot be arsed to find it).
Like several others here, I’ve been climbing since the mid ‘70s. I have heard all of this before. Transistor radios became Boomboxes, became Bluetooth speakers. Corona bottles became Coke cans, became protein bar wrappers.
People don’t bury their shit.
People leave gates open.
Apparently, the latest crop of delicate snowdrops, can’t cope with mud. Buy some wellies ffs.
Numbers go up, numbers go down.
(Can anyone confirm/deny that participation per capita population has significantly increased? Because that’s the real test. Up to a point, increased participation is just a matter of increased population).
Access is always threatened. Has been denied in many places. Honey pots are honey pots (until people start to say “not going to “X” in this weather, it’ll be heaving”).
How many surfers here recognise that sentiment?
The BMC should absolutely be the primary route for newbies into climbing outdoors, along with bearing responsibility for educating those newbies.
As does every other experienced climber and wall owner/operator.
We live in a crowded little lump of dirt stuck in the North Atlantic. It rains, often. We have limited opportunity and space. If you think you stand any chance of preserving some idealistic realm, where only the chosen few venture into the great outdoors; you’re living in cloud cuckoo.
I remember sitting at Stanage one day ~89ish, idly debating with my mate (as we queued, three groups deep), whether we could actually walk the entire crag length, standing on punters heads, without touching the ground.
I wasn’t allowed to test it.
Eventually, some form of regulation will be needed. That’s just how the world works.
In the boating world, around the French Med, the numbers and idiocy reached a point where the authorities stepped in and began demanding qualifications and insurance from boaters.
Good.
Recreational diving has become similar.
Even better.
This idea that climbers can somehow fly under the radar forever, that the BMC should be some minor guardian of arcane rites and rituals, or that we should all become some Masonic brotherhood, where only the chosen might be admitted; sucks balls.
(That’s how certain people in this debate sound, not point at anyone inparticular. Individuals express various parts of that image and that’s how it assembles, as an argument, to me).
Those who care, will continue to fight the access battles, the behavior battles.
Those who truely love the life, will be in that camp. Those who don’t will drift off again, to other activities, just as they always have.
-
I'll reply properly when on pc but almost all all of that post strikes me as poorly thought out I'm afraid
-
I'll reply properly when on pc but almost all all of that post strikes me as poorly thought out I'm afraid
I’d accept flippant, bordering on apathetic...
Go for it, change my mind; dispel my apathy.
:tease:
-
I'll reply properly when on pc but almost all all of that post strikes me as poorly thought out I'm afraid
I’d accept flippant, bordering on apathetic...
Go for it, change my mind; dispel my apathy.
:tease:
I thought you made some good points, look forward to hearing Alex's response.
-
I was referring to the point in case of Almscliff. With a bit of effort from Leeds you could find a quiet dry bit of grit on a weekend if you tried / wanted. When I lived there I spent so many evenings that i would actively avoid it on a busy weekend.
Honeypots are so for a reason, whether it be they remain dry longer than other crags (or dry faster), are within close proximity of a large populous etc. so whilst in some scenarios it may be feasible to go and find somewhere else, there are plenty where that isn't feasible. Like others, I've had issue with the "go somewhere else" attitude of those who see growth as a positive. Selfishly, why would I fund that (or in response to Matt, why would I seek to accelerate that)?
In agreement with Barrows; sport climbing options in the UK are limited. If you want to see crags under pressure I suggest you look at the Yorkshire limestone when Peak lime is wet.
I also don't feel the BMC have a decent process for dealing with issues as they unfold (it's too reactive). The rise in accessibility of climbing has been apparent for a fair amount of time IMO, yet I've not seen much (I may have missed it?) in the way of trying to bridge the knowledge gap with people entering 'the sport' from a less traditional route (Whitehouses seems to have perhaps stoked this fire a little).
Ultimately I can't see how until the impact of growth and decent strategies for managing such growth have been implemented any action that actively seeks to grow 'the sport' can be undertaken in good faith (for fear of irreversible access issues).
-
One minute we’re talking about how to politely persuade some people not to walk on a wall, the next we’re proposing permit access to the countryside, and regulation to enforce compulsory insurance and qualifications for climbing small pieces of rock. Because that’s what you’re implying is inevitable, aren’t you, Matt? I love the way it only ever takes you about ten minutes to decide the only possible outcome is some sort of apocalyptic catastrophe.
Any of that is far bigger than the BMC anyway.
As a lifetime resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land, it strikes me that a policy of polite but persistent education / outreach using modern methods and a well-judged voice is infinitely preferable.
-
I was referring to the point in case of Almscliff. With a bit of effort from Leeds you could find a quiet dry bit of grit on a weekend if you tried / wanted. When I lived there I spent so many evenings that i would actively avoid it on a busy weekend.
Honeypots are so for a reason, whether it be they remain dry longer than other crags (or dry faster), are within close proximity of a large populous etc. so whilst in some scenarios it may be feasible to go and find somewhere else, there are plenty where that isn't feasible. Like others, I've had issue with the "go somewhere else" attitude of those who see growth as a positive. Selfishly, why would I fund that (or in response to Matt, why would I seek to accelerate that)?
In agreement with Barrows; sport climbing options in the UK are limited. If you want to see crags under pressure I suggest you look at the Yorkshire limestone when Peak lime is wet.
Did you deliberately ignore the next paragraph where I said.
Yes, there are indeed sometimes instances when there are no choices but going to the honeypots, but there are also many cases when a slightly more experienced climbed could make an educated choice if they bothered doing so, and were so bothered by the masses as to complain about it.
-
Also participation is normally taken to mean introducing new people to an activity but could also be retaining people from leaving it or existing participants do more.
An extreme view is that anything positive that the BMC does or says could be deemed pro-participative. With it being such a trigger point for people like Teaboy clarity was sought and gained from the ORG as without it the direction and decisions on work programmes become muddled and potentially political
Hi Paul - Just to add to what I said before quoted above until there is clearer guidance the BMC office will continue to work in a fog and the staff have to second guess what types of increased participation are objectionable and what constitutes pro-participation and how it practically applies to our work whether that's clubs support, youth work, motivational films, inclusiveness projects, alpine instruction lectures, talent development etc etc.
Overall it is quite frankly weird that a climbing organisation wouldn't champion climbing and promote participation. What the ORG has said is they think we can do that but with a few caveats.
You can't have a policy that is not for participation or not against it (Schrodingers cat?) as that is just the kind of cop out that has created the muddled messes we have currently.
If we are for it with caveats we can base actions and decisions around it and similarly if we are against. The membership survey indicated that the majority are in favour of pro-participation overall.
-
Overall it is quite frankly weird that a climbing organisation wouldn't champion climbing and promote participation. What the ORG has said is they think we can do that but with a few caveats.
You can't have a policy that is not for participation or not against it (Schrodingers cat?) as that is just the kind of cop out that has created the muddled messes we have currently.
As has been noted by T_B and others, the Fell Runners Association stance is one that could be considered:
The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php
If I had my chance to redo the Membership Survey now after having taken the time to think more deeply about it, and following the destruction of Whitehouses, my answers to the participation section would certainly be different!
-
If I had my chance to redo the Membership Survey now after having taken the time to think more deeply about it, and following the destruction of Whitehouses, my answers to the participation section would certainly be different!
+1
-
In agreement with Barrows; sport climbing options in the UK are limited. If you want to see crags under pressure I suggest you look at the Yorkshire limestone when Peak lime is wet.
Did you deliberately ignore the next paragraph where I said.
Yes, there are indeed sometimes instances when there are no choices but going to the honeypots, but there are also many cases when a slightly more experienced climbed could make an educated choice if they bothered doing so, and were so bothered by the masses as to complain about it.
Thing is, people already do that all the time. Loads of people wont go to Plantation on a nice-weather weekend for that reason. Loads wont go to Malham when it's clear it's prime-time for that reason... If those 'best avoided' days/weekends become more and more prevalent it will suck more and more. So yes, you can avoid these issues by going elsewhere sometimes, but fundamentally if you're a UK sport climber who likes to climb outside for as much of the year as possible, doesn't like driving for 5 hours each way and climbs in the 8s then options do become limited. Sure, drive further etc... but that still sucks, and IMO it's perfectly fine to think that you don't have some moral obligation to screw yourself over by deliberately increasing the amount of sucky busy days at the few good sport crags we have...
-
...
At the risk of sounding like an incurable optimist, I think this is a plus side. A lot of people were out having a good time, there wasn't a bluetooth speaker to be seen, and hopefully those indulging in fuckwittery were called out, reflect on their actions and be better next time. Plus, I was one of the last to leave after a lovely half an hour soloing around in the twilight in perfect solitude. Things could be a lot worse.
[modernkoan]If a lone boulderer turns on his bluetooth speaker at an empty crag, does it make a sound...?[/modernkoan]
-
I was too hasty Matt, I don't disagree with quite as much of your post as I first thought, but anyway...
(I'll not put IMO after everything I right, but for clarity we can assume that everything below is caveated as IMO)
Numbers go up, numbers go down.
(Can anyone confirm/deny that participation per capita population has significantly increased? Because that’s the real test. Up to a point, increased participation is just a matter of increased population).
That's not the real test at all. Remember we're discussing should the BMC advocate increased participation, not anything else. In that argument, climbers per capita isn't the important metric, absolute numbers is. (Alternatively, climbers per dry piece of rock or similar, but again this is driven by absolutes not per capita). This is the same as greenhouse gas emissions - absolutes are what screws the environment. If population doubles and climber numbers double, the issues are just the same as if climber numbers double without population changing. The argument that you're fighting a losing battle because participation is driven by population is not a valid argument for actively aiming to increase participation. If anything it's an argument to the contrary.
(until people start to say “not going to “X” in this weather, it’ll be heaving”).
They've been saying that for ages, as I mentioned in my above post to Chris SA. But you don't always have a choice if you want to go outside. Unless you keep certain crags secret... there's a reason why the French do that!
We live in a crowded little lump of dirt stuck in the North Atlantic. It rains, often. We have limited opportunity and space. If you think you stand any chance of preserving some idealistic realm, where only the chosen few venture into the great outdoors; you’re living in cloud cuckoo.
As I said above: "X is going to happen and there's nothing we can do about it, so irrespective of whether X is good or not we should not only accept X but actively push for X to happen". This is not good logic, nor a convincing argument in any other way. In fact it achieves the opposite of its goal and points out exactly why advocating X is probably a bad idea. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard a better argument for why the BMC should not actively promote participation!
I remember sitting at Stanage one day ~89ish, idly debating with my mate (as we queued, three groups deep), whether we could actually walk the entire crag length, standing on punters heads, without touching the ground.
I wasn’t allowed to test it.
Maybe you're right and participation levels haven't changed, but that doesn't seem to be consensus. Last week was very snowy, but that doesn't mean that global warming isn't something we should be wondering about.
Eventually, some form of regulation will be needed. That’s just how the world works.
In the boating world, around the French Med, the numbers and idiocy reached a point where the authorities stepped in and began demanding qualifications and insurance from boaters.
Good.
Recreational diving has become similar.
Even better.
- See above for why "X is inevitable" is not a good argument for hastening the arrival of X.
- You may advocate the need for licensing for outdoor climbing. I hope we can avoid it
This idea that climbers can somehow fly under the radar forever,
See above for why "X is inevitable" is not a good argument for hastening the arrival of X.
that the BMC should be some minor guardian of arcane rites and rituals, or that we should all become some Masonic brotherhood, where only the chosen might be admitted; sucks balls.
If wanting to go to the crag and it not be totally fucked and full of tits involves signing up to a Masonic brotherhood then sign me up.
-
Did you deliberately ignore the next paragraph where I said.
No, just rushing at work, so apologies. However, again as per Barrows in the context of UK sport this sentiment doesn't really apply.
Simon, I'll respond later.
-
One minute we’re talking about how to politely persuade some people not to walk on a wall, the next we’re proposing permit access to the countryside, and regulation to enforce compulsory insurance and qualifications for climbing small pieces of rock. Because that’s what you’re implying is inevitable, aren’t you, Matt? I love the way it only ever takes you about ten minutes to decide the only possible outcome is some sort of apocalyptic catastrophe.
Any of that is far bigger than the BMC anyway.
As a lifetime resident of Cloud Cuckoo Land, it strikes me that a policy of polite but persistent education / outreach using modern methods and a well-judged voice is infinitely preferable.
+1 wad.
-
Overall it is quite frankly weird that a climbing organisation wouldn't champion climbing and promote participation. What the ORG has said is they think we can do that but with a few caveats.
I think the response to that is likely to be that it's not really a climbing organisation, it's an organisation which represents climbers. Thus, if promoting participation were deemed bad by the members due to its impact on the crags or even due to impact on their fun days out, it would/should be beholden upon the BMC to not promote participation. Clearly if most members support widening participation then this does not apply, but you can easily see why people would decide to not be BMC members off the back of such a fundamental disagreement on the basis that they don't want to be supporting such actions via their subs and power of numbers.
-
As has been noted by T_B and others, the Fell Runners Association stance is one that could be considered:
The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php
If I had my chance to redo the Membership Survey now after having taken the time to think more deeply about it, and following the destruction of Whitehouses, my answers to the participation section would certainly be different!
+1. This is roughly the approach and outlook I'd like the BMC to adopt. But it's so far removed from their current approach, which reeks a little to me of empire building.
-
Recommendation 8: The BMC should responsibly encourage growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents, recognising the access, conservation and environmental issues that growth could cause
As per the commentary for recommendation 7, this recommendation now has the addition of access, conservation and environmental considerations. The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of
the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.
I'm not really sure why this thread was split because all of this discussion is directly related to this point in the Organisational Review. Coming back to this, the caveats that have been put into the recommendation seem very woolly and non-committal at the moment (is the commentary on the recommendation binding in any way?). I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.
Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.
-
Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.
So your second sentence makes your first sentence redundant?
-
I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.
+1
-
Taking a step back from my outrage, I don't think that increased participation is necessarily a bad thing as there are lots of crags which require more traffic. The problem is that I don't believe that the increased participation will be accompanied by an increased diversity in the crags that people visit.
So your second sentence makes your first sentence redundant?
Not entirely. I'm saying that increased participation does not have to be bad, if the effect of increased participation is matched by the spreading out of climbers' impact. This is possible.
However, I don't believe it will happen. The evidence shows that people's tastes in climbing accord with whatever is in vogue at the time. Even if, in years to come, the bouldering zeitgeist is replaced by a scrittly moorland bouldering fad or a return to trad bimbling, this just moves the problem to a different place. I suppose the challenge is to make it fashionable to be a non-seiging all-rounder.
-
I would be very interested to see a published strategy describing what measures the BMC will be implementing to increase participation, and how exactly they will be seeking to minimise the impact of this.
+1
+1
The wording of the ORG summary pdf (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/organisational-review-february-update) is also of interest in this.
I'd like to know the actual percentages of support for some of the 'hot' issues such as 'Encouraging Participation'; 'Olympics' etc. etc.
From what I've seen from the BMC literature regarding the member survey (I might have missed something) all we have is language hinting at the numbers.
Exact wording from the BMC summary linked to above:
'General support' for recommendations with a distinct sense that prioritisation is key..
'Overwhelming support' for measures to increase member engagement..
'Strong support' for review of membership packages..
'Support' for responsible expansion, but mindful of means and the potential for overexpansion..
Overwhelming, Strong, General, are all very different to just 'support' - which in theory could mean that overall 1 more person agrees than disagrees...
Seeing as encouraging growth in participation is such a hot topic, maximum transparency on the results of the survey would be welcome. (it may be out there- I haven't seen it if so).
-
All,
Have been following this discussion with interest for a number of reasons. Some points below:
1. I have been climbing for 10+ years and never been affiliated with the BMC yet I understand how to be responsible at the crags and the outdoors in general without any intervention from a governing body. Am I the only one? I think not.
I have seen bad examples of "crag husbandry" but I think for the vast majority of humans we want to look after nature and leave it as we found it. Inevitably, as numbers of climbers increase then the corresponding proportion of "bad eggs" will increase.
Personal accountability and ownership would help a lot with this, why rely on the BMC to educate? What can we as a community and as individuals do to change the situation for the better?
2. Initially I thought that "participation" was referring to climbers participating in BMC activities. I now realise this is not the case, however, I do think that this is the BMCs main issue. Why contribute to the growth of a sport when it is already growing due to it's generally increased exposure? Perhaps their efforts would be best spent trying to attract Member enlistment and advertise the benefits of this to the existing climbing community as a whole? (i.e. more money for re-bolting, education, crag maintenance) I would be happy to be a member if all the money was spent on was crag relationship maintenance, path improvement and facility improvement and not marketing the sport (even though multi-million pound corporations are doing that already for their own gain)
3. The fell running association point: I support this view and, as a fell runner myself, can see the benefits of not encouraging growth but supporting the members of the community who choose to take up the pursuit as valued participants. The benefit to the FRA is they have enthusiastic members who love the activity of running and want to preserve the environments in which they run, not because they have been drafted in to "have a go" by a marketing poster.
This could be seen as an elitist mentality but it is absolutely not the case, as anyone in the FRA would attest. If someone takes up fellrunning they can just go out and do it, as a result they want some more information and to contribute to the upkeep of their environment, so they joint he FRA. This should be the case for the BMC.
4. I can see no tangible reason to join the BMC other than for it to maintain/improve access relations and maintain/improve crag condition and and facilities. Any other informational aspects of the organisation are effectively superseded by the easier to access and more widely used sites such as "the other channel", 8a (gads) and general climbing media.
Apologies if this is just a repeat of others views but I feel this issue warrants my first post on this channel if it involves a major institution and, at worst, our rights to access. This may be different for those involved heavily in the BMC, as some on here are, but as an outlier my views may be more representative of the wider community.
-
Not entirely. I'm saying that increased participation does not have to be bad, if the effect of increased participation is matched by the spreading out of climbers' impact. This is possible.
However, I don't believe it will happen. The evidence shows that people's tastes in climbing accord with whatever is in vogue at the time. Even if, in years to come, the bouldering zeitgeist is replaced by a scrittly moorland bouldering fad or a return to trad bimbling, this just moves the problem to a different place. I suppose the challenge is to make it fashionable to be a non-seiging all-rounder.
Remind me where you climbed this weekend Will? ;D
-
Yes yes, but I spend countless weekends not eroding Almscliff, so that when there is no other option I can visit the place with a clean conscience.
-
This is a microcosm of the wider point though; it's not where people climb on mint spring days when it's been dry for weeks, and even the infamous The Path of the Penitent Mole at Numberstones End is dry that's the issue, but where all these additional climbers will end up on days like Sunday.
-
Earl. Obvs.
-
Earl. Obvs.
:clap2:
This is a microcosm of the wider point though; it's not where people climb on mint spring days when it's been dry for weeks, and even the infamous The Path of the Penitent Mole at Numberstones End is dry that's the issue, but where all these additional climbers will end up on days like Sunday.
A few days in the season when a crag is very busy isn't going to ruin the crag, provided that everyone observes the rule of not parking like a dickhead. The problem comes when, on those mint spring days that you talk about when everything's dry, everyone is still going to Almscliff. The rock will be eroding faster because of the higher absolute number of ascents it's getting. Ground erosion similar - a busy day won't ruin things provided there are less busy times when it can recover.
-
I disagree with your summary of the situation but am not going to drag us more off topic.
Would be interested to hear what other UKBers think about the BMC increasing participation?
Reading the ORG text again, it’s woolly enough that the BMC could come out definitively and say that in their interests in preserving the environment and finite resources outweigh any desire for the membership to increase participation.
-
I'd like clarity in how the ORG recommendation leads to more detailed policy, yet I think its perfectly possible and mostly beneficial to encourage participation in hillwalking and climbing, whilst its obviously not benefical at all to encourage more climbers to go to say Kilnsey. Indoors has plenty of participation expansion possibility that will provide BMC with funding, assist education on those moving outdoors (most don't seem to want to very often) and build on 'elf' and fitness in SE terms. Plenty of hillwalking and climbing venues would benefit from more traffic. As others have said, its happening anyhow so the BMC should collect subs, educate, influence. Spreading the load and good ninjaship I think is higher priority in BMC member's minds than the average participant. I wonder how many BMC members will be walking along the wall at Almscliffe compared to non members.
The Monty Python Romans joke has always applied well to the BMC... why should I join and what do they do for me? Its not just access and education (and the pantomime evil of competitions), its a massive lobbying force, it purchases crags at risk its important for safety testing and dissemination, its 'mending mountains', it supports mountain heritage, it supoorts mountain training, it produces Peak area guidebooks, and its internationalist in spreading its ethos in a world of distorted climbing games , access disasters and bad behaviour.
-
If the question is - "Should the BMC actively seek to increase participation?" - then I would vote against.
Lets looks at what would get hit first.
I go to the climbing wall roughly two times a week, get there around 8pm and stay until 10. It's pretty busy at 8 (sometimes raging) and usually dies down by 9. more participants means the walls being rammed further still and I can see climbing walls introducing a max number allowed in at once, (smart rubber soles only lads, or you need a group of girls with you) otherwise it would become chaos and probably be negligent / health and safety violation. Do I want to turn up to the wall to be told its a 10/20/30min wait? No thanks. Of course, this is hypothetical. I don't have much free time during the week and it pisses me off already when there's a load of shit new climbers on the 50 board taking pictures. I'm looking at you Nathaniel :P
Then there's the crags. I disagree with the sentiment that a good route/problem gets wrecked the more people are around. Some of the best bouldering moments have been burning random euro's off in font or topping something out to the chant of 1000's allez's. Who doesn't enjoy a mercenary army of spotters / pads and encouragement. But then there have been the days at demon wall roof where some idiot noob keeps touching the holds on your project and won't let them catch the wind / let the grease dry off. But I can't say, hey, do you mind waiting 10 mins. I remember wanting to get on a route at Malham. The guy's rope was hanging on it and I asked if I could pull it and have a RP go. He said no, he was waiting for the clouds to have a go himself. There was no cloud in sight. Malham and Kilnsey will become like Ceuse, where people leave 50pence at the bottom of a route to take a place in the queue.
I don't think increased activity will mean more people will go to different crags. It means Caley and Almscliff will get absolutely hammered, as will Malham and Kilnsey. Poor behaviour on wet/damp rock will ruin trophies like Zoo York. People will always try and shove their cars where they shouldn't. I've also been at the cliff with people from London and Newcastle at the same time because 'everywhere else is wet'.
Further points.
Will increase in participation increase shoe and chalk prices? If yes then this is a non argument.
-
More indoor climbers means more walls as demand is met. It seems to me we have several new walls every year right now, especially for bouldering,
I'd be amazed if the BMC had half of those climbers producing parking problems at Kilnsey in its membership. A few good mates who do guidebook work and access work are not even BMC members (I'll forgive them ... putting something significant back in the community is more impotant than their membership). These venues already facing problems from local participation growth are doing so as sports climbing and bouldering are fashionable and too many climbers are sheep. The BMC my be gently blowing in the direction of increased climber numbers but it certainly isnt supercharging any change. Also the BMC is one of the few forces for good in looking to reduce honeypot issues and I'd guess the overall effect is more climbers thinking about other venues or turning elsewhere if its rammed when they arrive. The BMC also chat with the landowner and calm then down and put up helpful signage when some climbing moron did the latest dumb thing so you can climb at the honeypot at all.
-
The question is not whether the bmc is good or not,it's whether the goal of increasing participation should should be theret
-
It would be bizarre (understatement) if any organisation did not promote increased participation...
Except maybe the satire society....
Oh - brexit kinda falls into that category too...
So following this through if you don’t want the BMC to increase participation then you are either
(A) a nostalgic old fool who doesn’t give a shit about the generations below you or
(B) at the bleeding edge of cool - chuckling away, stroking your freshly waxed beard, sipping Guinness from a jam jar and pretending to like jazz. KnowIng it’s all just a game. Right?
-
Tom, an example of an association with a not dissimilar playground who are explicitly not pro participation was given above.
The point I think most are trying to make is that people are getting into climbing anyway, they don’t need the BMC to be actively encouraging more people. The BMC do have a role in trying to get these new climbers into their membership so they’ve got money to pay for Shark’s Beemer (amongst other things).
-
Tom, an example of an association with a not dissimilar playground who are explicitly not pro participation was given above.
The point I think most are trying to make is that people are getting into climbing anyway, they don’t need the BMC to be actively encouraging more people. The BMC do have a role in trying to get these new climbers into their membership so they’ve got money to pay for Shark’s Beemer (amongst other things).
+1.
OW, when you say that the BMC is "gently blowing" in the direction of increased participation, I don't think we'll be able to say this when the recommendations are implemented. The review gives the BMC a clear mandate, nay, an instruction, to think of specific measures that it will have to implement to increase participation.
TT, it's not that weird to not actively seek to increase participation. All you have to do is not write and implement the increased participation strategy that somebody is going to have to do.
-
My beemer wishes to make it clear that it was fully paid for before its rider was employed by the bmc.
-
It would be bizarre (understatement) if any organisation did not promote increased participation...
Can't work out if that was a joke or if you just didn't bother to read the entire thread?
-
Just to add my two penneth: I think the BMC is overall a great organisation and I am a member via a club. If I wasn't I would join up. However in the membership survey I was unequivocally against trying to increase participation and still am. I don't buy the argument that just because climbing is likely to become more popular the BMC should promote it. Personally I simply want the BMC to concentrate on the core job of access and representation. I thought the fell running example was a good idea and made complete sense.
Dave
-
Someone read my ramble! huzzah!
TT - I am neither a bitter old bumbly or a beany/vest combo kombucha drinker but I do fail to see why the BMC should implement this policy, which would drain their funds, when the sport is already growing exponentially due to increased exposure generally (via commercial organisations, media coverage and the dreaded Olympics). This seems like a duplication of efforts and, therefore, a waste of resources.
Myself, and a few others on here by the looks of it, feel that the BMC would benefit from a general shift in climbers views towards the organisation and increased uptake in membership by the already growing community, rather than by growing the community without any effort to increase the percentage of those, like myself, who have never bothered to join.
Having said all this, after some research I do think I will consider joining as I now have the guilt of unknowingly taking advantage of the BMCs good work for a decade...
-
Some facts.
1. I’ve not read the entire thread. Sadly work and travel got in the way.
2. Sharks BMW was Not paid for from the BMC’s coffers. I have it on good authority it was financed by his people smuggling operation (he hides the fact he owns a string of aquatic themed nail bars across West Yorkshire).
3. I was trying to be funny.
But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing. The BMC has to try and ride with the wave rather than just let it slosh over them and disappear off into the sunset.
-
This is no place for jokes, climbing is about bureaucracy and facts! No room for joy and creativity here, we'll have no shouting here!
Point taken and agreed with, raising the profile of the BMC alongside the increasing profile of the sport generally is a good thing. If only I were a freelance marketing consultant...
-
This is a long post, I think there are a couple of different angles that haven't been brought up. Hopefully it's got some interest to some.
I've been following a lot of this the last couple years. I'm a BMC member, but only rarely (once or twice a year) climb outdoors in the UK, with most trips being abroad. I joined to go to the climbing coach symposium / do MT courses. Currently working at a wall.
1) Indoors vs Outdoors
Whether or not outdoor participation is increasing - it's indisputable that indoor participation is increasing. Recommendation #5 specifically highlights indoor climbing as "an important activity to the majority of its members". If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window. Walls will be looking to increase participation individually, and also as an industry (see ABC's moves - https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/overview-2018-ceo-graham-atkins/). The BMC could be for increased indoor participation, but does not mean it's for increased outdoor participation. If the BMC doesn't participate, what is its strategy / relevance indoors? Even if it's support is luke warm does it have a place? Comp climbing (including YCS etc) moving to be run by the ABC / other organisation?
2) Increasing participation - through promoting it widely or removing barriers / widening access.
Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation
3) Where does funding come in?
Shark - I realise that SE funding is not directly mandated to increase participation and is focused on the Youth stuff. However, their strategy is titled "Towards an Active Nation" and the headline is "We'll spend £250 million to combat inactivity as part of five-year strategy". I'd be surprised if they were to provide funding that was not seen to increase participation. What will the BMC do if faced between (a) a systemic reduction ~20% reduction in funding (based on 2016 accounts). Does the BMC represent members' interests only, or an organisation that takes responsibility for climbing as a activity - and receive directed funding.
/ramble over :sorry:
P.S. I'd imagine increase in participation will decrease shoe prices - increased volumes for manufacturers / distributors / retailers, increased competition as well.
-
What i’ve noticed in the SE is that it’s the walls themselves that are massively driving participation. Our local wall has hugely popular kids clubs which have a waiting list in the 1000s. Admittedly a proportion of that is the white Range Rover brigade who want to offload kids for a couple of hours at the weekend, but I’m fairly sure that a good proportion will end up watching YouTube vids and decide they want to go outside. Ditto in London, where though the walls have a higher entry age for kids, the progress curve is steeper.
The way I see it, the real impact of increased numbers is going to come in 5-10 years time.
-
If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window.
As Yossarian points out, a proportion of índoor only climbers will evolve into outdoor climbers so the issue does not disappear entirely.
There’s a need to think ahead and consider if we (BMC members) are happy with likely outcomes of policy.
-
But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing. The BMC has to try and ride with the wave rather than just let it slosh over them and disappear off into the sunset.
You've failed to grasp the argument, this is not about the BMC increasing its membership from an ever increasing pool of climbers it's about increasing that pool through its own efforts to the detriment of existing climbers. The growth is happening anyway and unfettered growth is not good for all climbers, if you are a mid extreme climber in the Lakes you'd probably love to see more climbers, if you are a wall owner ditto but if you are a sport climber in the north then you will be affected by these increased numbers. Let's face it, these walls are full of kids and young adults climbing V6 and upwards after a few months, full of experienced climbers training like demons if they want to do roped climbing they are not going to go and 1-4-7 their way up a VS in the Lakes but will head for Malham and Kilnsey and get on the 8s. If you wanted to do likewise there are very few alternative venues, you can't just go to a different crag. If you climb in upper 8s and 9 there are even fewer venues. Bare in mind too that many of these classic routes share starts or finishes, there are probably only a hundred or so independent grade 8 routes in Yorkshire (I don't want to give the impression I climb them, I'm arguing for a friend!)
-
But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing
Not sure I buy this, certainly not without further explanation. Why would it be mental to be target at those already participating, especially those newly participating who may need education, rather than outreach to those not participating?
-
Presumably the increasing participation aim is to do with receiving funding? I can only think that's what would make sense. It would be good to know definitively.
Indoor climbing is booming, but I'm still not convinced there are more people overall at the crags. My concerns are the environmental impacts at places such as Stanage Plantation, but that's not about more users per se. I'd blame the rise in social media/climbing logbooks and the herd mentality.
Selfishly I'm less bothered about parking at Malham/Kilnsey. Though I will say we effectively lost access to Blue Scar by upsetting the landowner and that was down to very experienced climbers.
I wonder if the 'problem' is that big. Annoying if you have a project at Kilnsey, but I tend to avoid the honeypots in the Peak now (or go at unsociable times) as they're so busy.
-
Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation
Broadening membership does not necessarily have to imply actively targeting increased participation, given that many climbers are not members.
-
ethnic minorities
This one clearly not helped by a cabal of crusty old white guys driving a - by all accounts excellent - President of Colour to resign.
(Or does that belong in the other thread?)
-
Recommendation 9 suggests broadening the membership, especially on young people. I read that as being aimed at widening access to women (I assume BMC is under-represented here), ethnic minorities (through the Equity Steering Group and further), and young people (through YCS etc). While these are aimed at "encourag(ing) a diverse membership", they will naturally have to increase participation as well. While I don't think many people would disagree with these programs, I think it's worthwhile recognising that it's not a blanket no against increasing participation
Broadening membership does not necessarily have to imply actively targeting increased participation, given that many climbers are not members.
True. Although I'd say that probably BMC membership isn't far off being representative of climbers across the age / gender / ethnicity. Therefore if the BMC were to be less white / male / old then increasing participation would be necessary through widening access. (The whole gender / ethnicity access issue is its own :worms:)
If we asked should the BMC increase indoor participation, I think we'd get a different response than should the BMC increase outdoor participation. The access / conservation / limited resource arguments would go out of the window.
As Yossarian points out, a proportion of índoor only climbers will evolve into outdoor climbers so the issue does not disappear entirely.
There’s a need to think ahead and consider if we (BMC members) are happy with likely outcomes of policy.
Yep. However, I'd be surprised if more than a few % of new indoor climbers venture outside regularly.
-
I think my point of view mostly aligns with TT's in that I think the BMC has to be seen to be encouraging participation as an umbrella group representing climbers. I think to not do so would fuck the organisation long term, appearing aloof, elitist and full of grumpy old bastards. I appreciate very few of those expressing reservations on here fit that category but I do think thats how it would appear to those who will start climbing organically. Perception is everything.
To be honest, I think that impression exists among climbers anyway (surprised at how many of those commenting here aren't members for example; perhaps a reason why?) and will only get worse unless they take steps to address it rather than fudging the issue, as Shark has referred to.
That said, there is clearly significant dissent on this and I'd also like to see how the BMC intend to promote participation whilst also protecting access/environment.
However, I'm not sure the longing comparisons to the FRA are wholly appropriate. Fell running is not an accurate comparison to climbing in my view. It differs in several key ways; there is no indoor fell running community as far as I'm aware, and I suspect the existing community is strongly concentrated in the mountainous regions of the UK rather than spread across the country. This is the opposite of climbing, which I would guess has a much bigger community, has a massive indoor dimension and is spread right across the UK. No stats for any of this but I don't think you can just transpose the FRA policy across. Happy to be proved wrong!
-
Presumably the increasing participation aim is to do with receiving funding? I can only think that's what would make sense. It would be good to know definitively.
Quite, it is the question I've been seeking an answer to, someone on the UKC thread said their is link to funding but that has been contradicted by another trustworthy source. However, even if it is most external funding is usually ring fenced for particular projects, and those re not usually access related which, in my view, is what the BMC should primarily be about.
Selfishly I'm less bothered about parking at Malham/Kilnsey. Though I will say we effectively lost access to Blue Scar by upsetting the landowner and that was down to very experienced climbers.
I wonder if the 'problem' is that big. Annoying if you have a project at Kilnsey, but I tend to avoid the honeypots in the Peak now (or go at unsociable times) as they're so busy.
It obviously isn't as 73% voted I favour growth in participation (although given the confusion on this and the UKC thread I wonder if everyone truly understood the question/implication) however if you sport climb or climb on Southern Sandstne or Boulder at Stange it may be an issue and if it is it's certainly not one that going to get better and increasing participation is only going to make it worse.
-
As one of the ORG members it's pretty interesting watching this discussion and as a climber of >20 years I'm all too sensitive to these access, environmental, conservation vs participation/growth concerns and sit along nodding to many of the concerns. However, it seems that there's one of these false dichotomies going on as has happened in many of the discussions across this process i.e. the BMC can only be X or Y. Part of this broader issue is that the BMC has to communicate what it is to members on X and Y.
Take all this in context (and in the context of other recommendations made):
• The BMC is the representative body for climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers (includes indoor climbing and being the GB for competitive activities)
• The BMC has an Access and Conservation Trust already (ACT) - you can donate directly and top-up a donation when you join the BMC
• Access is a major (the highest) priority for members
• It's recommended the BMC looks at how it uses ACT (and its governance of it) in R22
73% of the members surveyed were pro increasing participation (survey available here: https://johnroberts.me/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/BMC-Organisational-Review-Member-Survey-Report.pdf)
• Participation has increased (look at the climbing wall market growth (both walls and participation - 1 million unique people climbing indoors per year)
• Climbing wall regulation is being mooted already with the AALA consultation (https://www.abcwalls.co.uk/news/abc-feedback-aala-review-submitted/)
• When the next "Active Lives" stats come out on March 22 it's highly possible that by their measures CHM will overtake football participation (a big chunk is hillwalking)
• The part of the sport we're generally discussing in this thread is a relatively small part of participation numbers overall, but is also growing in absolute terms (subset data is limited)
• People are transitioning to those parts of the sport via the walls, and I know anecdotally that walls are being asked by customers to support their move outdoors.
• The BMC effectively actively promotes those aspects and more already through it's own marketing, BMC TV videos, grant funding etc as not all this is accessed solely by members
• Like it or not, climbing is in the Olympics and that will continue to drive participation increases in the general population, mainly to walls.
• The BMC is the whole sport SE funding channel for charities and schemes like NICAS (110k+ young people gone through the scheme 5050 gender split), Mountain Training, ABC etc. One joint bid goes in, and the BMC distributes the money to the sector (it can't do that at the moment because BMC doesn't meet the governance requirements of such an "umbrella organisation")
What does that look like in the real world:
The BMC can "responsibly" support participation and growth (that's happening around it), climbing walls, the ABC (and responding to things like tha AALA consultation), organisations like NICAS/NIBAS and increase support for ACT and use it to actively campaign to reduce participation where there are real conservation/honeypotting/access issues or at least promote spreading participation and impact. The BMC can't stop the current changes in participation but it can try to positively influence them. The BMC is already more than an access organisation, and we've tried to create recommendations that balance all that.
The BMC as a whole could take a backward step away from its current trajectory, and potentially isolate itself from partners, both within the sector, and also SE and government. If that happens it's very likley that another organisation will have to take on the mantle of being that umbrella organisation, with all sorts of potential negative effects across the sector, including limiting the BMC's influence wholsesale. What we've tried to do is avoid recommending that fragmentation, and get the sector working together a bit more effectively, broadly within what's already happening.
And finally, our recommendations aren't fixed in terms of implementation from here on it, and it's up to the BMC to look at how best to implement a strategy around R7 and 8 on the basis of its broader context (if it, and the membership wishes to). It's got to get that balance right, so these discussions are important. I'd probably urge everyone with concerns to raise them, thinking about the broader contextm, and get the BMC to promote ACT and how it's used as a charitable subsidiary, and how it supports volunteers. And did you donate to ACT when you joined or renewed?
And for what its worth, and as a member, I suspect the FRA will have its own crunch point in future given the rise in skyrunning and all that. It's 7% of the size of the BMC and it's not really comparable in scale, nor in the breadth of activities it represents. As a long time fell runner too, I'd admit, it's a pretty niche sport, why would you want to participate as it's generally sleeting, you've lost your breath, as well as your place in the field and on the map, you've run out of energy, and then you fall in half frozen cowshit? ;)
-
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".
Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.
Separately, I think we are talking about the effect of increased participation rather than the idea of it.
I would love if more people had the joy of climbing in their lives. I agree with abarro and T_B that the increase in indoor numbers isn't directly proportional to the increase in those climbing outside. Without facts, we are all just going on effectively how we feel and that comes with the negative bias of only remembering the bad days at the crag when it's busy rather than the days when you have a nice day at the crag. Has the mean number of climbers over the years actually increased outside?
Answer: We don't know.
Caveat: Have just read JRs reply as I typed this - Mucho waddage for providing information and providing an element of quantitative data. I, for one, didn't realise that direct contributions can be made to the ACT and shall do so.
-
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".
Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.
Fuck. That. Shit. Not the cost, just the whole idea of having to decide in advance, book you ticket, blah blah blah. Similarly, I have no issue paying to be in a park in the US but having to get permits from a limited number would piss me right off. Should probably not go to Hueco in a hurry!
-
@JR (didn't want to quote the whole thing).
Thanks for the reply John but this isn't about the activities the BMC is involved in (I've absolutely no beef with any of these) but why it needs a policy of encouraging "growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents".
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?
-
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".
Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.
No it fucking wouldn't! It's the exact manifestation of the issue I'm afraid of: people who want to go climbing but being prevented from doing so because there are too many climbers. The issue of too many climbers is not to increase the number of climbers which is what a policy of encouraging growth does.
I recognise that none of this matters if you don't believe there are, or going to be, to many climbers but it is my contention that there may soon be. This is based on two things:
Growth in outdoor climbing will come mainly in bouldering but in second place will be sport climbing.
We have very limited sport climbing resources in the UK.
-
All good questions, but it is about the bigger picture for the whole organisation.
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
Broadly, yes, but not "just" because. You're missing the bigger picture.
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
When we did the survey BMC was though to do a good job generally, in access too. In the last few months, we've had whitehouses, almscliff issues and more. This won't improve with increasing participation, but nor will the BMC's ability to effectively support all these concerns if it rejects its place in the wider landscape. Do you donate to ACT? Will you if you leave the BMC as you said on UKC?
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?
Participation is already there, the BMC is catching up with what's going on around it. A reasonable strategy for it will need to be discussed and debated - get involved and influence rather than walking away from your membership. Given the limited resource for sport climbing in the UK, it will need to be very carefully done, and you care.
-
@JR (didn't want to quote the whole thing).
Thanks for the reply John but this isn't about the activities the BMC is involved in (I've absolutely no beef with any of these) but why it needs a policy of encouraging "growth and participation in all areas of the activities that it represents".
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?
The BMC is membership led and access is their top priority. It is precisely because of the BMC good work that participation issues would be much less serious than if the BMC took a back seat on participation. Logically, given the views of the members and how they will drive priorities, any increases in participation will always be secondary to specific access pressures. The idea the exec will run riot because of a few words encouraging responsible increases in participation is rather ludicrous in such context. The BMC are constained to look at access issues first and foremost.
I'd add something to JRs excellent post, as ACT donations to me, although generous and very useful, are not the most effective way to help. The most effective actions are to volunteer to help BMC local area access teams, crag clean ups etc. As a climbing community it would be great if as many of us as possible talk to climbers who are potentially causing access issues by their actions, be we BMC members or not.
-
Not often said, but :agree: with Offwidth
-
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".
Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.
Fuck. That. Shit. Not the cost, just the whole idea of having to decide in advance, book you ticket, blah blah blah. Similarly, I have no issue paying to be in a park in the US but having to get permits from a limited number would piss me right off. Should probably not go to Hueco in a hurry!
+1
-
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits? Anglers do this to maintain fish stocks at "honeypots" so would it really be that damaging to introduce permits to climb at places like Malham and Kilnsey in the high climbing season? (areas used as an example only) - These are not cost-prohibitive as they are usually only a few quid but would allow a limit of numbers of people at crags and, through the application for the permit, allows an interface for someone to receive and sign up to a "charter of best practice".
Seems like if numbers are really an issue at honeypots and not an issue elsewhere then this would solve the issue, for a minor inconvenience.
No it fucking wouldn't! It's the exact manifestation of the issue I'm afraid of: people who want to go climbing but being prevented from doing so because there are too many climbers. The issue of too many climbers is not to increase the number of climbers which is what a policy of encouraging growth does.
I recognise that none of this matters if you don't believe there are, or going to be, to many climbers but it is my contention that there may soon be. This is based on two things:
Growth in outdoor climbing will come mainly in bouldering but in second place will be sport climbing.
We have very limited sport climbing resources in the UK.
Apologies lads, just playing devil's advocate and trying to suggest an alternative to simply reducing the growth of the community. It was Hueco I had in mind but this is much larger in scale to the single crags we are discussing. I know it would be an inconvenience but would it really stop you if you knew that on a prime day you had access to a crag with the correct number of similarly forward planning and enthusiastic people at it?
To my mind, this would only happen at a select few sport crags in the country (Malham, Kilnsey (why does no-one go to Gordale or Chapel Head?!), LPT, Raven Tor... although this would be impossible to police and organise and is therefore never going to happen.
To add a general point, engaging with the BMC rather than detaching is the only productive way forward. "voting with your feet" doesn't work as it simply leaves the BMC full of people colluding and inflating their own views rather than settling out at the mean view of the community. After all, the only reason any of us are writing on this thread is WE CARE.
I agree with offwidth regarding community involvement, I took part in a Dumby clean up day for a couple of years (the only two times it happened that I can remember) and it was great and certainly helped rid this unique climbing/outdoor pub in to a nice place for a few days. This was all done through the local people rather than through the BMC.
-
If you put your ear to the ground you will hear the sound of Ken Wilson turning.
-
But, the BMC would be mental if it were not to be SEEN to be trying to widen participation whilst a sport were rapidly growing
This is the fundamental point in the debate really.
You think the BMC 'would be mental' not to work to increase participation.
A large number of us think that this isn't about the BMC; and that the BMC should take a back seat to the greater interests of current and future outdoor climbers, who - just like fell runners - don't appreciate any effort by a seemingly self-interested BMC to increase numbers of people (while recognising that increases will happen, and education is important) engaging in a potentially disruptive activity that takes place in a fragile limited environment.
Talk of Sport England funding is missing the point - lots of climbers couldn't care less if the BMC doesn't jump the hurdles required to get SE funding. I'm unconvinced it needs greater funding to carry out the most important core of its activities - which current members have voted in the majority to say are: access, conservation, purchasing crags under threat, education/ spreading good practice.
-
Apologies lads, just playing devil's advocate and trying to suggest an alternative to simply reducing the growth of the community. It was Hueco I had in mind but this is much larger in scale to the single crags we are discussing. I know it would be an inconvenience but would it really stop you if you knew that on a prime day you had access to a crag with the correct number of similarly forward planning and enthusiastic people at it?
1. I presume you don't sport climb in the UK much. Or boulder on limestone for that matter. Forward planning + UK conditions != happy climbers.
2. Why on earth would anyone ever be in favour of this as compared to not encouraging growth? The fact that you can think of a crap solution to a potential problem is not a reason to attempt to enhance/speed up the problem!
-
If you put your ear to the ground you will hear the sound of Ken Wilson turning.
Ironic grinding turns, since its sports climbing venues facing much more participation pressure than than trad. Ken certainly thrived on debate.
I do wonder if the Yorkshire area access team had many more volunteers could some access pinch points have been avoided (if nothing else on weekends with perfect conditions giving up a few hours to wait and chat to climbers about to park badly at Kilnsey).
-
Apologies lads, just playing devil's advocate and trying to suggest an alternative to simply reducing the growth of the community. It was Hueco I had in mind but this is much larger in scale to the single crags we are discussing. I know it would be an inconvenience but would it really stop you if you knew that on a prime day you had access to a crag with the correct number of similarly forward planning and enthusiastic people at it?
1. I presume you don't sport climb in the UK much. Or boulder on limestone for that matter. Forward planning + UK conditions != happy climbers.
2. Why on earth would anyone ever be in favour of this as compared to not encouraging growth? The fact that you can think of a crap solution to a potential problem is not a reason to attempt to enhance/speed up the problem!
1. More unhappy that having to queue for routes or access being removed for a reason relating to the number of people at a crag?
2. If overcrowding is a problem then the ticketing system directly addresses it.
(also playing devils advocate here)
-
giving up a few hours to wait and chat to climbers about to park badly at Kilnsey
A nice idea
-
In fact, I do sport climb in the UK as my main form of climbing and when I go south I tend to go to Yorkshire Limestone ie Malham. I don't boulder on limestone at all as I am part of a fortunate few to have access to lots of hillsides dripping in empty boulderfields....sorrynotsorry. I agree regarding forward planning, it works and has worked for me in the past.
Hence while I understand crowding is an issue at good sport crags, it's not a showstopper. Simply an inconvenience. In my ten years of sport climbing it hasn't got that much busier, just people appear to park more carelessly and generally take less care of their surroundings unfortunately.
If you read my next paragraph in that post I talk myself out of the permit idea, as, in reality, I do not hold this view. It is simply a solution which has been implemented elsewhere in the climbing world and works to solve the issue of crowding there.
Note, need to get faster at typing as I am lagging by about 3 replies each time...
-
I agree with offwidth regarding community involvement, I took part in a Dumby clean up day for a couple of years (the only two times it happened that I can remember) and it was great and certainly helped rid this unique climbing/outdoor pub in to a nice place for a few days. This was all done through the local people rather than through the BMC.
This is my own experience of 'volunteering' in a climbing context - i.e. It's mostly about what you as an individual decide to do or not do, and much less about doing it because the BMC or some other organisation leads the way. It's very often individuals who make things happen, not organisations.
The argument often made in these debates, especially by Offwidth, is that we need the BMC to organise all the good voluntary work done within climbing, and therefore de-facto we should be supportive of growth of the BMC and increasing funding to the BMC. This is plainly false - a huge amount of 'voluntary' work within a climbing context goes unnoticed, unannounced and isn't directly organised by the BMC. However, where the BMC is great is in the background supply of funds or materials - I'm talking about fixed gear mainly but other stuff too. That isn't a massive cost in the big picture, but it carries a massive impact to the quality of a climber's experience. Same goes for crag access. Without which we wouldn't have much to experience.
I think organisations like the BMC are best when they're in the background, and not leading and trying to be bigger for the sake of being bigger. That isn't to say I don't think the BMC don't do great work - I think they do.
-
Re sport climbing, I'm in asmallman's camp here; I don't think overcrowding is that much of a problem on the whole. And yes, I live in Yorkshire and predominantly climb on the limestone in the summer. When conditions are good there is a good spread across Malham, Kilnsey and Gordale. When they're bad, it can be a bit busy but totally manageable. When they're terrible, the known permadry spots are rammed. Its all fairly straightforward and predictable. I don't buy that its busy all the time on my own experience; I've only had one or two really bad sessions where I couldn't get on the route (Zoolook and Sticky Wicket) towards the end of the season when they were one of the only things dry.
Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.
-
Can Dan Turnip of this parish do a nicely edited video of Yew Cogar, Gordale, chapelhead scar to generally raise the profile of other crags which are equally as good? Such videos may already exist in Quality Chufftown vids.
This happened a few years ago with Northumberland bouldering after Nick Brown made a few quality vids of bouldering there. People flocked and things got busy for about 2 years but it seems to have died down a lot now from my own experience. Hepburn is a good example of a once underused crag swelling and becoming very popular which alleviated pressure on others nearby such as Kyloe and Bowden(s)
-
:wall:
highrepute you've missed the point. A ticketing system might 'work', but the discussion is about avoiding needing one. If you don't think a ticketing system would suck ass then you're hitting the crack too hard.
asmallman: != means "does not equal", not "equals". Forward planning on UK conditions is about as much fun as going shopping then discovering that the shop you went to has no food and there being no other shop nearby. (All while the hommies over the road much on delicious millefreuille to add insult to injury.)
RE: crowding vs not, when I moved to Sheffield (about 10 yrs ago?) I spent a few years going to Malham/Tor/K without ever seeing anyone on anything harder than about 8b unless it was Steve. Nowadays if you want to climb a good 8c you will be in the queue. Not that anacdote gets us anywhere since.... The discussion is about whether the BMC should have promoting climbing written into its being, and whether it should promote it. So whilst it might be acceptable now, that doesn't mean people shouldn't be concerned about what it might be like in the future :wall:
-
Two points abbarro1:
Like offwidth said earlier, the BMC can and will prioritise access etc over raising participation. That'll be driven by the views of the majority of members.
It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it. Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future. The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.
Ticketing systems are taking it to the extreme, but it wouldn't be incomprehensible, for example, that a farmer/landowner says no more than X climbers or no access at all. Avoiding or managing those situations in the future, if participation does continue to increase, which is happening irrespective of the BMC's position, won't happen without increased resource and effort, both volunteer and from the BMC/ACT.
-
Like offwidth said earlier, the BMC can and will prioritise access etc over raising participation. That'll be driven by the views of the majority of members.
That's good. Although it does presume that things set in motion can be undone/fixed, which isn't always the case.
It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it. Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future. The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :'( :'( :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
-
Bat Route became very popular once it went up to 8c. No one even considered it 10 years ago.
Same with Mandela until Ste flashed it.
Is there are queue below The Yorkshire Ripper?
The popularity of some of these routes has little to do with the general increase in number of folks climbing and more about fashion/laziness/logbooks/soft touches/social media. IMO.
-
I agree with offwidth regarding community involvement, I took part in a Dumby clean up day for a couple of years (the only two times it happened that I can remember) and it was great and certainly helped rid this unique climbing/outdoor pub in to a nice place for a few days. This was all done through the local people rather than through the BMC.
This is my own experience of 'volunteering' in a climbing context - i.e. It's mostly about what you as an individual decide to do or not do, and much less about doing it because the BMC or some other organisation leads the way. It's very often individuals who make things happen, not organisations.
The argument often made in these debates, especially by Offwidth, is that we need the BMC to organise all the good voluntary work done within climbing, and therefore de-facto we should be supportive of growth of the BMC and increasing funding to the BMC. This is plainly false - a huge amount of 'voluntary' work within a climbing context goes unnoticed, unannounced and isn't directly organised by the BMC. However, where the BMC is great is in the background supply of funds or materials - I'm talking about fixed gear mainly but other stuff too. That isn't a massive cost in the big picture, but it carries a massive impact to the quality of a climber's experience. Same goes for crag access. Without which we wouldn't have much to experience.
I think organisations like the BMC are best when they're in the background, and not leading and trying to be bigger for the sake of being bigger. That isn't to say I don't think the BMC don't do great work - I think they do.
Thats complete nonsense what you acuse me of. I've always supported volunteering inside or outside the organisation here and elsewhere. I've said again in this thread I'd rather people volunteer than donate or join, but at least do something (most climbers still do nothing at all).
If we had no BMC we would have to invent one to help coordinate things like national access themes, lobbying, educational and safety work.
On my alleged views on BMC growth...I'm more concerned at the moment with shrinkage. thats the current funding reality in difficult and busy times and all the negativity on the BMC can't help recruitment, especially from well established climbers. The growth in participation within the BMC remit I strongly support is indoors and in hill walking . Hill walking paths need better monitoring: I'm worried about numerous areas where a stronger hillwalking BMC membership could help alongside other walking organisations. I was particularly shocked by the state of named major paths around Forest of Dean whilst taxi driving for a recent NC meeting. Fences have sprung up all over the north Peak, blocking freedom to roam and ease of access to moorland climbing. Also the more mundane eg littering, like the dogshit bags around Pendle Hill that is annoying the farmer so much he is putting up angry signage. My view on climbing participation is it only trad that currently needs more traffic and then only away from honeypots. Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation. These access issues are concrete and need help now and were caused by bad behaviour of experienced climbers (what beginners climb at Kilnsey and Whitehouses). I find hyperbolic speculation about the effects of BMC mission statements in this context very unhelpful.
Background or foreground input from the BMC depends on the circumstances and scope of the issues in their remit.
-
Agreed abarro81, we're getting a bit off-topic and discussing the impact rather than the issue itself, which is a hypothetical situation and therefore speculation.
Back to the main issue and to repeat myself, climbing is booming at the moment due to a number of factors and this is evident in the amount of indoor walls and indoor participation as a gateway to the sport. Good. More facilities are available and the community is fuller and people are enjoying climbing.
The sport is growing without the BMCs input and it feels it is getting left behind. It is therefore an internal marketing issue for the BMC and it needs to raise it's profile in the climbing community. A campaign to promote the sport is like pouring a bottle of water down an waterfall and saying, "I'm helping" but you're left with the same waterfall and an empty bottle.
IF those people choose to go outside they will gravitate towards the best and most well known areas first, good. We have no right to deny them access to the best the UK has to offer. In general, I have not felt such a detrimental impact to my access to quality limestone sport climbing over the past decade as a result of the increased participation enough to prevent me from doing the activity. Sure I get annoyed with busy crowds but hey, I'll get over it.
If a couple of weekends of the year you can;t get on your 8b project. Good. you're good enough to enjoy all the high quality high 7s the limestone has to offer.
-
It's naive to think that the BMC can stop the tide of participation, or that it won't happen anyway, given what's going on around it. Some of what's driving this is a concern for what it looks like in future. The sensible think to do is to ride the tide to put itself in position to be able to support and influence when it needs to.
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :'( :'( :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I don't understand what is :wall: here for you?
I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.
Do you see it differently?
-
Incidently, although we don't have ticketing, numerous number limitations happen already in the UK. Many crags have a seek permission from the landowner before climbing access instruction, others have a 'no groups' access message, some say no access, so if you must go keep a low profile. Green guide group advice is commonly go elsewhere if a crag is very busy. Don't take your dog is another limitation due to specific access issues on some crags.
-
Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective
(a) how many crags/places/sites are there where people can climb (for free) outdoors in the UK?
(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?
I would guess
(a) more than a thousand
(b) less than ten
-
I don't understand what is :wall: here for you?
I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.
Do you see it differently?
Correct. And the tide will turn eventually, but given the sector figures (particularly from indoor), it won't be a for a good while yet. The point is, the BMC should actively support the organisations that have a narrow remit around participation, where they're doing it responsibly (de facto they do that through umbrella funding, but there's also general partnership etc) and influence if they're not. If walls are going to start running "going outdoors" sessions, then BMC is better supporting that via "how to do it responsibly and not damage access, use the RAD" campaigns etc (as they do already and should increase). And via clubs too. Simply coming out against the whole thing doesn't get us anywhere.
-
Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.
Quite simply - why?
-
Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective
(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?
I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.
-
Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.
Quite simply - why?
Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining.
-
I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.
So why is it a good thing for the BMC to encourage even one more person to climb?
-
Out of interest - and maybe trying to find some perspective
(b) how of these outdoor sites are there where 'overuse' is a contemporary issue (apart from Kilnsey when its not gopping..)?
I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.
Can't say it's a problem at all North of the Border, geographically closest thing with issues regarding overuse is probably Bowden (as stated without saying it by offwidth).
Sport climbing-wise only Dunkeld really gets busy but it has about 4 lines on a wall so if 3 groups show up then you have to wait. But then all you have to do is communicate with another human being and come to a compromise and maybe even make a friend...but we can't have that eh
-
Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.
Quite simply - why?
Because it will risk being seen as an outside interefering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that, like walls and group instruction. You don't facilitate benefical change by being on the outside complaining.
I don't care. I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?
What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.
-
I don't understand what is :wall: here for you?
I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.
Do you see it differently?
The seemingly endless logic that if participation is growing, with or without the BMC, then the BMC should promote participation. I'm pretty sure that "If X is inevitable, then irrespective of whether X is good/bad, you should support/promote X" is not good logic.
I think the main disagreement we have here is over whether it's possible to be prominent and visible without actively promoting? I suspect yes, you suspect no... [So a pro-participation BMC might run an advert during the Olympics saying "Try climbing, it's ace", whereas a neutral-to-participation BMC would run one saying "If you're a climber than join up cos we do good shit"
That said, I can understand JR's point (which may not actually be his point, as I'm kinda reading between the lines) that holding the cash which goes to pro-participation groups allows you to choose only those who do things responsibly...
-
I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.
So why is it a good thing for the BMC to encourage even one more person to climb?
One extra good ninja does miniscule damage (use of wet rock, dirty shoes and overbrushing are the biggest rock damage issues in the Peak) and will in a small way encourage better behaviour in the masses (ie the minority who behave badly). The participation encouragement is small and with strong provisos on access and environment and so I think you are massively exaggerating its likely effect, compared to current growth that will happen irrespective of the BMC and compared to if the BMC discouraged outdoor participation. Another factor not showing much here is the BMC participation statement on risk.... like the vast majority of established climbers I would prefer those new to the games consider the risk carefully (this is an obvious continuing BMC led disincentive to taking up climbing). Finally, the joy climbing has brought me is worth sharing for those responsible to the rock and happy with the risk (pretty much the BMC ethos), and not kept as some masonic secret.
-
Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining.
Absolutely spot on in my view. Nailed it.
-
Accidental dupe of below message/.
-
I don't care. I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?
What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.
Really? The two are linked whether you/I like it or not. The health of the BMC is directly connected to access negotiations and all the good work that is done behind the scenes alongside the provision of fixed gear etc that you referenced above. If it is perceived to be in poor order as an organisation by its members then, as has been mentioned above, subs drop and as a result influence drops as well. Nobody wins.
-
Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.
Quite simply - why?
Because it will risk being seen as an outside interefering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that, like walls and group instruction. You don't facilitate benefical change by being on the outside complaining.
I don't care. I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?
What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.
You seem more concerned with portraying me as a BMC lacky than someone who first and foremost supports responsiblility in climbing to preserve the rock and environment and maintain access, and who sees the BMC as the most worthy UK organisation to support in that aim. If I support an organisation I see as doing vital work in achieving those aims, of course it's public perception is important, so people support it with time, money and membership (lobbying power). Real people who were doing useful work in the BMC have lost their jobs recently, most remainjng staff are heavily stressed and worried about the future, a hard working President who shared my views resigned, and volunteer support has declined, all due to the ongoing political argy bargy and time, energy and financial impacts from Climb Britain onwards. Argy bargy that was always tangental to the most important work done by the BMC.
-
I’ve held off posting an length because I’m struggling to decide where I stand on the issue. I feel like this is my best attempt to succinctly put my feelings into words.
Instinctively I’m for encouraging growth. I believe the BMC leads the way on how climbing is perceived and how climbers behave. And I’d rather climbers and the BMC were intrinsically inclusive and not exclusive. Offwidths statement helps articulate why I think inclusive is better - “Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining”
Despite this I think climbing is growing already and the BMC doesn’t need to contribute to this and should focus on educating the growth element. I believe this is what is currently does and will continue to do.
Regarding the policy specifically..My understanding is the suggested new policy is not different to the existing policy in that the BMC has a stated aim to encourage growth (see 1. - up for interpretation) (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-core-policies). But the potential impact on access/environment means that they do not actively do this - this is what I believe the “responsible” caveat means.
I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?
My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.
-
I’ve held off posting an length because I’m struggling to decide where I stand on the issue. I feel like this is my best attempt to succinctly put my feelings into words.
Instinctively I’m for encouraging growth. I believe the BMC leads the way on how climbing is perceived and how climbers behave. And I’d rather climbers and the BMC were intrinsically inclusive and not exclusive. Offwidths statement helps articulate why I think inclusive is better - “Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining”
Despite this I think climbing is growing already and the BMC doesn’t need to contribute to this and should focus on educating the growth element. I believe this is what is currently does and will continue to do.
Regarding the policy specifically..My understanding is the suggested new policy is not different to the existing policy in that the BMC has a stated aim to encourage growth (see 1. - up for interpretation) (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-core-policies). But the potential impact on access/environment means that they do not actively do this - this is what I believe the “responsible” caveat means.
I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?
My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.
Fully agree with highrepute.
I certainly don't support discouraging growth so will second a vote for option 2. However, providing this framework excludes the other option of increasing the BMCs profile within the climbing community.
-
I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?
My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.
I'm pretty sure clarity on that will be one of the biggest remaining concerns if and when ORG recommendations are implemented with the democratic input of the full membership at an AGM. I don't think its clear enough and I can see past some of the worries presented here. I support the concerns raised about pressure on busy crags, I just dont see it as mutually incompatible with the ORG position, for the reasons already presented above. I'm sure this debate will be repeated many times before then.
-
Not sure how the discussion has progressed but these titbits amused me....
at the same time, the crags are completely fucked.
They are indeed. Green, lichenous, overgrown and scrittly - despite solid rock underneath. They need a hell of a lot more attention, traffic, and careful cleaning rather than increasing neglect...
Honeypots are honeypots for a reason,
Because climbers are unimaginative Rockfax-spoon-fed crowd-following herd morons. They only want to go to stuff that is easily accessible, well known, over-documented in a dozen guidebooks and a hundred Youtube compilations of mundane tickery, requires little effort, less cleaning, and no thought. I posted on FB a while ago after the most utterly perfect "get out and explore off the beaten track and avoid the hordes in amazing conditions" grit weekend:
God, boulderers can be such spectacular dullards. Exploring a variety of Stanage routes in perfect conditions on Saturday, looking down in bewilderment at the circus below in The Plantation: hordes of mundane tickers caterpillaring their way up to carpet the most unimaginative, over-chalked lowball traverses with half a dozen pads and then queuing up to dab their way along them. Meanwhile one of the best problems in the area, Honourary Caley is obviously bone dry but sees no chalk and no attention, neither do any of the many great team-worthy highballs along the edge. Embarrassing.
The problem for the BMC is not to avoid increasing the load, it is to make sure that load is well spread, and the load cares for the rock at the same time - keeping both honeypots and hidden gems clean in quite different ways.
-
I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?
My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.
I'm pretty sure clarity on that will be one of the biggest remaining concerns if and when ORG recommendations are implemented with the democratic input of the full membership at an AGM. I don't think its clear enough and I can see past some of the worries presented here. I support the concerns raised about pressure on busy crags, I just dont see it as mutually incompatible with the ORG position, for the reasons already presented above. I'm sure this debate will be repeated many times before then.
Thanks both, agree with both of you. It's now up-to the members to discuss and agree what responsible looks like, assuming the bigger picture is also agreed. I think it's worth stating that the amendment report text that Shark quoted much earlier on, was in clarity to the earlier report's Rs rather than a wholesale change (pasted below for reference).Yes, long and wordy, but it's acknowledged that this is a difficult issue.
As the BMC looks to craft its strategic review process it needs to consider what its ideal membership looks like. The BMC has grown from its roots as a collective of mountaineering clubs, with a few thousand members to an organisation spanning a wide range of sporting and leisure disciplines, from those on foot reaching their rst mountain summit, through to elite-level mountaineers, climbers and competition athletes.
This expansion has come naturally as climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering have evolved, with the BMC acting as the natural home to accommodate the growing community of interest. With this expansion has come a growth in the number of staff and volunteers needed to manage this community and this has caused the organisation to grow to a paid staff of over 30, and a volunteer community reaching into the many hundreds.
The Member Research Survey showed that although there are distinct interest groups and communities, for many, “climbing” is a broad sport and many respondents regularly take part in a number of different climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering activities, often within the same period. Very few respondents classified themselves as having a single “interest” only within the range of activities covered by the BMC.
With 2.4 million bi-monthly participants across the BMC’s recognised activities it is easy to see continued natural growth of membership (11% annual growth in 2016) and it is likely that the BMC will reach over 100,000 members by 2020 at current growth rates. The survey shows overwhelming support (73%) for the BMC to encourage participation and membership and yet many within the focus groups are concerned of the impact on our natural environment of a significant increase in numbers heading to popular crags and mountain paths.
The BMC must consider carefully where it chooses to focus its time, resources and volunteer efforts and try to balance the need to thrive and encourage participation and membership, with the need to look at boundaries as to how wide its reach becomes. The BMC should be careful to classify its boundaries and look at the edge cases (such as hillwalking vs rambling, or indoor climbing vs clip-and-climb) and make a clear statement about where these boundaries lie.
With this comes the challenging issue of whether the BMC should seek to encourage participation in its activities and grow its membership. The Member Research Survey, focus groups and the ORG all recognise the huge benefits that climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering present to those that participate. Most expressed an innate desire to share their love for the outdoors and the activities that they undertake, yet recognise the conflict that this creates: greater participation puts further strain on our natural crag and mountain environments.
The Member Research Survey provides a clear and unambiguous steer on this issue, with 77% of respondents expressing a desire for the BMC to encourage more climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers to join the organisation and 73% saying that the BMC should seek to encourage greater participation in all of its activities. This is clearly an opportunity for the BMC, both in terms of growing its organisational influence but also attracting greater funding to perform much of its access and conservation work. In particular, the ORG recognises the need for the BMC to attract younger members in order to ensure a broad demographic representation, but also to educate and inform future generations as to the ethics and history of British climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.
It is important for any growing organisation to ensure that it has a broad and diverse membership. Diversity and balance leads to a stronger and more vibrant organisation. Since the formation of the BMC over 70 years ago, the population of the UK, its expectations, culture and aspirations have changed enormously. Within the BMC’s activities alone, there has been a huge growth in diversity of activities, where climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering have many niches and dedicated activities.
The range of people entering the BMC’s world has also altered significantly. What once was a sport catering to an elite few has now become a mass participation activity, with over 2.4 million people per month taking part in one of its activities that fall within its remit. The climbing population now represents that of the broader UK population, with broad participation across gender, age, ethnicity and disability groups. The Member Research Survey recognises and celebrates this, and whilst recognising the BMC’s activities so far (youth development, Ready to Rock, #ThisGirlCan etc) encourages the BMC to do more.
The Member Research Survey and focus groups both identified a need to develop a strategy around growth and diversity, particularly focusing on women’s participation, engaging those with families and those under 25. It was recognised that for these groups, the entry point is most likely to be indoor climbing and yet it was felt that the BMC’s role is to encourage them to understand and enjoy the broader mountain environment beyond the doors of the climbing wall. Despite this not having universal support from focus groups, the ORG recommends that the BMC consider a targeted programme of activities to encourage broader participation from women, families and specifically the under-25s.
-
All good questions, but it is about the bigger picture for the whole organisation.
1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?
Broadly, yes, but not "just" because. You're missing the bigger picture.
If the answer is mostly yes then there's not a lot for me to argue, will of the people innit? If there is more to it then, yes, I am missing the bigger picture and I've not seen an answer to the question of how climbers and current BMC members benefit from accelerating the, already pretty rapid, growth in climbing participation.
2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?
When we did the survey BMC was though to do a good job generally, in access too. In the last few months, we've had whitehouses, almscliff issues and more. This won't improve with increasing participation, but nor will the BMC's ability to effectively support all these concerns if it rejects its place in the wider landscape. Do you donate to ACT? Will you if you leave the BMC as you said on UKC?
To avoid accusations of hypocrisy (no matter how veiled) I have donated but it seems impossible not to do so in any meaningful way without a PayPal account which I neither have nor want. I set up a standing order for BMC membership about 8 years ago and since then have paid it no heed so not really noticed the ACT before it came up on the other thread. Incidentally I accidentally joined the National Trust 5 years ago and have failed to leave that organisation due to my crap personal admin so don't be surprised if my BMC membership lasts to eternity!
3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?
Participation is already there, the BMC is catching up with what's going on around it. A reasonable strategy for it will need to be discussed and debated - get involved and influence rather than walking away from your membership. Given the limited resource for sport climbing in the UK, it will need to be very carefully done, and you care.
Doesn't really answer the question but yes, like you say, participation is there why do we need more?
-
The BMC is membership led and access is their top priority. It is precisely because of the BMC good work that participation issues would be much less serious than if the BMC took a back seat on participation. Logically, given the views of the members and how they will drive priorities, any increases in participation will always be secondary to specific access pressures.
This is not a suggestion for the BMC to take a back seat on participation, we all know participation is increasing, surely the issue is managing whats already coming rather than driving that growth.
The idea the exec will run riot because of a few words encouraging responsible increases in participation is rather ludicrous in such context.
Which is why no one has ever said anything like that. I think BMC's attempts to encourage participation will lead to negligible growth compared to other things, I'm just puzzled as to why it feels it needs to do it at all? It started out as as simple statement but after all this discussion no one has come up with a compelling reason why the BMC needs to drive growth and I can think of some reasons why it shouldn't.
I'd add something to JRs excellent post, as ACT donations to me, although generous and very useful, are not the most effective way to help. The most effective actions are to volunteer to help BMC local area access teams, crag clean ups etc. As a climbing community it would be great if as many of us as possible talk to climbers who are potentially causing access issues by their actions, be we BMC members or not.
I don't want to conflate the two issues. Access because of poor behaviour is different to what I am concerned about which is general over crowding of climbers not conflicts between climbers and landowners (although I can see they are related).
-
To my mind, this would only happen at a select few sport crags in the country (Malham, Kilnsey (why does no-one go to Gordale or Chapel Head?!), LPT, Raven Tor... although this would be impossible to police and organise and is therefore never going to happen.
If you spread the load to Chapel Head anytime in the next three months there really would be access issues which highlights the issue. Similarly the crowding at Gordale is arguably worse as when conditions are good people are keen for the same few routes which are very long.
-
If you read my next paragraph in that post I talk myself out of the permit idea, as, in reality, I do not hold this view. It is simply a solution which has been implemented elsewhere in the climbing world and works to solve the issue of crowding there.
If the problem is there are too many users for a resource then restricting access to some of those users is not solution, the solution is to reduce the number of users or increase the resource. Fair enough, from a sport climbing perspective you can do neither but adding more users seem particularly daft.
-
Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.
If all those pope I see down the walls doing one arm pull ups weighted dead hangs and 4x4s on V7s are not getting on 7b+ upwards then they don't deserve nice things anyway! :tease:
-
Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.
Come on, Jim. It's thinking like this that causes the honeypotting problems. To say Yorkshire hasn't got any good 6s is complete toss. Moughton Nab, Trow Gill, Gigg North, Yew Cogar, Castleberg, Langcliffe and Stony Bank all have loads of really good 6s. To imply that they're not good is to confuse easy climbing with poor climbing. Just because it's not steep and hard it doesn't mean it isn't good.
Likewise the comment about the quality starting at 7b+. Doesn't this neatly coincide with when you personally have to start trying hard/redpointing? There are stacks of great routes in the low 7s at the crags I've mentioned above and more at Trollers Gill. Trollers in particular is dynamite in the low 7s. The climbs even follow obvious natural lines, unlike their catwalk counterparts!
And yet, I'm always staggered that people who talk down the quality of the lesser venues often haven't visited them. This baffles me especially with sport climbing, where a redpointer only really needs one or two routes to work on a particular day. So much more so than trad, you don't really need a crag with loads to go at at your selected grade.
-
Sorry, I'm guilty there of saying Yorkshire lime when actually I mean the big three honey pots. Of course there are great routes in the 6s all over the place, just not at those crags. My bad!
It would be nice if I only had to start redpointing at those grades I assure you!
-
You seem more concerned with portraying me as a BMC lacky than someone who first and foremost supports responsiblility in climbing to preserve the rock and environment and maintain access, and who sees the BMC as the most worthy UK organisation to support in that aim. If I support an organisation I see as doing vital work in achieving those aims, of course it's public perception is important, so people support it with time, money and membership (lobbying power). Real people who were doing useful work in the BMC have lost their jobs recently, most remainjng staff are heavily stressed and worried about the future, a hard working President who shared my views resigned, and volunteer support has declined, all due to the ongoing political argy bargy and time, energy and financial impacts from Climb Britain onwards. Argy bargy that was always tangental to the most important work done by the BMC.
Yeah.. I'm afraid I can't reconcile your view of the BMC with the view I hold, which is that the BMC has ceased to be simply a representative body for climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers and instead has morphed into a organisation that IMO is too concerned with growing itself to represent everything and fitting into certain pigeon holes required to obtain funding from government agencies (sport england). The language being used to justify its growth sounds great on the surface - access, education, directing good behavior etc., but on deeper reflection I find myself - as someone most intereted in climbing outdoors and least interested in what goes on indoors and in competitions - in complete agreement with a policy similar to the FRA as posted by Teestub earlier in the thread, which I'll repeat here:
The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php
Someone said they didn't think that Fell Running was comparable to Climbing but in fact I think it makes a very good comparison: fell running is a subset of 'Running', similar to how 'outdoor climbing' is a subset of 'Climbing'.
Running encompasses any number of genres from urban jogging, competitive events in stadiums, ultra marathons, fell running, the olympics, triathalons and loads of other genres involving 'running'.
'Climbing' has evolved to become something not so dissimilar to running in it's mix of sub-genres: urban/indoor/competitive/outdoor/adventurous/low-commitment/high-commitment.
There isn't one representative body/governing body for 'Running'. The FRA exists to protect the interests of a small subset of runners who - while enjoying all sorts of running - especially enjoy running in wilder natural environments of the UK.
In a very similar way, a subset of climbers has always existed who - while enjoying all sorts of climbing - especially enjoy climbing outdoors in the natural environment.
Participants both in 'Climbing' and in 'Fell Running' share a concern about the impact of numbers of people in wild open places. Unlike the body representing 'Fell Runners', the body that represents 'Outdoor Climbers' also encompasses the whole of 'Climbing, Hillwalking and Mountaineering'.
The conflict between positioning itself to receive funding from SE - as part of the government's heath drive to increase bums off seats - and protecting the interests of a subset of 'outdoor climbers' who enjoy their past-time in relatively quiet unspoilt open spaces, is obvious if not immediately threatening.
-
Pete, you might have forgotten UK Athletics’ role (and England Athletics’) in running (and trail running, fell running etc) and its governance (yes, the FRA have de-affiliated, but the many of the actual clubs haven’t).
It’s not a great comparison, because of the BMC’s breadth of different activities. It would be a good comparsion if the BMC only represented “outdoor trad climbing” or another such discrete subset of Climbing, Hillwalking and Mountaineering (including indoor climbing and competitions etc, and ski mountaineering too).
The entire debate is about how you do it responsibly in each of those subsets, knowing some will have a much greater environmental (or other) impact than others, therefore a much more neutral/cautious position can be adopted. Supporting the growing participation in indoor climbing for young people is an entirely different issue to promoting trad climbing on south stack, and both can have different “responsible” policies. The BMC has a very broad reach now, hence why it’s tricky to stay out the weeds on some of these debates.
-
Hopefully most can see that you've misunderstood my comparison - I wasn't comparing the FRA to the BMC.
Re-read and you'll see I'm comparing 'running' - in all its genres, with 'climbing, mountaineering & hillwalking' - in all its genres. In that sense fell-running is broadly comparable with climbing outdoors.
-
Exactly, and the whole ORG process, the BMC, and this debate is about more than “climbing outdoors”
-
John, I see what you're saying, and I'm grateful that you're trying to allay our fears, but I still have concerns.
The ORGs recommendation is a clear instruction to the BMC to encourage uptake of participation, and given how chastened the organisation must be feeling at the moment (Shark does say that everyone is feeling very risk averse, I can understand why), I feel like it's unlikely that the exec are going to reject or seriously modify the ORG's proposals, so I expect the recommendation will be adopted.
However the recommendation isn't specific to what discipline it should be encouraging participation in and the caveats about being mindful of the environment and the sustainability of climbing seem a bit woolly and don't seem to really mandate much consideration. I'm concerned that consideration of overuse will be something that is thought of after somebody's developed their brilliant scheme to drive uptake of climbing, as opposed to something that is integral to the exercise. That's just my reading of it.
I, and I'm sure many on this thread, will be interested to read a published policy document on what the BMC plans to do with the recommendation, with specific consideration of the many problems that are caused by overuse. Is there anything the BMC can do to encourage people to spread out? All you have to do is make going to non-honeypot crags seem cool. Bung a few quid to a good filmmaker and tell them to make some less frequented crags look sexy and you'll probably sort it in no time.
Going back a few pages to Barrows' head banging. I don't think anybody writing here is suggesting that the BMC shouldn't try and get as many climbers and hillwalkers as possible to join the BMC. What we're questioning is whether the BMC itself should take specific steps to increase the uptake of climbing among the non-climbing population. People seem to be confusing those things and they're quite different.
-
At least you are honest.
The vast majority of my considerable BMC involvement was with guidebooks, access and conservation: climbing, cleaning investigating and recording stuff outdoors. I could have done such without the BMC but it would have been much more difficult, less efficient and effective and less social, so what would have been the point? I am an area meeting regular but have been know to slink out when my head is exploding due to too much political shit.. piss stops,, buying pints or quick guidebook catch-ups with Grimer have been a great excuse. I've held no political roles other than the transitional chair on Peak area elections, that I do as badly as I dare, pour encourage les autres, but with little success... maybe I'll try stripping off next time... that'l scare the buggers. Why would someone like me be a cynical apparatchik? I'm really puzzled why you look at the BMC through such suspicious eyes.
-
John, I see what you're saying, and I'm grateful that you're trying to allay our fears, but I still have concerns.
The ORGs recommendation is a clear instruction to the BMC to encourage uptake of participation, and given how chastened the organisation must be feeling at the moment (Shark does say that everyone is feeling very risk averse, I can understand why), I feel like it's unlikely that the exec are going to reject or seriously modify the ORG's proposals, so I expect the recommendation will be adopted.
However the recommendation isn't specific to what discipline it should be encouraging participation in and the caveats about being mindful of the environment and the sustainability of climbing seem a bit woolly and don't seem to really mandate much consideration. I'm concerned that consideration of overuse will be something that is thought of after somebody's developed their brilliant scheme to drive uptake of climbing, as opposed to something that is integral to the exercise. That's just my reading of it.
Thanks Will. I think to have those concerns is fine and to be expected. I agree that each facet and subset of climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering will need to be treated differently, hence responsibly. I'm only trying to go so far as explaining the rationale at a high level for the recommendation, hence my reticence to get stuck personally debating the detail of what this might look like for each part of the sport (so as not to confuse explaining what's recommended, with what hasn't been, and the conflating it with my personal vie on the detail). The further detail in the recommendation sub text goes some of the way, but it wasn't the ORG's scope to really define the minutiae of policy. As per:
The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.
I will be as interested as you, and probably everyone else on here, to read the policy that that gets drafted and presented further down the line, whether by the current National Council, or later in a new governance environment, in conjunction with the members. Things will be phased, and the degree to which recommendations get amended etc, will be up-to the BMC. I'm sure there's less risk aversion to some recommendations more than others, and they'll also be prioritised throughout any implementation. We've highlighted some of the critical ones in governance, for example. We're still awaiting the BMC's plan on all this, but I know it's on the way, and being worked on (by volunteers).
Hope that all helps. I'm signing off for a week or so now.
-
Sorry Shark, I promised to reply but this week has been a bit hectic (and the debate seems to have moved on fine without me). Next week won't be much better so hopefully this doesn't come across as a grenade-and-run approach:
If we are for it with caveats we can base actions and decisions around it and similarly if we are against. The membership survey indicated that the majority are in favour of pro-participation overall.
Which is fine, and I accept that's the case but I don't hold that view (and I'm not overly fond of the Brexit means Brexit scenario).
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits?
Simply put yes. I've done a fair amount of climbing the USA now including a 6-7 month trip and the worst part about it all is the red tape you have to jump through to climb.
My last trip (Nov ish) was to Red Rocks (for the 2nd time) and the permiting system actually indirectly restricts where climbers can and can't go (rather than causing any spread); although not overly relevant to the Big K, if you consider a route of ~10 pitches with either a walk-down descent or abseil, with a walk-in (and thus out) of up to 2 hours and combine it with a loop road that doesn't open until ~6AM and shuts at 5pm (a later exit permit buying you a whopping extra hour), with <12 hours of daylight you can see where I'm coming from. Then consider that you're liable for a fairly hefty fine if you're not out on time (and having to ring in and change your permit for a route should you change your mind etc.) then the permitting system detracts from the experience and in reality has zero effect on finding yourself gumby-f*cked on your route of choice as it doesn't police against it.
In the context of pro-participation this is turkey's voting for Christmas then campaigning to have it brought forward. I just can't see why anyone would want this in the slightest?
Can Dan Turnip of this parish do a nicely edited video of Yew Cogar, Gordale, chapelhead scar to generally raise the profile of other crags which are equally as good? Such videos may already exist in Quality Chufftown vids.
But they're not are they? You've listed some good crags, with some good (and some truly great) routes that arguably should get more traffic but they don't have the volume of routes to go at and they're less reliable which makes them less appealing as somewhere to go and find yourself a redpoint project.
Bat Route became very popular once it went up to 8c. No one even considered it 10 years ago.
Same with Mandela until Ste flashed it.
Is there are queue below The Yorkshire Ripper?
The popularity of some of these routes has little to do with the general increase in number of folks climbing and more about fashion/laziness/logbooks/soft touches/social media. IMO.
I think you're way off the mark here Tom. Yes there is localised honey-potting under routes such as dead calm (but considering the number of variations this isn't surprising).
Talk to the Sheffield lot that venture north (usually on a Wed) and ask why they choose to do so. Sure, there's not a massive queue beneath the 'ripper but I'd think you'd be surprised by the routes (spread across the crag) that received attention this past year.
For me here's the crunch (and I'm wary of saying this as I've had many positive experiences with the BMC and a number of BMC staff from this parish): from contacting the BMC first about the parking issues at Kilnsey it took ~2 weeks to receive a response; IMO (perhaps I'm nuts) it's a crag that's of national importance and that just feels too slow. I'm not sure I even received a response to my last few.
As I voiced at the time (after attending the area meet specifically for this reason) there was the general feeling that it was treated as having been 'handled' which I'm just not convinced of.
It's a bit extreme but imagine there was an email from someone having visited Whitheouses that said "The farmer is walking round with a big hammer muttering about making us a few 'real problems', can someone have a word?" which was found 2 weeks later, along with a vandalised crag.
I just don't think the systems of old are ready for increasing pressures and if the mandate exists to grow participation with access still being the number one concern of the membership I think this needs addressing (and quickly).
-
This may have been mentioned before. I heard a BMW advert on Classic FM of all places, which had a theme of “Unleash your inner rebel” and they were advertising events to do this and first thing mentioned was bouldering events.
No wonder crags are getting fucked if this is how bouldering/ climbing is portrayed.
-
Personally I think two things about all this.
1 I'm a member and broadly, a fan of the BMC, believing that it does a lot of good work representing members' interests.
2 Serve the interests of its members is all it should do. Growing its membership from existing climbers is perfectly sensible but it has absolutely no business trying to expand participation. That is not its mandate (from me at least) and fundamentally in conflict with conservation aims.
caveat: those who want to explore the support should be supported eg youth meets, clubs and mentoring etc but supporting beginners isn't the same as actively seeking out new members.
-
.....
I'm really puzzled why you look at the BMC through such suspicious eyes.
I don't entirely. I agree with both of jonathanr's points above and agree the BMC does a lot of great stuff.
I'd add that yes I'm naturally 'slightly' suspicious of a large organisation - because they are a large organisation. That shouldn't really need spelling out to anyone who's attracted to climbing at least in part because of the feelings it engenders of freedom, non-conformity, personal responsibility and adventure.
When it comes to pro-participation, just ask 'who benefits?'.
It isn't climbers; it is the BMC. That's not the way things should be.
-
When it comes to pro-participation, just ask 'who benefits?'.
It isn't climbers; it is the BMC. That's not the way things should be.
Who benefits? The participants for starters.
Participation is not just newcomers coming into the sport.Participation can be increased or decreased by existing climbers and hillwalkers doing more or doing less.
There seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so.
Did you never share your toys as a child?
-
Did you never share your toys as a child?
Simon, this is your fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of most people who are against pro-participation. Personally I am very willing to share my toys with others who already want to play, but with a limited number of fragile toys to go at I am not going to go wandering the neighbourhood looking for people who probably aren't as interested in playing and are more likely to lead to the toy breaking.
-
Pete posits that pro participation is purely a BMC empire building scheme as if there is no other possible reasons for backing pro participation. I think there is a higher purpose to share what we enjoy especially if we are what we claim to be, a national body beyond just members interests. To fundamentally shut down that pro participation is bad as Pete does can only be rooted in entitlement and selfishness. You can dress it up how you like. We all here participate. If participation is a problem then we are logically the problem. The BMC is potentially for responsible participation. The detail of that, as JR said, is yet to be debated and worked out. I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
-
I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?
-
Well let’s assume I’m not a liar and you explain why my opinion is idiotic
-
I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?
In answer to your edited post explain why a locally organised BMC climbing festival (of which there are many) and Caff teaching trad skills to newbies (possibly from under privileged backgrounds) is morally or environmentally different.
-
Hi Simon, climbing ... it's a life enhancing (and possibly for a lot of ukbers, life-defining) activity and few would discourage others from taking it up but there's a reasonable sense of concern about what pro-participation means in practice.
Personally I think the BMC should be massively welcoming and facilitating - but up to a point, supporting the interested rather than creating the interest.
It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies.
-
EDIT: Probably best not to let myself be drawn in further, I think most people are seeing this not about elitism or stopping people doing anything.
-
Hi Simon, climbing ... it's a life enhancing (and possibly for a lot of ukbers, life-defining) activity and few would discourage others from taking it up but there's a reasonable sense of concern about what pro-participation means in practice.
Personally I think the BMC should be massively welcoming and facilitating - but up to a point, supporting the interested rather than creating the interest.
It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies.
"It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies." :agree:
I understand the reasonable sense of concern and the consequences and that efforts are put in to mitigating that. I gave examples of a couple of pro-participative things that the BMC already does for new entrants and existing users, I think these are positive and should be encouraged - maybe other pro participation initiatives wouldn't be - a thousand teenage abseilers at Stanage for a day for example.
As a National body we should be in conversation on wider national issues of health and well being. The approach of being pro participation with responsibility sits well with me. A wholesale anti participation stance would be myopic.
-
There seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so.
It's a shame that after all this debate you are still coming out with this. This isn't about elitism, wanting to ban anyone or a sense of entitlement. Everyone is entitled to go wherever they want on exactly the same basis what I don't understand is the need to press gang people into going.
It is driven by selfishness but I don't see anyone losing out by not forcing growth whereas there are (or could be) losers with increased participation. If it was a case that me giving up my place at Malham lead to some significant, tangible improvement in someone's life then I'd have to consider it but some hypothetical improvement in someone's well being which will, at best, only be equal to my loss then no I'll choose me every time.
Maybe your views would differ if you were likely to be affected by the issues. How, for instance, would you would react if some third party's actions impinged on your access to, say, eatswood or Crag X?
You are honest enough to say it is driven by selfishness. The consequence of that is you are wanting to have more share of the sport and crags than the general population. On what moral basis? That you got there first?
If that's the position then it is equally reasonable to ask you to do less as it is for you not to enable others to enter the sport.
I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.
If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....
-
I deleted my last answer because I didn't want to be drawn into the debate further, but obviously I wasn't quick enough, hopefully this will be my last contribution
You are honest enough to say it is driven by selfishness. The consequence of that is you are wanting to have more share of the sport and crags than the general population. On what moral basis? That you got there first?
No, not more, exactly the same. How many times does it need to be repeated that no one wants to stop anyone accessing the crags?
If that's the position then it is equally reasonable to ask you to do less as it is for you not to enable others to enter the sport.
I'm not asking anyone to do less though.
I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.
There are more chances than ever for people to enter the sport.
If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....
Like I said, if you are not really affected you're concerns are going to be different.
-
Increasing participation isn't just a case of persuading people to climb who otherwise wouldn't be interested. It's about helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled, for under-represented groups, and so on. It's also about aiding the transition from trying climbing out to becoming a keen regular, or moving from indoors to outdoors, summer only to winter climbing and alpinism, and so on.
The wording of the recommendation, and every person I've spoken to who is for it are clear that this isn't about getting more numbers into the sport at any cost. It's about agreeing that as a body the BMC is in favour of increased participation (and why not, climbing and walking are flipping amazing) in principle but that this needs to be balanced with the needs to conserve the natural resources and environment in which we pursue many aspects of the sport.
Is this much different to other stakeholders, for example national parks, who have to balance allowing and promoting access to wild spaces whilst conserving it?
I see two major risks in not being involved in promoting participation (remembering this won't be a free for all but a calculated and targeted strategy) - 1) you risk losing credibility with other organisations, when your credibility is your best weapon when fighting your corner 2) promotion involves contact with new entrants to the sport, who you give up on the opportunity to influence for the better right at the beginning.
The FRA have been mentioned as a model to emulate. No disrespect to them, but that's a shit analogy to follow imho. Because they don't promote, loads of people end up doing variations on fell running such as sky running, and other challenge events, which have a different ethos, and often cause conflict by dodgy practices such as leaving out markers, placing anchors and leaving paint flashes. The FRA have no influence or credibility with these people, but at least their tiny membership is happy and can complain about those who don't follow the true path.
In summary, I think it's better to try and stay at the core of things and be an influential body. Concerns about over-use and saturation of venues are completely valid, but I feel are better dealt with by a strong and respected organisation, because if we aren't involved in promotion (and asserting some control over it) then someone else will do it who doesn't have the same care as we all do for the places we climb and walk.
That's a purely personal view by the way, democracy will take its own course and I'm sure there will be plenty of debate about this in area meetings and whatever other methods are available in the future for the membership to decide what they wish to do.
-
It's about helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled,
Massively in favour of that.
-
I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?
In answer to your edited post explain why a locally organised BMC climbing festival (of which there are many) and Caff teaching trad skills to newbies (possibly from under privileged backgrounds) is morally or environmentally different.
If we are talking about specifically targeting the under privileged versus putting on a get everybody come and try climbing open event, I think there is an obvious difference. The former could easily be thought of as a type of therapy or education, and organizations that specialize in helping these kind of groups run similar programs.
I think it's hard to really comment until the bmc provides some more detail on what they actually mean by increasing participation. I imagine there are ways that would be more acceptable to the current climbing population.
While queuing for routes sucks, I'm far more concerned about land owner conflicts, parking, erosion, polish, chipping, hold breakage due to wet rock, and general anti social behaviour.
-
EDIT: changed my mind about posting
-
I think it's hard to really comment until the bmc provides some more detail on what they actually mean by increasing participation. I imagine there are ways that would be more acceptable to the current climbing population.
While queuing for routes sucks, I'm far more concerned about land owner conflicts, parking, erosion, polish, chipping, hold breakage due to wet rock, and general anti social behaviour.
Yes I agree that defining what is meant by pro participation is the next step but that isn’t just the BMC proclaiming from on high - it is a ‘participative’ process
Also jeopardising access agreements isn’t just the preserve of newcomers. I can, but I won’t, give several examples of well known climbers knowingly flaunting existing arrangements because it suited them.
-
Pete posits that pro participation is purely a BMC empire building scheme as if there is no other possible reasons for backing pro participation. I think there is a higher purpose to share what we enjoy especially if we are what we claim to be, a national body beyond just members interests. To fundamentally shut down that pro participation is bad as Pete does can only be rooted in entitlement and selfishness. You can dress it up how you like. We all here participate. If participation is a problem then we are logically the problem. The BMC is potentially for responsible participation. The detail of that, as JR said, is yet to be debated and worked out. I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
Simon, it's completely reasonable to not want a large organisation to promote climbing to non-climbers. That doesn't ergo mean that anyone who believes this, believes that no new-comers should ever take up climbing. It's this sort of misrepresentation and straw-man building that weakens your argument not strengthens it.
The underlying point being - we don't NEED a large organisation to encourage everyday people to take up climbing. We never have. People with the nouse to do so will get into climbing anyway - more so than ever now we have walls in every city. It's bloody easier than EVER!.
The particular points made about providing access to the outdoors for young scrotes in troubled periods of their life are good for playing on the heart strings, and do have some merit. I feel I can actually comment from some experience - as I'm sure many on here can - having once been a 'young scrote in plenty of trouble' but I found climbing through the army not the BMC. There are various organisations in the UK - perhaps not enough of them - providing this sort of 'outdoor therapy / education' to young offenders and disadvantaged kids; however show me the evidence of take-up and long-term benefit please.
Access for the disabled, I couldn't comment as I have no experience. Of course it's 'a good thing' and to be encouraged. That's a tiny side issue and isn't really the point here..
Which leaves the question, for what reasons would a large organisation such as the BMC want to encourage participation from everyday citizens - pure charity? Altruism for all those fellow citizens who haven't discovered the joy of sitting in the sheep shit in parisellas cave on a rainy day? Or who haven't experienced the exhilaration of spending 30 minutes hanging on bolt 4 of the oak trying to decipher the most efficient way to do the next move? (Yes there are the sunny days on Fairhead or blasting onsight up amazing routes at Ceuse etc etc).
Is it unreasonable to wonder if it could not possibly have anything at all to do with securing available government funding and preserving (or building) the BMCs own self-importance?
-
I am genuinely opposed to seeking to increase participation in climbing as I think it is genuinely dangerous and I think that encouraging people to do things that are potentially going to kill them is irresponsible.
Having almost killed myself climbing on a number of occasions and watched the slow tally of incidents amongst people I know, and have met, add up I feel that encouraging others is a step too far. If someone wants to solo hard (for them) routes I'll happily hold their coat and I deplore people trying to manage others risk taking. I'd never however encourage them.
I feel bad enough about teaching my wife to go out soloing! I don't want to feel culpable for little jimmy who got encouraged into it by the BMC (spending my subs) as well.
-
It's also about aiding the transition from...summer only to winter climbing and alpinism, and so on.
This is interesting. If the definition is so broad as to include this then it could also stretch to "aiding the transition from hording honeypotter to inquisitive explorer", which is a good thing.
helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled, for under-represented groups
I would very much support this. Climbing is whiter than white at the moment (though I see that slowly changing - some of the Depot kids club have the look about them of people who will be on the comp scene, and perhaps outdoors, in years to come. Many of them are non-white.)
I see two major risks in not being involved in promoting participation ... 1) you risk losing credibility with other organisations
I don't follow the reasoning here. Could you elaborate?
2) promotion involves contact with new entrants to the sport, who you give up on the opportunity to influence for the better right at the beginning.
This sounds like maximising membership among people who have already started climbing is getting confused with increasing participation.
With regard to the assertions of "not sharing our toys", this is not a good argument. I'm happy to welcome any newcomers to the sport - providing they aren't of the Hipster Bluetooth-speaker-at-the-crag Crew. I just wouldn't rush out to get loads of new people into it.
The arguments about not wanting to deprive people of the great gift of climbing are also bogus. I'm sure if I'd happened to fall into kayaking, or skydiving, or curling, or cycling, or computer gaming, or painting little Warcraft models or any of the other millions of other things that there are to do with your time I would have been just as happy and fulfilled as I am now. I love climbing, but it's not a fundamental ingredient in living a rich and full life and the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.
-
the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.
Is this really your interpretation of the policy as written?
Can you explain how you interpret it please as I'm struggling to understand how the above could be got to. Thanks
-
the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.
Is this really your interpretation of the policy as written?
Can you explain how you interpret it please as I'm struggling to understand how the above could be got to. Thanks
Obviously we don't know what the policy is yet, but it hasn't stopped us speculating. It's not necessarily how I interpret the potential policy, but it has been mooted as a justification for it.
I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.
If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....
This from Shark is probably the most concerning thing I've read about this. It's not entirely clear, but what he's written there can be interpreted as "participation should be encouraged amongst anybody who might enjoy it" (and we'll deal with the consequences after the fact - worth noting that this doesn't align with my understanding of the recommendation which should insist that sustainability concerns are integral to the policy, not an add-on), which is where my missionary analogy came from.
It could also be that he's just saying "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up". The latter is wholly different from the former.
For a middle-class, straight, white, and to a lesser extent, male person, of sound physical and mental health, climbing is very much easy enough to get into. I'd support measures to improve the equality of access to climbing for people who don't fit into the aforementioned segment on the Venn diagram of humanity.
-
Thanks for replying Will, appreciate it.
This from Shark is probably the most concerning thing I've read about this. It's not entirely clear, but what he's written there can be interpreted as "participation should be encouraged amongst anybody who might enjoy it" (and we'll deal with the consequences after the fact - worth noting that this doesn't align with my understanding of the recommendation which should insist that sustainability concerns are integral to the policy, not an add-on), which is where my missionary analogy came from.
It could also be that he's just saying "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up". The latter is wholly different from the former.
He's suggesting the later - "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"
but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.
Or do you agree with that statement? and would you be happy for that to be the position of the BMC?
-
...
He's suggesting the later - "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"
but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.
From what I can tell nobody on this thread is against the idea that "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up".
What's being pointed out time and time again by different posters is that, as things already stand, for the vast majority of the population ''nothing stands in the way of anyone who might enjoy climbing from starting doing it''.
Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.
But BMC has stated it WOULD LIKE to increase participation as one of its core policies.
Questions are quite rightly being asked about who benefits from such a policy. I'd argue it's not climbers, but the BMC; and I'd suggest money, influence and the status of the BMC is at the heart of it.
-
...
He's suggesting the later - "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up"
but it sounds like, from this thread, that you and others are arguing against this position. Although, you have recently added the caveat - unless they is from a socio-eco-phsyio-disadvantaged position.
From what I can tell nobody on this thread is against the idea that "those who might enjoy climbing should not be excluded from starting up".
What's being pointed out time and time again by different posters is that, as things already stand, for the vast majority of the population ''nothing stands in the way of anyone who might enjoy climbing from starting doing it''.
Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.
But BMC has stated it WOULD LIKE to increase participation as one of its core policies.
Questions are quite rightly being asked about who benefits from such a policy. I'd argue it's not climbers, but the BMC; and I'd suggest money, influence and the status of the BMC is at the heart of it.
I'm trying to ask what policy you'd advocate as an alternative, if any?
-
Sorry James, not completely following what you're asking me to confirm. My opinion has changed since starting to post here as some people involved in the BMC and the recommendation itself have come forward and offered more info. The concern is that the BMC's policy will be to encourage participation across the board with little consideration as to the impacts on crags and climbs. I now don't think it will say this, but I'll be interested to see what it does say. I would have thought that anybody can see that climbing cannot remain healthy and also support endless participation growth.
To summarise, my position is (presently; I reserve the right to change my mind!):
I would not support the BMC in encouraging increased participation across the board. I think it's growing fast enough as it is and doesn't need any further encouragement. Furthermore I think that increased participation could be very harmful to the sport.
I would support the BMC in engaging with (and getting as members) people as early as possible in their climbing "career".
I would support the BMC in improving the equality of accessibility of climbing across the board. When I first starting posting on this topic I hadn't thought about the circumstances of minority groups.
I would support the BMC in encouraging existing climbers to be as diverse in their activities and crag choices as possible.
If I were more cynical and prone to enjoy a good conspiracy theory (basically Petejh), then I would suggest that Shark currently has an undeclared conflict of interest here. It's currently his job to get private companies to give the BMC money. Private companies will want something in return for this. If Shark can say that his organisation is actively trying to increase the size of that private company's market, it makes his job a lot easier. But I'm not, so I won't.
Just so I can quote it in decades to come and say "I told you so", I'm going to wager that Kilnsey will be banned by 2030.
Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.
I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?
-
Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.
I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?
I agree with you except for your use of the phrase 'anybody of colour' which the sooner fucks off to the bin with other stupid PC terms the better.
I can use 'fucks off' as I'm a person of gender.
-
Thanks Will. Makes sense. I think we're in agreement .
Regarding "harmful to the sport". I agree wholeheartedly, I can't think of another sport whose resources are so finite and so easily destroyed (see Whitehouses).
I have concern that the BMC could look like an exclusive club if it has an anti-participation policy. As such I prefer the wording "responsible growth" to we "do not encourage growth". I guess this is the lefty-liberal within me.
-
Therefore the BMC does NOT NEED to do anything to promote participation among the general public - minorities excepted (perhaps) - because there is no problem requiring action.
I would have thought it was plain to see that there is a problem for minorities. When I go to the crag, I barely see anybody of colour and I might only be able to name one or two (at a stretch) openly gay climbers. It can't be that these people don't like climbing, so what is it that's preventing them from climbing if not inequality of access to the sport?
I agree with you except for your use of the phrase 'anybody of colour' which the sooner fucks off to the bin with other stupid PC terms the better.
I can use 'fucks off' as I'm a person of gender.
Off topic, but, what phrase would you prefer? If I say "coloured" I sound like my dear old grandma and presumably you view "BME" with a similar disdain?
-
Yes off topic, use whatever you want but 'people of colour' to my slightly literal mind just sounds faintly ridiculous. We're all people of colour, just like we're all people of mammalian origin (Shark excepted..).
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive
-
To clarify (can't believe I have to say this): I wasn't suggesting "coloured" as a good alternative.
-
you cant expect your average climber to get behind a policy which sole purpose is earning more money for the BMC. Climbing is enjoyable as it is, and access to climbing through schools, extra curricular clubs and similar are a good way in and also through the walls own promotion of the climbing centers. Its not a problem, and will no doubt cause more problems than it solves, which by the way is what? why is it really being proposed?? Money
It would be sad to see the governing body, which is largely run by punters who hardly even climb outdoors ruin it for everyone else through short sided/selfish ideas
-
Well, this is nice.
Sorry, I’ve been stuck on Dartmoor since Wednesday (Eldest daughter is suddenly an “actress” and landed a part in a minor movie, so muggins played chaperone. Moorland bunkhouse, bugger-all internet, farkin freezing me nads off etc), got back Saturday evening only to get snowed into the house and then having to put up my stranded brother-in-law and family and...
You get the picture.
I tried to reply on Wednesday, but it twice disappeared into the aether.
So, it’s all moved on too far. Nothing apocalyptic about anything I wrote. I think this idea that the BMC are going to be “press ganging” unsuspecting members of the public into climbing rocks, or organising some school/college road show recruiting drive is ridiculous.
And that seems to be what some are imagining.
I rather read “pro-participation” to be more along the lines of “help those who wish to participate to participate” and would, given the inevitable growth in participation, posit that should primarily involve education (with regard to newbies, as opposed to it’s overall “primary” responsibilities).
To that end, I think it should be assertive in it’s position.
As for regulation, I don’t find that thought apocalyptic in the slightest.
I can see why people might view it so, I did in the past.
It’s been creeping up on you all for decades.
I qualified as an “instructor” in 1986. A Local Education Authority cert that was all I needed to teach school groups, outdoors (top rope) and run the wall at the local sports centre.
Of course that all changed a few years later, because of what happened about a mile out to sea of where I’m sitting (and a few other “children washed off rocks” incidents).
We’re only one high profile whoopsie away from even tougher regulation of the outdoor industry, I reckon; the end of that whole “Coach”/ “Instructor” loophole, for sure.
And where regulation of “Pro’s” begins, regulation of private punters follows. We’ve been lucky to avoid it this long.
I’ve seen it happen in Mixed gas diving (and diving in general), once a real pirate activity and bloody dangerous when I started. I was part of writing some of the rules. It didn’t kill it. It’s not the end of the world. It made it safer for everyone and helped ward off a building public relations nightmare.
Far, far, better for participant controlled, non-governmental bodies to do this; than some ministry of muppets impose their idea of what should be.
I say this because I can envision circumstances that might lead to “offical” notice and feel it’s incredibly likely given an increased number of participants (did I say I think that’s inevitable? I did didn’t I?). You know, the wrong person getting squished etc.
I think thise who are arguing against a “Pro-participation” stance by the BMC are hastening the above scenario, not avoiding it.
Yes, if the BMC start “recruitment drives” or sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses; I’ll be manking about it too.
But that’s not what they’re proposing.
Intercepting potential climbers, before they hit the rock and bringing them into the fold in an organised fashion; seems sensible.
Everyone is busy pointing out how little wilderness we have left and how we need to protect it, but simultaneously unwilling to submit to regulation or expansion of the BMC.
The bigger the BMC, the more clout it has and the more it will be able to resist outside imposition of regulation. The better it will be able to deal with access issues etc etc etc.
Hamstring them, or belittle them and you shoot yourself in the foot in the long run.
-
But that’s not what they’re proposing.
Matt, surely the issue is that we don't know what they are proposing, the statement could be anything from “help those who wish to participate to participate" to "sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses". It still seems up for debate (thankfully) and I imagine it's a lot more towards the first of those statements than the second but a bit of healthy skepticism is no bad thing and will hopefully lead to a clear statement that reflects what the majority of the members want.
-
+1 to what galpinos said.
Also +1 to what Reeve said in response to Shark
-
But that’s not what they’re proposing.
Matt, surely the issue is that we don't know what they are proposing, the statement could be anything from “help those who wish to participate to participate" to "sending missionaries into schools or churches to shanghai the masses". It still seems up for debate (thankfully) and I imagine it's a lot more towards the first of those statements than the second but a bit of healthy skepticism is no bad thing and will hopefully lead to a clear statement that reflects what the majority of the members want.
I wouldn’t dispute that, but have you read some of this (and other) threads?
That was rhetorical, I know you have.
This one degenerated into a “how we refer to minorities” debate, amongst other things. Along with slagging off BMC staffers for not climbing outdoors enough. (My weekend manager is currently Bivi’ing in a cave at Stanage, so he can get more climbing into his week off. I wouldn’t trust him to organise the proverbial “piss-up-in-a-brewery”).
Apart from the fact, that everyone I’m familiar with in a BMC Staff capacity, is (or was the last time I looked) a keen climber; time spent climbing outdoors does not a good organiser make (necessarily) and seems a flimsy qualification to head up our national governing body.
We always suffer,regardless of the differences, from being Climbers:
Contrary
Libertine
Idiosyncratic
Miserly
Bullheaded
Erratic
Reactionaries
You rember that phrase humans have about “herding cats”?
Pretty sure cats have something similar, refering to climbers.
And the sheer, vast, breadth of our church; makes any model based on a.n.other sport’s governance, inadequate.
-
I think you've overestimated the level of outrage here, Matt. It seems like most people just want to see what the policy turns out to be, and are trying to get to grips with the various arguments for a pro-participation stance. Calm yourself.
There are, like, two posts about race terminology in an 8 page thread. One of those posts was me clarifying something I said earlier, which I cringed at having to make. I re-read my original post and it sounded as though I actually considering the term "coloured" a reasonable alternative. Best to put that sort of shit beyond question when you post under your real name that is googleable by friends, family, and work colleagues.
FWIW, I don't think Pipesmoke's ill-informed slur against the BMC staff is representative of the thread, and I've puntered him/her for it. I can only think of a few people who I presume work at BMC head office: Dave Turnbull, Grimer, Shark, Dan Middleton. I think they all climb outside regularly, even if Shark is a punter...
-
You know Will, I wasn’t actually thinking of you/Pete ( despite using your digression as an amusing illustration). I was alluding to the general habit in our world of drifting off into irrelevance.
Having sat through a few BMC area meets and read a forum thread or two...
Or a hundred, I lose track...
-
I've been away for a few days and not able to catch up - and was about to post something along the lines of
"FFS - is this pissing argument STILL going on".....
But then I saw it was taking the piss out of Shark every now and then.
As you were
:)
-
You can take this piss out of me too if you like, I'm way more of a punter than even Shark.
I've actually found this thread really heartening. Despite strong views it's stayed pretty civil and underlying it all is that people posting really do give a shit about climbing and the places we do it in. That's really important to have both for now and in the future.
-
I've actually found this thread really heartening.
I've found it dismal.
-
Dire at every level; ugly, primitive, juvenile and offensive?
-
I've actually found this thread really heartening.
I've found it dismal.
If it’s all a bit much at the BMC I’ve heard that Cambridge Analytical are looking for some brand consultants....
-
Why dismal?
-
Why dismal?
Hardly makes for a friendly sport/community/club where new participants are not welcome. More like an exclusive, self interested and unfriendly one of the type I despise.
Maybe I’m naive or blind but they are characteristics that I don’t generally recognise when I go climbing but seem to be in abundance from the BMC 30 et al and I didn’t expect it here.
-
Hi Shark
I don't honestly see how you can interpret what has been written about not being in favour of the BMC trying to increase participation as people being unwelcoming to new participants.
Personally I am against the BMC trying to increase participation for a range of reasons but am happy to help and welcome any new climber. Just because I don't want the BMC to promote climbing doesn't mean I am against people joining the sport. I simply think that people should find their own way into the sport naturally and that the BMC should focus its efforts on things that are for the benefit of its current members, such as access issues etc...
Dave
-
Why dismal?
Hardly makes for a friendly sport/community/club where new participants are not welcome. More like an exclusive, self interested and unfriendly one of the type I despise.
Maybe I’m naive or blind but they are characteristics that I don’t generally recognise when I go climbing but seem to be in abundance from the BMC 30 et al and I didn’t expect it here.
I don’t believe that’s what you have been reading.
I was trying to point out that it sounded like that, if you add up the various slivers from individual arguments; but I think, individually, each of the commenters here would be more than happy to assist, educate and welcome a newcomer.
It’s more a fear (yes, fear) that a generic horde of ignorant buffoons are imminently poised to sweep down upon the crag and wreak havoc.
I think that fear is unfounded, as old as the sport itself and perfectly understandable.
It’s a monster under the bed.
Incredibly real in the abstract, absent in empirical inspection.
Again, all that really needs to be said, is that “pro-participation” should mean breaking down barriers, education and some form of “control” or ethical guidance. And access to “facilities” is crucial to participation anyway...
-
+1 what Davo said
-
+1 to Matt and Davo, think Shark you have rather missed the point. 95% if not more of the comments on here have been in favour of being welcoming to new climbers regardless of whether or not they agree with the BMC promoting participation. Those against it simply believe that the BMC don't need to promote participation and should focus on remaining relevant and visible within the community.
-
+1 to Matt and Davo, think Shark you have rather missed the point. 95% if not more of the comments on here have been in favour of being welcoming to new climbers regardless of whether or not they agree with the BMC promoting participation. Those against it simply believe that the BMC don't need to promote participation and should focus on remaining relevant and visible within the community.
The 'climbing game' with most participants in the BMC membership is hill and mountain walking. The sub-game within the remit of the BMC with the fastest growth is almost certainly indoor bouldering. It is perfectly possible to look to increase participation to improve things like health, diversity and enjoyment of life. Where this might impact the outdoors I really see no indication whatsoever the broad membership would accept that environmental and conservation concerns would not take precedent, nor any sign in the slightest that the BMC will drop the risk participation statement that climbing is dangerous and that particpipants must understand that before undertaking the activity https://www.thebmc.co.uk/risk-and-safety . As Matt rightly says, it's a monster under the bed.
-
+1 on what Davo said, and I'll reiterate my +1 to this:
Personally I am very willing to share my toys with others who already want to play, but with a limited number of fragile toys to go at I am not going to go wandering the neighbourhood looking for people who probably aren't as interested in playing and are more likely to lead to the toy breaking.
More like an exclusive, self interested and unfriendly one of the type I despise.
Climbing is totally self-interested and selfish, we ain't saving the world here, we're actively damaging it in all sorts of ways.
-
Worth looking at today's Sport England data release with all this in mind...
https://activelives.sportengland.org/Result?queryId=2444
Participation in the last year - yes or no - Participated in the last year - Active Lives Survey May 16/17
Climbing or Mountaineering: 8,185,800
Football: 4,827,600
Participation in the last 28 days - At least twice in the last 28 days - Active Lives Survey May 16/17
Climbing or Mountaineering: 2,377,600
Football: 2,299,700
-
8 million people have "climbed or mountaineered" in the last year. But only 25 % of that have done so in the last month. Sounds like a lot of part timers.
-
Yup, seems like lots of people going for a yomp up a hill when on holiday once a year.
-
8 million people have "climbed or mountaineered" in the last year. But only 25 % of that have done so in the last month. Sounds like a lot of part timers.
But that’s exactly the reality!
Who’s got kids?
Who’s kids went on a residential in the last 12 months that involved outdoor pursuits, including some form of climbing?
Now, being climber’s kids, this was a busmans holiday for them, but how many class mates were there?
30? 60?
I took a group of year sixes, the week before last, who missed out on the residential for their academy. 25 of them (so they all still went “climbing”), the rest of the year group?
80!
Just one example of how those numbers might be misleading.
-
8 million people have "climbed or mountaineered" in the last year. But only 25 % of that have done so in the last month. Sounds like a lot of part timers.
I took a group of year sixes, the week before last, who missed out on the residential for their academy.
80!
Just one example of how those numbers might be misleading.
Yes, of course, you need to take the stats in context and review cautiously, for example, they're only counting age 16+
https://activelives.sportengland.org/Result?queryId=2536
-
I wonder if fingerboarding counts as participation.
Obligatory +1 to davo
-
8 million people have "climbed or mountaineered" in the last year. But only 25 % of that have done so in the last month. Sounds like a lot of part timers.
I took a group of year sixes, the week before last, who missed out on the residential for their academy.
80!
Just one example of how those numbers might be misleading.
Yes, of course, you need to take the stats in context and review cautiously, for example, they're only counting age 16+
https://activelives.sportengland.org/Result?queryId=2536
Touché!
-
Why dismal?
Hardly makes for a friendly sport/community/club where new participants are not welcome. More like an exclusive, self interested and unfriendly one of the type I despise.
Maybe I’m naive or blind but they are characteristics that I don’t generally recognise when I go climbing but seem to be in abundance from the BMC 30 et al and I didn’t expect it here.
Yep +1 Davo in answer to this.
No-one on this thread as far as I can tell is anti new participants. Anti 'actively seeking participants' yes. I'm surprised you can't see that Shark.