UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => get involved: access, environment, BMC => Topic started by: shark on July 14, 2021, 06:41:39 pm
-
There have been some issues here recently I picked up on Facebook.
There are new landowners who have recently moved into Wood farm and signs saying Private Woodland, no right of way which had been put up around Wright’s Rock and in the field below.
Following a meeting with the BMC Access Rep (AndiT) the landowners are happy for climbing to continue BUT have raised (reasonable) concerns.
The BMC RAD has been updated as below:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=5412
Access to this crag is dependant (sic) on climbers maintaining a low profile and adopting a strict leave no trace ethos, In addition, make sure you follow these few simple rules:
Only use the gate to cross the fence and access the crag
No dogs - dogs have worried livestock and if this happens again, climbing access could be banned
Daytime access only - no climbing after dusk
Minimise noise - stay low profile
Keep group sizes small - this isn't a venue for large groups
Spread the word
-
Bumped into a couple of nice lads at the Rambler's Retreat car park last week who had been at Wright's and spoken with the new landlord who was fine but very clear that groups of any more than 6 people would be moved on...
https://www.instagram.com/p/CRwAbSXjOZ8/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link
(As an aside, I got me one of those nice Tie Dyed vests and am very pleased with it!)
-
Good work, hopefully that update can get RADed and onwards trickle down to UKC.
No comment.
-
https://www.instagram.com/p/CeyCqeYDfAA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Wrights Rock closed until 1st July - seen on Andi Ts insta
-
If this has been caused by climbers ignoring access agreement terms then tbh I'm getting pretty sick of crag access for everyone being put at risk by people who can't adhere to some simple and hardly tyrannical conditions.
-
Fucks sake. People do take the piss by not following 5 very simple and easy to read rules when you reach the gate. Also plastered on UKC so no excuses. Another excellent venue closed off because of wankers doing what they like.
-
In fairness the rules on the ukc page for weekend only acess is hidden behind a thing you have to click. Its need to be more clear imo. Its a crag that is popular with indoor climbers who only go out every so often so many people wont be aware of the rules and will unlikely care to click and read the section about acess issues.
I think that if the access is set to red it shows the acess issues regardless if you click on it or not.
-
Presuming it wasn't a friday that your friend was turned around? Because otherwise its detailed on the sign at the crag, on ukc and on the BMC RAD, so...
-
This was a few months back sorry! Didnt read the post with the bmc sign! Im not sure if there was infortmation about that at the time or if it was a new rule because I never heard about that either.
I edited my post to say something different after realising
-
In fairness the rules on the ukc page for weekend only acess is hidden behind a thing you have to click. Its need to be more clear imo. Its a crag that is popular with indoor climbers who only go out every so often so many people wont be aware of the rules and will unlikely care to click and read the section about acess issues.
I think that if the access is set to red it shows the acess issues regardless if you click on it or not.
Even accounting for this, which isn't the case when viewed on a laptop, theres still a massive sign on the gate, so I don't buy that this is even a remotely tricky case to be honest. Even if people have fucked up and not done their research, if they arrive there and ignore a sign they're dicks.
-
In fairness the rules on the ukc page for weekend only acess is hidden behind a thing you have to click. Its need to be more clear imo. Its a crag that is popular with indoor climbers who only go out every so often so many people wont be aware of the rules and will unlikely care to click and read the section about acess issues.
I think that if the access is set to red it shows the acess issues regardless if you click on it or not.
Even accounting for this, which isn't the case when viewed on a laptop, theres still a massive sign on the gate, so I don't buy that this is even a remotely tricky case to be honest. Even if people have fucked up and not done their research, if they arrive there and ignore a sign they're dicks.
Yes thats true
-
I am wholly biased on this topic as I was fortunate enough to grow up in the Churnet Valley so have seen it grow from obscurity to a major bouldering tourist venue due to its proximity and ease of access from London and other major southern areas before you hit the Peak. Yep it is weird and not 100% perfect but it is such a beautiful place to climb.
This said, I have totally given up climbing in the main Dimmingsdale valley and goto smaller venues now. It is so depressing seeing a place I grew up in get totally destroyed. The rock cannot sustain the level of attention it is getting and poor practices are deeply embedded (tick marks, using chalk balls to dry or mark out foot holds, not walking away from problems when it is wet etc). This is now happening more and more over in Farley Woods which is a shame but I guess it was inevitable.
From what I gather from my Mum who still lives in the valley, other locals are getting really sick of the 'mountain biker gangs and the folk with cushions on our backs' so I was totally unsuprised when the Wrights access issues started last year.
I am hugely grateful to any volunteers who help to sustain access to areas around the Churnet but as other commentors have mentioned, this is a much wider and systemic problem about climber behaviour outdoors (see Griff's for example) and managing access seems more like treating the symptoms rather than the cause.
I am aware that my business is a very small cog in a much bigger outdoor industry machine but happy to help wherever others want to about awareness raising to people who may not automatically read UKB or UKC - especially when it comes to the Churnet.
-
We went up to churnet 2 weeks ago and after seeing the sign we did not enter the wrights rock area
but a bit of information i have found on land registry for general information but to be used with caution
the land boundary of the land owners covers the most climbed area. but from Timber and to the east from the darleks to fairytale rocks is the same portion of land that includes peakstone and dimmings dale.
This land divide can also be seen on the ukc map
i would say personally timber and the darleks are still best to be avoided to hopefully restore climbing in wrights rock in the future though.
still wanted to provide the information so it is out there.
it was a very sad note on our trip as one of my climbing partners had quite a few projects at wrights rock
-
I'm only an occasional visitor to the Churnet but it strikes me as venue needing an extra nuanced approach. If the 'nearest crag to London' / 'new to outdoors' thing is true, there's an extra problem for people not steeped in the culture.
Hopefully it's a temporary blip, removing access for a short time. Not sure of the answer beyond handwringing. The guide does a good job of explaining.
Related note: has Rob Dyer left the BMC now - is he being replaced?
-
Playing devil's advocate; I get that the landowners have every right to make the rules (although that's a wider debate :worms:), the six person limit seems both strange and very hard to comply with. Why six? Why not four, or eight? Why does allowing six at a time make access allowable?
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't. Particularly in the context of access only being allowed on select days as well; giving an extremely narrow window of opportunity for a large and growing community.
-
I don’t think there’s any requirement for the rules to reasonable on private property, High Rocks on the southern sandstone was £20 a visit before they closed it completely!
-
Yeah, whether we think its reasonable or not thats the system we've got. Its private property and we don't have a right to be there. The owners want it to be a nature reserve, not a facility for use by climbers; they don't care about climbing's growing community! Given that I'm kind of surprised they've allowed any kind of access at all.
-
Playing devil's advocate; I get that the landowners have every right to make the rules (although that's a wider debate :worms:), the six person limit seems both strange and very hard to comply with. Why six? Why not four, or eight? Why does allowing six at a time make access allowable?
Presumably the idea is that something like "small groups" is vague and therefore people are likely to end up ignoring it. I can see why it's easiest for them to define a specific number in order to achieve their objective of keeping numbers low.
P.S. stuff like this is why anyone advocating for "growing the sport" is an idiot.
-
stuff like this is why anyone advocating for "growing the sport" is an idiot.
I really don't like these types of comments, they seem really elitist. What I think you really mean is you are happy now that you are in the 'in' group and don't want too many more people to enjoy the things you enjoy. Otherwise they might spoil it for you. Seems a little selfish.
I bet you happily take all the benefits that come with the sport growing. Better and more choice in shoes, ropes, pads, gear, kneepads etc etc. More crags developed and bolted. Better indoors walls and training facilities. Obviously the 'growing of the sport' does have drawbacks, making sure that people understand obeying access requirements being one. But that is a matter of education not putting people off climbing all together.
-
P.S. stuff like this is why anyone advocating for "growing the sport" is an idiot.
Whilst we are playing devils advocate I get why you might say this… access is gonna be the biggest issue for us as a community going forward.
At the same time this attitude sums up what’s wrong with the world these days..
Here’s this amazing sport/lifestyle which means and has given so much to me. Let’s not spread the word, let’s not pass it on to inner city kids, let’s keep it all for me…. I’d rather be an idiot than a selfish hypocrite! Soz not aimed at you directly barrows, off topic but a great topic and far from black and white….. be interested to know how the hive mind feel. Thread split…?
-
I really don't like these types of comments, they seem really elitist.
It's not elitist, but it is passively exclusionary. And yes, it's selfish, as climbing is and as many things we do in life are. I don't think I have a big problem with that in this context.
(P.s. northern - why is it hypocritical? All of us make judgements about things which are selfish which we think are ok, and things which are selfish which we don't like, we just draw lines in slightly different places) +1 to thread split
-
Playing devil's advocate; I get that the landowners have every right to make the rules (although that's a wider debate :worms:), the six person limit seems both strange and very hard to comply with. Why six? Why not four, or eight? Why does allowing six at a time make access allowable?
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't. Particularly in the context of access only being allowed on select days as well; giving an extremely narrow window of opportunity for a large and growing community.
I agree the rules make no sense. The reasoning is even more stupid too. The landowner told my friend the rules were put in place because they have people staying in their guest house who are scared of climbers...
Either way we need to follow these rules as it is the landowners right no matter how unreasonable.
-
I really don't like these types of comments, they seem really elitist.
It's not elitist, but it is passively exclusionary. And yes, it's selfish, as climbing is and as many things we do in life are. I don't think I have a big problem with that in this context.
(P.s. northern - why is it hypocritical? All of us make judgements about things which are selfish which we think are ok, and things which are selfish which we don't like, we just draw lines in slightly different places) +1 to thread split
Without over arguing semantics, that pretty much seems like the definition of elitism to me. The 'elite' (established/experienced climbers) deciding or pushing for rules/ideas that benefit them at the cost of new/inexperienced climbers. Why is climbing selfish in of itself? I've always thought it was a very inclusive and sociable community.
As an aside, I feel there is an underlying assumption that people that bend/break access requirements tend to be new climbers. I'm not sure I believe that. I know of vastly more instances of experienced climbers ignoring access rules to their own benefits, as long as they do it on the low down, that I do of new climbers.
-
I really don't like these types of comments, they seem really elitist.
It's not elitist, but it is passively exclusionary. And yes, it's selfish, as climbing is and as many things we do in life are. I don't think I have a big problem with that in this context.
(P.s. northern - why is it hypocritical? All of us make judgements about things which are selfish which we think are ok, and things which are selfish which we don't like, we just draw lines in slightly different places) +1 to thread split
I think it’s hypocritical to think here’s something I think is amazing, I don’t want other people to be encouraged to find/enjoy it.
-
Sociable and inclusive (?) it may be, but last time I checked the primary reason I partake in climbing is for my own satisfaction/torture... maybe that's just me.
I don't see the hypocrisy. Wanting to protect something that relies heavily on delicate agreements and goodwill seems sensible.
-
Without over arguing semantics, that pretty much seems like the definition of elitism to me. The 'elite' (established/experienced climbers) deciding or pushing for rules/ideas that benefit them at the cost of new/inexperienced climbers.
I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics. As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.
Why is climbing selfish in of itself? I've always thought it was a very inclusive and sociable community.
I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.
I think it’s hypocritical to think here’s something I think is amazing, I don’t want other people to be encouraged to find/enjoy it.
I think we use "hypocritical" differently. Merriam-Webster definition covers how I think of it: "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel". I don't claim I'm a selfless person and then say "fuck growing the sport", I'm ok acknowledging that it's a selfish view to hold.
-
If being elite means "having an elite understanding that outdoor climbing is quite different to indoor climbing and includes a whole lot of things like flora and fauna and damageable rock and landowners and livestock and the general public and parking issues that need respecting and considering" , then +1 for elitism.
-
I think it's tricky cos like, if more people Weightlifted, that'd only be good for Weightlifting, there's no finite resources of Eleiko plates or anything
But rock is fragile, it gets damaged, there is a finite amount of goes we can have on certain grit problems, problems with access etc. So having more people on em would potentially cause problems. I'm torn. I used to be all for more people engaging in the discipline (I don't think of it as a sport). But these days I'm not so sure.
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
-
Without over arguing semantics, that pretty much seems like the definition of elitism to me. The 'elite' (established/experienced climbers) deciding or pushing for rules/ideas that benefit them at the cost of new/inexperienced climbers.
I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics. As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.
Why is climbing selfish in of itself? I've always thought it was a very inclusive and sociable community.
I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.
I think it’s hypocritical to think here’s something I think is amazing, I don’t want other people to be encouraged to find/enjoy it.
I think we use "hypocritical" differently. Merriam-Webster definition covers how I think of it: "feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel". I don't claim I'm a selfless person and then say "fuck growing the sport", I'm ok acknowledging that it's a selfish view to hold.
No but you were encouraged/shown climbing by someone who shared with you it’s joys.
And you are saying you are against others being shown/encouraged into the same thing
It might not fit the definition, I certainly can’t be arsed to be looking up or referencing dictionaries so I’m happy to just call you a selfish Cnut as opposed to a hypocritical selfish Cnut.
No offence meant, where I come from Cnut is often a term of endearment.
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
This is actually quite interesting because I recently got a sneak-peek at the new Bouldering Bobat video. Working title is 'You WON'T believe how many CLEARLY WRITTEN SIGNS we ignored to CLIMB at this BANNED CRAG'.
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
Who do you suggest working with?
Should everyone have an app linked to the GPS phone that triggers a warning when they are approaching a crag where there is currently a restriction in place?
-
Never fear, I have no objection to selfish cnut :lol:
It's not that I'm opposed to people being shown the opportunities per se, more that I dislike general efforts and sentiments to "grow the sport". So, for example, Ive got nothing against Caff doing outreach work to inner city kids for the BMC or whatever but I dislike so many walls going up everywhere and broad statements (from climbers, companies, organisations or whatever) about how more participation is necessarily good. It makes more money for a subset while also making various things worse... I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board). It's not like I'm saying I have the answers, just fuck any advocating generically for growing the sport
Carlos: it may be very 20th century but there does appear to have been a sign on the gate. Not sure you can get better dissemination than that!
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
Who do you suggest working with?
Should everyone have an app linked to the GPS phone that triggers a warning when they are approaching a crag where there is currently a restriction in place?
Well for starters there’s plenty of people I see complaining about it on here but I haven’t seen them post about it on their Instagram. Maybe reach out to the likes of bigger climbers like Molly, Aidan etc who have large followings and get them to share it on their stories for example. I just think there’s more we could be doing to get the message out there rather than complaining on a forum.
-
Never fear, I have no objection to selfish cnut :lol:
It's not that I'm opposed to people being shown the opportunities per se, more that I dislike general efforts and sentiments to "grow the sport". So, for example, Ive got nothing against Caff doing outreach work to inner city kids for the BMC or whatever but I dislike so many walls going up everywhere and broad statements (from climbers, companies, organisations or whatever) about how more participation is necessarily good. It makes more money for a subset while also making various things worse... I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board). It's not like I'm saying I have the answers, just fuck any advocating generically for growing the sport
Carlos: it may be very 20th century but there does appear to have been a sign on the gate. Not sure you can get better dissemination than that!
You do realise there’s like 3 different approaches into wrights rock and only the gate has a sign right?
-
Nope, I didn't, sorry.. I've only ever been the normal way
-
And you are saying you are against others being shown/encouraged into the same thing
Clearly you can also be in support of sustainable levels of participation, as opposed to growth
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
I think this is meant well but there are myriad ways to find out about whether you're allowed to climb somewhere or not, if you know how to get there you have had the opportunity to learn about access arrangements. I simply don't believe that people clmbing there on weekdays are unaware of the restrictions, and if they are they're fucking idiots. Im finding the constant apologia for people who who are either lazy, ignorant, or selfish (or all 3) slightly wearing. Everyone else manages, they can too. I agree its not an indoor/outdoor thing; its a tosser thing!
Also, everyone always says 'work with centres' regarding access issues; why would centres do this? 95% of their clientele never climb outside, why would they waste valuable marketing material/ promote social media posts on access when they could do marketing that might make them some money/ be directly relevant to their business? Some walls are helpful with stuff like this but they don't have to be,its just nice that they do.
On the same topic, MTS or Aidan might do the odd story about access for a local crag but they can;t be expected to do that foir the latest changes to access for Windy Choss Clough. Also, by definition insta stories or similar are transient, there today gone tomorrow; online databases where information is fixed are infinitely better places for this.
-
I wouldn't consider not being a fan of evangelizing for something as being elitist, but perhaps this is just semantics. As an alternative example, would it be elitist to think that it was dumb to aim to grow the global population? I wouldn't consider that "elitist", but it sounds like you would. I would usually think of elitism as thinking, say, that good climbers should get priority over going to areas with sensitive access.
That is quite a leap you've made there! Of course I don't think avoiding overpopulation is elitist (or dumb). But if you told me only certain people that met certain requirements could have kids then yes I would consider that elitist (and depending on the requirements maybe other -ists too).
Replace 'good climbers' with 'established climbers' in you last sentence and that is pretty much what you are saying.
I don't think the latter really has anything to do with the former. I'd argue that pointless hobbies are at best neutral on a scale of selfishness, but are almost invariably selfish by virtue of all that comes with them, e.g. burning fossil fuels to get to crags, buying gear we don't really need (if we didn't climb), causing erosion, annoying wildlife etc. and doubly so if you include the opportunity cost of putting that money/time to better use elsewhere.
With that definition, just being alive is selfish. Not a very useful definition. I was using it more in the sense that you want to do something deliberately to exclude someone else. Also climbing (or any hobby really) isn't pointless, they are incredibly good for you mental and physical wellbeing, which is hardly a selfish goal.
If being elite means "having an elite understanding that outdoor climbing is quite different to indoor climbing and includes a whole lot of things like flora and fauna and damageable rock and landowners and livestock and the general public and parking issues that need respecting and considering" , then +1 for elitism.
And where did you get this 'elite' understanding Fiend. You weren't born with it were you. Education and experience.
-
Maybe we need to bring access issue notifications into the 21st century and work with centres and other big figures in the climbing community to get the message out via more modern channels rather than relying on outdated and obscure websites such as RAD/UKC/UKB to let people know when there are access issues. I think we forget this is a bit of a bubble and not everyone frequents these websites.
This type of thing is a good idea. I feel it is more about education and getting the information out there if is not being picked up.
-
But if you told me only certain people that met certain requirements could have kids then yes I would consider that elitist (and depending on the requirements maybe other -ists too).
But that's not what I'm saying, is it. I'm saying I wouldn't want numbers to increase significantly and making no comment on the other parts (i.e. your "requirements" or "certain people") - that's just in your head. Like I said above: "I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board)"
Replace 'good climbers' with 'established climbers' in you last sentence and that is pretty much what you are saying.
I'm saying advocating for an expansion in the number of people climbing is stupid, just like I think advocating for an expansion in the number of people on the earth is stupid. The analogy works quite well in my head - you'll have to help me understand why you think it doesn't? If my position on climbing is elitist then I'm struggling to see how you don't take the same stance with general population?
I don't consider either to be "elitist", though I'm happy to consider either as being "selfish". Similarly, I wouldn't consider objecting to open borders as "elitist", even though I could easily characterise it as "selfish". I think we're getting lost in semantics here though - I can see why you would choose to include it, but I think you'd have to include the analogies as elitist too and I think it ends up being a useless word if you do that. Essentially I think I consider there to be a difference between excluding those who already want to do activity x (or are already alive in the analogy) and not actively increasing the number of people who want to do x (or are alive in the analogy).
Not a very useful definition. I was using it more in the sense that you want to do something deliberately to exclude someone else.
I'm happy to accept that my definition of being "selfish" isn't very useful... though I don't see how destroying the planet by driving to the crag is anything other than selfish. We just generally think of it as being ok enough that the fun is worth the selfishness. I think the selfishness of not aiming to expand climbing in a generalised way would be worth it, you don't... that's fine. Most people decide that the selfishness of going on a climbing holiday is worth it, but some admirable souls don't... you/they might be holier than me, but I'm still going on my holiday and I still say "fuck growing the sport".
-
Something that's quite interesting here is the fact that I think this idea of getting things 'into the 21st century' clearly speaks to the fact that the vast majority of climbers don't use UKC (and a vanishingly small number of people use UKB) - particularly in the context of bouldering, and even moreso when you get into places like the Churnet, which are an unfortunate mixture of fragile (rock and access), day-trippable from most parts of England, friendly (positive holds and generally not knacky), and fashionable (In Memory of Mr Fox seems to have gone from being featured in Peakoterica to having multiple ascents every weekend).
This is interesting because I think that, if you're used to using UKC, it's easy to believe that it/the broader community that it represents is the British climbing community in digital form - that if there's an issue at a crag, popping something on UKC and the RAD will deal with it because obviously everyone will see it. The reality is that there's an entire parallel world on Instagram, where people use their accounts as multimedial logbooks and get all of their information from what they see other people doing on there, to the extent that they don't even look at guidebooks. I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate, and someone recently claimed Alpha SS as an FA.
I'm not really sure what the solution is, however, as Instagram stories (indeed all content on there, when you consider the timeline format) are fleeting in nature, but we do need to bridge that divide. Maybe in the same way as people have started to put token shots of themselves brushing ticks off in their short films they could have a quick sequence of them checking the RAD? Possibly Louis Parkinson could take a quick break during his next follow-along Catalyst Coaching core livestream to exhort his viewers to always check access notes? Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.
-
And where did you get this 'elite' understanding Fiend. You weren't born with it were you. Education and experience.
I think part of it came from being raised semi-normally by my parents, and the rest was from a combined Masters in Crag Ethics And Rocket Science.
Stuff like "there's not a carpark like the climbing wall but double yellows and no parking signs in front of a gate mean no parking" , "there are no litter bins 5m away like at the wall so we take our rubbish out" , "the house we walked past owns the land and crag so if they say no access after 5pm that means no access after 5pm" , "there are no kit lockers like the climbing wall but the footpath beneath it has people walking so we don't build a barricade of our bags" , and "it's the countryside not a fucking nightclub so we don't need the bluetooth speaker on" .....if anyone doesn't get that then they don't need educating they need to be discouraged from ever taking up climbing. Obviously stuff like "don't climb on wet rock" , "brush tickmarks and chalk off" and "put down pads to stop erosion" is a bit more nuanced and might warrant regular beatings to drum it into the riff-raff.
-
Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.
If you google 'wrights rock' the ukc page is the first result. How do people work out where to park, or how to get from the parking to the crag, without either a guide or by googling it?
I think your post, while interesting, undersells ukc. Its one of the bigger climbing websites in the world. Sure, the vast majority of climbers probably don't use the logs, but I'd be willing to bet a vaster majority use it in some form or another, if only to check parking and approach descriptions. Once they're doing that, theres no excuse for ignoring the access part.
-
But that's not what I'm saying, is it. I'm saying I wouldn't want numbers to increase significantly and making no comment on the other parts (i.e. your "requirements" or "certain people") - that's just in your head. Like I said above: "I guess in my ideal world barriers to entry would be high (with efforts going into making them equal rather than low across the board)"
No, because I'm also not saying this - I'm saying advocating for an expansion in the number of people climbing is stupid, just like I think advocating for an expansion in the number of people on the earth is stupid. The analogy works quite well in my head - you'll have to help me understand why you think it doesn't? If my position on climbing is elitist then I'm struggling to see how you don't take the same stance with general population? I don't consider either to be "elitist", though I'm happy to consider either as being "selfish". Similarly, I wouldn't consider objecting to open borders as "elitist", even though I could easily characterise it as "selfish". I think we're getting lost in semantics here though - I can see why you would choose to include it, but I think you'd have to include the analogies as elitist too and I think it ends up being a useless word if you do that. Essentially I think I consider there to be a difference between excluding those who already want to do activity x (or are already alive in the analogy) and not actively increasing the number of people who want to do x (or are alive in the analogy).
Okay, fair enough. I guess maybe not elitist then, but still rubs me a little the wrong way. Climbing has given me a lot of joy and I don't thinking wanting other people to enjoy it makes me an idiot. Although I am an idiot in many other ways.
-
You're right, idiot was the wrong word to use.. but I still think it's nuts (in an admirable but idiotic way ;))
-
I'll take that. ;D
I think one of the problems is that certain areas seem to get fashionable and see increased attention leading to issues. Whereas other areas are just never busy. I live in the Chew valley and there is plenty rock out this direction, but you rarely see many climbers out here, despite being less than half an hour from the centre of Manchester. I don't know how you encourage climbers to spread themselves out more and not always go to the honeypots.
-
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't.
There doesn't need to be any rules full stop. We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, but sadly it's beyond some people to comprehend this, look after them and respect the owners wishes.
Access was negotiated for climbing in a nature reserve and the very agreeable conditions were part of the negotiation.
That's some of the most polite access signage I've seen - such a shame it's been shat on.
-
Crucially, if it's true that only one of the three approaches to Wright's has signage then it's entirely conceivable that people have managed to get to and from the crag entirely unaware, so that clearly needs to be rectified. Perhaps come July signs could be put at the crag itself so that there are no excuses. They could even be put part-way up the crag such that they ruin people's Insta footy - big signs saying 'I'm a dickhead for climbing here'.
I haven't been to Wright's since the access issues first flared up last year, been giving it's wide berth to avoid contributing to the problem. But the consensus among climbers who I've talked to elsewhere around Churnet has been that, if one was to go to Wright's, the best approach would be to park at Peakstone in order to minimise the chance of disturbing/being seen by the landowners. It sounds like you wouldn't see any signs if you approached from there.
Of course, the people who are thinking of using that approach are doing so because they are already aware of the access issues so I would expect them to check UKC/RAD/UKB/Facebook etc for any updates before setting off. I expect the number of people approaching from the Peakstone side without being aware of any of the access issues would be zero.
The reality is that there's an entire parallel world on Instagram, where people use their accounts as multimedial logbooks and get all of their information from what they see other people doing on there, to the extent that they don't even look at guidebooks. I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate,
While I agree with your general point on guidebooks, I think Anston is about the worst crag you could have used to support your case given that the guidebook hasn't been available for love nor money for almost a decade.
and someone recently claimed Alpha SS as an FA.
:lol:
-
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't.
There doesn't need to be any rules full stop. We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, but sadly it's beyond some people to comprehend this, look after them and respect the owners wishes.
Access was negotiated for climbing in a nature reserve and the very agreeable conditions were part of the negotiation.
That's some of the most polite access signage I've seen - such a shame it's been shat on.
Perhaps reasonable is the wrong word to use. How about achievable? The existing rules seem to me designed, or destined, to fail, as indeed they have.
The point around access to private land is a complex one; there are many people including myself who believe our current laws on access and the right to roam are completely wrong. They favour landowners who hold sway over vast areas of the English countryside, restricting what in my view should be a default right of access for responsible recreation.
It looks like almost the entirety of Dimmingsdale is CROW access land. Why is that part of the dale so special? Other than the whims of an individual landowner.
I think that that last part likely explains how we end up at a point where the Anston guide clearly states that everything on the Ebola Buttress is a sit but you'd be hard-pressed to find a video of someone pulling their ass off the ground while doing Ebola or Resonate
I've no idea why anyone would bother with sit starts for either of those; they're often damp, have chossy rock, and add nothing in either quality or difficulty.
-
I have a lot of sympathy with your views Bradders, in fact I totally agree! Consequently I have no problem, perversely, with under the radar trespass to access crags like eatswood which have been completely banned, or walking around the margins of fields without public rights of way. Done well, such activity retains climbing at a low level, normally the landowners are aware but don't care cause the numbers are low, and everyone ends up broadly OK.
Where it gets trickier is when the landowner is actually being quite reasonable in allowing access and then climbers take the piss. I don't agree that the restrictions have been set up to fail, they just have a different vision for the land as a nature reserve which isn't compatible with pad parties and lamp sessions. Given they've sought to find a middle ground I think climbers being respectful of that is the least we can do.
-
if one was to go to Wright's, the best approach would be to park at Peakstone in order to minimise the chance of disturbing/being seen by the landowners. It sounds like you wouldn't see any signs if you approached from there.
It might be useful to remember that landowners are often pretty savvy about access and climbers in general and have been known to check forums such as UKC and UKB for discussions such as this.
-
And you are saying you are against others being shown/encouraged into the same thing
I forever rue the formative days of my life when nobody was there to show me and encourage me into ice-hockey/badminton/fishing as life-affirming pastimes. Oh hang on... no that's bullshit I never think about it at all! I couldn't care less about the path not taken. I found my way just fine but perhaps I was just 'lucky'.
Why this strong drive among some people to 'show other people the sport' and to 'grow the sport'? Let people discover it for themselves. If they don't then they'll find something else that gives them joy, or maybe they won't. Beyond a certain level of encouragement it comes across as quite preachy and missionary - what's wrong with snooker and darts? I detect some middle-class missionary zeal.
I suppose the underlying questions are what is 'enough' of an opportunity to climb, and how are we doing in some abstract ideal of giving most kids a look at this world that they might like? How much promotion is too much? Tricky lines to define. Also the age-old question of 'who benefits' should be asked of promoting growth in climbing participation - as in does the BMC benefit or does the typical outdoor climber benefit? If the consensus is that the BMC benefits e.g. from increased stature and funding from growth, but outdoor climbing doesn't, then that can't be the right way.
Perhaps the best thing that could happen for access issues in climbing would be for a 25% reduction in numbers of people climbing outdoors.
-
if one was to go to Wright's, the best approach would be to park at Peakstone in order to minimise the chance of disturbing/being seen by the landowners. It sounds like you wouldn't see any signs if you approached from there.
It might be useful to remember that landowners are often pretty savvy about access and climbers in general and have been known to check forums such as UKC and UKB for discussions such as this.
The intent of parking there would not have been to break any of the rules. It would have been to follow the rules, but to do so less visibly.
Edit: Having read back my post: don't think I made it clear that the discussions about hypothetically approaching from Peakstone took place before the complete ban was announced. I would hope nobody would risk making things worse by going there now.
-
Fair point that the Anston argument is poor (and a good point that people have to get approach/parking information from somewhere), but I think that it illustrates something about how there's a divergence in terms of where people get their information from these days. Maybe a better example would be the recent thread on Kidneystone: on the one hand you have dozens of videos on Instagram, YouTube, and Vimeo showing people starting with left hand on the crimp, and on the other you have the first ascensionist matching the jug in the dim and distant past. In that case the confusion seems to come from the fact that the proper start is a) a bit shite and dabby and b) not specified anywhere (hence the thread), but the broader point is that social media has decentralised knowledge; it used to be that guidebooks were the sum total of our codified knowledge, then came magazines, books, websites like UKC...
But with all of this there was a kind of 'top-down' communication - so in the context of bouldering, that meant people establishing problems and writing them up and all repeats using that original write-up (where the problem is, what the start holds are, where the finish holds are for choss). These write-ups then became videos and these videos were necessarily hosted on social media, and then you fast-forward to today and it's nigh-on impossible to figure out whether the video you're watching shows the FA/the same sequence the FA used or is crouch-starting/dab-taking/non-matching degeneracy. The day before Griffs was closed I went down to the Blackout roof inspired by a video I saw on Instagram, only to realise that the line climbed by the guy in the video and the line of the FA were totally different (classic case of all the right-hand holds on the FA were used for the left hand in this vid). I feel like there’s been a bit of a shift, away from a focus on how the problem was originally done (where the FA write-up/footage was a kind of ‘sacred text’, although we still have elements of that with things like heels on Green Traverse and Tsunami) and towards how I can get it done - so easier sequences, knees, etc. That opens the door to a whole tangent on Instagram green ticks, internet democratisation, and 'consumption' in climbing that's even further off-topic than I've already gone though...
I guess my original point with it was that if we can agree that there's a large section of the climbing population that are getting their information from social media rather than what used to be centralised sources of information (i.e. guidebooks, UKC), then that does suggest that it's possible that people have been climbing at Wright's while totally unaware that they were doing anything wrong, because this move away from centralised knowledge and towards discrete bits of content has divorced knowledge of how to climb a specific problem from knowledge regarding the broader area, in terms of things like access issues. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here - obviously this scenario entails people not just not using certain websites but also managing to miss clearly written signs on the approach to the crag - but I guess am trying to expand on Carliios' point that putting things on UKC/UKB/the RAD may not actually constitute reaching the people that need to be reached on this front, and that being exasperated that people aren’t looking at UKC/UKB/the RAD is less useful than asking why they aren’t and how we can change that.
One thing that does occur is there was that 'Respect the Rock' series that the BMC produced post-lockdown - from memory they mostly featured social-media presences like Louis Parkinson and Jon Partridge, and there was a pretty good one about Cademan that seemed to be an attempt to pre-empt the obviously incoming shitstorm with regard to parking there, but I don't remember one for the Churnet or anything about it generally being good practice to check the RAD. Definitely a better approach than the Catalyst video at Pigeon's Cave that featured ban-flouting where they just edited out those bits and deleted the comments pointing it out... More immediately, getting a big fuck-off (BMC-funded?) sign at the crag itself to remove any excuses seems like a great idea.
-
Fair point that the Anston argument is poor (and a good point that people have to get approach/parking information from somewhere), but I think that it illustrates something about how there's a divergence in terms of where people get their information from these days. Maybe a better example would be the recent thread on Kidneystone: on the one hand you have dozens of videos on Instagram, YouTube, and Vimeo showing people starting with left hand on the crimp, and on the other you have the first ascensionist matching the jug in the dim and distant past. In that case the confusion seems to come from the fact that the proper start is a) a bit shite and dabby and b) not specified anywhere (hence the thread), but the broader point is that social media has decentralised knowledge; it used to be that guidebooks were the sum total of our codified knowledge, then came magazines, books, websites like UKC...
But with all of this there was a kind of 'top-down' communication - so in the context of bouldering, that meant people establishing problems and writing them up and all repeats using that original write-up (where the problem is, what the start holds are, where the finish holds are for choss). These write-ups then became videos and these videos were necessarily hosted on social media, and then you fast-forward to today and it's nigh-on impossible to figure out whether the video you're watching shows the FA/the same sequence the FA used or is crouch-starting/dab-taking/non-matching degeneracy. The day before Griffs was closed I went down to the Blackout roof inspired by a video I saw on Instagram, only to realise that the line climbed by the guy in the video and the line of the FA were totally different (classic case of all the right-hand holds on the FA were used for the left hand in this vid). I feel like there’s been a bit of a shift, away from a focus on how the problem was originally done (where the FA write-up/footage was a kind of ‘sacred text’, although we still have elements of that with things like heels on Green Traverse and Tsunami) and towards how I can get it done - so easier sequences, knees, etc. That opens the door to a whole tangent on Instagram green ticks, internet democratisation, and 'consumption' in climbing that's even further off-topic than I've already gone though...
I guess my original point with it was that if we can agree that there's a large section of the climbing population that are getting their information from social media rather than what used to be centralised sources of information (i.e. guidebooks, UKC), then that does suggest that it's possible that people have been climbing at Wright's while totally unaware that they were doing anything wrong, because this move away from centralised knowledge and towards discrete bits of content has divorced knowledge of how to climb a specific problem from knowledge regarding the broader area, in terms of things like access issues. I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here - obviously this scenario entails people not just not using certain websites but also managing to miss clearly written signs on the approach to the crag - but I guess am trying to expand on Carliios' point that putting things on UKC/UKB/the RAD may not actually constitute reaching the people that need to be reached on this front, and that being exasperated that people aren’t looking at UKC/UKB/the RAD is less useful than asking why they aren’t and how we can change that.
One thing that does occur is there was that 'Respect the Rock' series that the BMC produced post-lockdown - from memory they mostly featured social-media presences like Louis Parkinson and Jon Partridge, and there was a pretty good one about Cademan that seemed to be an attempt to pre-empt the obviously incoming shitstorm with regard to parking there, but I don't remember one for the Churnet or anything about it generally being good practice to check the RAD. Definitely a better approach than the Catalyst video at Pigeon's Cave that featured ban-flouting where they just edited out those bits and deleted the comments pointing it out... More immediately, getting a big fuck-off (BMC-funded?) sign at the crag itself to remove any excuses seems like a great idea.
Agreed on all points here. I think we need a multi-pronged approach to disseminating this information to a wider audience. I think the BMC videos with the big personalities was a great approach because they also then share it across their socials bringing the info to that wider audience. I don’t think we need to abandon the old websites I think we just need to expand on it a bit more and I definitely believe that BMC could be less slack when working with land owners like churnet. Happily would create a fund to put up signs, help keep fences and paths in good condition etc.
-
Maybe everyone who posts a video on social media should post a notice at the start of the video giving basic outdoor etiquette; "respect the rock; No music, no shit, no litter, check RAD" rather than sticking up a logo to make people think they are a sponsored hero.
-
One thing that does occur is there was that 'Respect the Rock' series that the BMC produced post-lockdown - from memory they mostly featured social-media presences like Louis Parkinson and Jon Partridge, and there was a pretty good one about Cademan that seemed to be an attempt to pre-empt the obviously incoming shitstorm with regard to parking there, but I don't remember one for the Churnet or anything about it generally being good practice to check the RAD.
Lattice did a video about Churnet last year.
They included a quick section on ethics. They mentioned:
- small groups
- the guidebook
- brushing
- not climbing on wet rock
However, given their reach, their target audience (heavily weighted towards indoor climbers) and the sensitivity of Churnet, I would have liked them to go further and include:
- different sectors are owned by different people, with sensitive access/ bans in place for some sectors
- access agreements change. Therefore it's important to check RAD/UKC/UKB/local knowledge for the latest agreements/ advice/ rules for the sector you're visiting
- stress just how fragile Churnet rock is if it's wet and how important it is not to climb on anything that isn't bone dry.
- Parking. Which has been an issue at Churnet like so many places since 2020.
-
Has to be a multi-pronged approach and we can all do a bit, I've nominated myself as Sandstone Ethics Bore at the wall.
BMC RAD isn't yet showing the new restriction - is there a Rob Dyer shaped gap? I've mailed Dave T and Rob (not sure if he's still there).
Edit: that'll learn me to press F5. The RAD IS now updated, should flow through to UKC soon.
-
Wrights Rock is to be a wildlife/nature reserve area. It has at least two amber list species trying to establish. Our management plan for the aforementioned does not allow for large footfall. By negotiation, we decided to keep it to six climbers max at any one time on Fri, Sat and Sun. The rest of the time it's reserved for both our paying guests, friends, us and the wildlife. We will be thinning trees, letting in light, reducing bracken and adding to bio diversity. In addition, putting in new tree species.
Costs have been expended to sign up, erect gates and re-fence.
Despite now prominent and detailed access signs, some climbers are willfully ignoring signs. We have even put two signs up at the rock face detailing simple conditions of access after being told numerous times the signs were "not seen".
Since re-opening the rock with new signs etc 1st August were have had a lock forced, a sign removed, people climbing on non climbing days, people staying over the curfew time of 5pm/dusk. One person refused to leave who should not have been there resulting in me threatening to call 911 (they would probably ignored me as a civil matter) and recently we asked two to leave who were climbing by lights.
We are getting wearysome of people thinking it's their right to enter, do what they like, argue it's "their right", be requested to "give the rock to the people", assert the land boundaries are incorrect and state that we don't own the rock. It is a matter of public record that Wood Farm (HM Land Registry) owns the land, the rock, the face and up and behind the rock and there is no right of way. In addition we possess the original deeds/MAP dated 1919 when the Earl of Shrewsbury sold the plot to this farm via the settlement of the Alton Towers Estate.
Most climbers have integrity unfortuately some don't and the ongoing issues are making it tiresome.
I won't be replying to this message.
-
Sorry for the bother and upset and on behalf of UKB thank you for continuing to allow limited access despite everything. It’s very much appreciated - it’s a wonderful crag to climb on.
Best regards, Simon Lee
-
Hi Jim, I would like to second what Simon says. It is real shame that you have had to deal with inconsiderate behaviour and people not following the access agreement. As ever, it’s a minority who let down everybody else.
I hope this can be resolved soon.
Jonathan
-
Another person who'd like to echo Simon post. Many thanks for continuing to allow access for climbing alongside your plan for the land. If there's any way climbers can in some way contribute to the nature reserve, eg perhaps through a working group, there are many who would be willing to give up their time.
Cheers
Jim
-
Thanks for taking time to come on here and post. I've sent you a private message.
-
Echo those comments, it feels like you’re trying to do the right think for the land, your family and careful users. Sorry for the upset, there are plenty of considerate climbers out there …and some less so.
-
Hi Jim thinks for highlighting these problems here, I'd be happy to help out in any way and I'm sure many others would feel the same, as spidermonkey said.
-
We are again closing the rock for a month. We re-open on May 5th 2023.
Being closed due tiresome and persistant rule-breaking.
We may insist no access unless pre-booked by email as "trust" appears to be not working.
-
Hi Jim. Have private messaged you.
-
Seeing as access opens up again this weekend and there's nothing else of interest happening today, I've been thinking about Wright's.
Unless I'm missing something, the RAD and UKC say 'maximum group size 6'. One of my mates has taken this to mean that as long as you go up in a group of 6, everything's ok, even if there's another group already there. My understanding from what Jim said above was that the rule is 6 climbers total, but there's clearly some ambiguity here. Do the RAD and UKC access notes need clarifying, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
-
If that means friend specific groups should not be more than 6 individuals, it follows that they would be ok with six groups of people who don’t know each other at the crag.
Seems improbable that the owners would be okay with 36 people milling around up there when they have clearly attempted to limit the numbers. A bit of common sense is needed.
That said, making online info idiot proof may be wise.
-
It means a maximum of six people in total at the crag.
-
Been open two weekends and access abuse has started again each weekend. For now on, NO access is permitted to any of Wright's Rock until further notice. Tomorrow is open (14/5/2023) but that's the last day.
This is due to persistent abuse of the access conditions by climbers onto this private land/Site of Special Scientific Interest.
Updates on the access status will be communicated to the “BMC” website.
Sorry but free informal access has proved a mistake. Ramblers, anglers and metal detectorists we have no issues with on other parts of the land.
Whilst we figure out how we can maintain free access with reciprocal responsibility from climbers, please find other rocks.
I do accept 80% - 85% of climbers are very responsible - unfortunately you do not wear a foolproof ID.
-
If the BMC set up an online registration system it might help. 6 slots am, 6 slots pm. Check online if no slots available don't go.
I can imagine currently folks driving out there to find it full not wanting to turn around after meningitis the trip. Better to know in advance it's full.
-
If the BMC set up an online registration system it might help. 6 slots am, 6 slots pm. Check online if no slots available don't go.
I can imagine currently folks driving out there to find it full not wanting to turn around after meningitis the trip. Better to know in advance it's full.
This would require everyone who climbs to know about the registration site, unfortunately I can’t see it working.
-
Including the details for registration clearly on the signs at the entrance would solve that. With a polite notice asking people to go to one of the other buttresses if there are no slots available.
Churnet gets great signal so it would be easy to check the registration site before proceeding.
People might arrive unaware, but they'd know before they got to the rocks and would have no excuse for not complying.
-
It stands a better chance of working than the current system which is being wilfully ignored by chodes.
-
I was thinking similar this morning, there's a venue (albeit a smaller more minor one) in Yorkshire where you have to text or ring the landowner to ask for permission to visit on a specific time / day. It's there for a completely different (and far less noble) reason, as the land is used for shooting, but it seems to work. And doesn't require any website build etc.
I reckon that's the only way to stop the main issue, which as ferret says I'm willing to bet is where more than 6 people turn up and no one is willing to leave and go elsewhere. Appreciate that will involve additional admin effort on Jim's part though, unless someone else volunteered?
-
there's a venue in Yorkshire where you have to text or ring the landowner to ask for permission to visit on a specific time / day...it seems to work. And doesn't require any website build etc.
Appreciate that will involve additional admin effort on Jim's part though, unless someone else volunteered?
Could another option just be a WhatsApp group (advertised through BMC) where, on the morning they intend to go, climbers have to post their car reg and how many people in the group on a first come first served basis. People would know before they left home whether it's 'full', and also easier for Jim to then challenge any groups that haven't respected the rules if they can't provide a reg number at the crag (would be easy to know who has permission to be there). Also less admin intensive than fielding phone calls all the time.
-
Sorry. But there’s a strong sense of privilege coming through.
We, as a collective climbers that goes beyond UKB, have taken liberties and felt entitled to do what we wanted. Inspite of very reasonable expectations and efforts of the landowner to support climbing, climbers have now faced the accountability of their actions.
You can suggest all the different apps, social media ideas, and BMC should do this & that. but ultimately it’s the behaviour and mindsets of climbers that need to change.
There’s loads of other examples like Raven Tor parking as noted last week, the ongoing issues at Griffs.
These venues are not where beginners go, it’s climbers who know better.
The idea of ringing up and booking a spot with the landowner, imo, reflects this entitled mindset. Why should he allocate time to meet the needs of climbers and take phone calls. He has his own life to live and what if he’s not there? Is he responsible to set up a contingency plan??
Sadly, this is the lesson that needs to be learnt.
I’m gutted I can’t climb there anymore, but Jim has been very patient & accommodating. But we as climbers blew it.
Other spots will go if mentalities & behaviours don’t change.
-
If people can ignore a sign they can definitely ignore a WhatsApp group or an app.
It would be more effective for people already at the crag to challenge extra people turning up.
-
Sorry. But there’s a strong sense of privilege coming through.
We, as a collective climbers that goes beyond UKB, have taken liberties and felt entitled to do what we wanted. Inspite of very reasonable expectations and efforts of the landowner to support climbing, climbers have now faced the accountability of their actions.
You can suggest all the different apps, social media ideas, and BMC should do this & that. but ultimately it’s the behaviour and mindsets of climbers that need to change.
There’s loads of other examples like Raven Tor parking as noted last week, the ongoing issues at Griffs.
These venues are not where beginners go, it’s climbers who know better.
The idea of ringing up and booking a spot with the landowner, imo, reflects this entitled mindset. Why should he allocate time to meet the needs of climbers and take phone calls. He has his own life to live and what if he’s not there? Is he responsible to set up a contingency plan??
Sadly, this is the lesson that needs to be learnt.
I’m gutted I can’t climb there anymore, but Jim has been very patient & accommodating. But we as climbers blew it.
Other spots will go if mentalities & behaviours don’t change.
This was my thinking too. It sounds like a big loss for people, but it’s all down to people not respecting the rules.
It probably won’t make a big difference but things like this will hopefully make people think more about treating access as a privilege rather than a right. And i definitely include myself in that!
-
If people can ignore a sign they can definitely ignore a WhatsApp group or an app.
Yeh fair point. People are dicks.
-
To put it less succinctly, there is an expectation nowadays that every problem must have a technological solution. Unless the BMC is going to create a Wright's Rock Robocop to vaporize any rule breakers then this is one of those things which you can't tech your way out of. And you can't just point to some 3rd party (i.e. the BMC) and cry that they didn't do their job.
Everybody has done everything they need to do except the people following the rules. If they won't leave when challenged then ask for their name so that you can let people know who got the access withdrawn.
-
I agree with Gav: people who post on this website might consider themselves very distinct from those flouting access bans, but at the end of the day we're all just middle-class ponces in stupid brightly coloured trousers with big rectangles strapped to our backs mumbling nonsense about micro-beta and doing a shit job of maintaining eye contact and fiddling with collections of overpriced toothbrushes. The situation has been bad for a year (two years?) and there have been plenty of instances of people logging on UKC on days/in months when climbing there wasn't allowed, so rather than suggesting an even more complicated approach to access (particularly if it puts even more of the onus on the landowner) we might just need to take this on the chin, reflect on what went wrong, and do what we can to avoid losing access in other places.
Currently the RAD widget on UKC suggests an ambiguous situation so obviously needs to be changed, and I've seen good efforts from people on social media giving updates on the changing access situation, but clearly none of this has been enough. I think that the situation is a bit more nuanced than 'people are dicks' and would assume that at least some of the ban-flouting has been innocent (not looking at UKC and managing to get to the crag without seeing signs - there was some suggestion that only one of the multiple paths had a sign and I wouldn't be surprised if one or more were purposely removed), in which case do we need to get better at arranging and maintaining signage when access is tenuous? Or if not and everyone who has flouted the ban has done so knowingly do we need to crack on with sharpening our pitchforks and, as Will suggests, naming and shaming to really discourage such behaviour?
-
Agree it wouldn't totally solve the problem but I think would make it less likely to occur. Nobody needs to administrate it should be pretty simple to automate.
Could also give a way to monitor what's going on up there as you now have email/phone contacts for those attending and could survey if the rules users observed the rules being followed while there
-
Agree it wouldn't totally solve the problem but I think would make it less likely to occur. Nobody needs to administrate it should be pretty simple to automate.
Could also give a way to monitor what's going on up there as you now have email/phone contacts for those attending and could survey if the rules users observed the rules being followed while there
Sure this would work if there was 20 climbers in the UK. Good luck getting a thousand people to sign up and use an app/group chat/tech solution.
This was a long time coming and people know the rules at this point considering how long access has been tenuous there. I also agree it’s the responsibility of the community to self regulate and not the land owners job to accommodate us. How much they already have accommodated and then had the piss taken by boulderers? Sad but it’s the consequences of our actions as a community.
-
we could let capitalism solve it,
could have a 'worker' there overseeing everything at the crag and making sure the rules are followed, also a booking application that charges non-refundable slots (10 each).
the volume should easily generate 800+ pounds for worker,
I don't have much faith in people's ability to follow rules :sorry:
-
I suppose the question is; are the people ruining it for everyone blissfully ignorant of the restrictions, or knowingly breaking them? Cos if its the latter there's very little anyone can do by arranging setups like registration etc.
Bloody annoying situation though. Embarrassing tbh.
-
Sure this would work if there was 20 climbers in the UK. Good luck getting a thousand people to sign up and use an app/group chat/tech solution.
I don't think it needs to be as big a barrier as you think it is. All you need is:
1) A very visible, well worded sign at the entrance and at the car park explaining the situation and including a link and a QR code for the site. It also needs to spell out in clear words what the consequences of non-compliance are.
2) A super basic website. Sign up with a full name and email address.
3) A basic page with with 6 slots available for each am/pm slot or however you want to break down the slots. I think 3 hour windows could work well. If you wanted to be fancy, the slots could adjust with daylight hours so they were shorter in the winter.
4) If you wanted to get really fancy, the sign could include a QR code to sign in and out of your slot so that your slot can be freed up if you leave early. Repeated no shows could get you blocked from booking a slot for a few weeks to stop people taking the mick.
5) Very visible wording and links to the website from the UKC and RAD pages*.
We all managed to do similar to go visit a wall during covid. To be successful, I think it would need to done via a website that doesn't need an app, or via RGPro (because it already has all of the functionality we would need and because I expect most climbers had to create an account on there during covid anyway).
For the tool to be successful, I think it would need to fall to the climbing community to set it up and manage it (probably via the BMC, not that there should need to be any managing to do once it's set up) and for us to then go to the landowner and propose it as a solution that could allow access to continue while minimising the chance of anyone breaking the access rules.
I agree that whatsapp is a non-starter. Too many people don't have whatsapp and people aren't going to want to join a group chat with hundreds of other people potentially sending them messages.
* At the risk of going off on a tangent, I think UKC logbook pages and the RAD could be a lot clearer when it comes to crags with sensitive access. The access issues aren't prominent enough or easy enough to navigate to, the wording is too often ambiguous or out of date, and UKC/RAD often contradict each other.
-
Sure this would work if there was 20 climbers in the UK. Good luck getting a thousand people to sign up and use an app/group chat/tech solution.
I don't think it needs to be as big a barrier as you think it is. All you need is:
1) A very visible, well worded sign at the entrance and at the car park explaining the situation and including a link and a QR code for the site. It also needs to spell out in clear words what the consequences of non-compliance are.
2) A super basic website. Sign up with a full name and email address.
3) A basic page with with 6 slots available for each am/pm slot or however you want to break down the slots. I think 3 hour windows could work well. If you wanted to be fancy, the slots could adjust with daylight hours so they were shorter in the winter.
4) If you wanted to get really fancy, the sign could include a QR code to sign in and out of your slot so that your slot can be freed up if you leave early. Repeated no shows could get you blocked from booking a slot for a few weeks to stop people taking the mick.
5) Very visible wording and links to the website from the UKC and RAD pages*.
We all managed to do similar to go visit a wall during covid. To be successful, I think it would need to done via a website that doesn't need an app, or via RGPro (because it already has all of the functionality we would need and because I expect most climbers had to create an account on there during covid anyway).
For the tool to be successful, I think it would need to fall to the climbing community to set it up and manage it (probably via the BMC, not that there should need to be any managing to do once it's set up) and for us to then go to the landowner and propose it as a solution that could allow access to continue while minimising the chance of anyone breaking the access rules.
I agree that whatsapp is a non-starter. Too many people don't have whatsapp and people aren't going to want to join a group chat with hundreds of other people potentially sending them messages.
* At the risk of going off on a tangent, I think UKC logbook pages and the RAD could be a lot clearer when it comes to crags with sensitive access. The access issues aren't prominent enough or easy enough to navigate to, the wording is too often ambiguous or out of date, and UKC/RAD often contradict each other.
This sounds great. When do you think you'll be ready to roll it out?
Can you do the same for some other crags with difficult access situations too please.
-
Sure this would work if there was 20 climbers in the UK. Good luck getting a thousand people to sign up and use an app/group chat/tech solution.
I don't think it needs to be as big a barrier as you think it is. All you need is:
1) A very visible, well worded sign at the entrance and at the car park explaining the situation and including a link and a QR code for the site. It also needs to spell out in clear words what the consequences of non-compliance are.
2) A super basic website. Sign up with a full name and email address.
3) A basic page with with 6 slots available for each am/pm slot or however you want to break down the slots. I think 3 hour windows could work well. If you wanted to be fancy, the slots could adjust with daylight hours so they were shorter in the winter.
4) If you wanted to get really fancy, the sign could include a QR code to sign in and out of your slot so that your slot can be freed up if you leave early. Repeated no shows could get you blocked from booking a slot for a few weeks to stop people taking the mick.
5) Very visible wording and links to the website from the UKC and RAD pages*.
We all managed to do similar to go visit a wall during covid. To be successful, I think it would need to done via a website that doesn't need an app, or via RGPro (because it already has all of the functionality we would need and because I expect most climbers had to create an account on there during covid anyway).
For the tool to be successful, I think it would need to fall to the climbing community to set it up and manage it (probably via the BMC, not that there should need to be any managing to do once it's set up) and for us to then go to the landowner and propose it as a solution that could allow access to continue while minimising the chance of anyone breaking the access rules.
I agree that whatsapp is a non-starter. Too many people don't have whatsapp and people aren't going to want to join a group chat with hundreds of other people potentially sending them messages.
* At the risk of going off on a tangent, I think UKC logbook pages and the RAD could be a lot clearer when it comes to crags with sensitive access. The access issues aren't prominent enough or easy enough to navigate to, the wording is too often ambiguous or out of date, and UKC/RAD often contradict each other.
Having made some little widgets like this I think you're significantly overestimating how motivated people would be to use it. I get the temptation, but as a UKBer you are almost by definition in the top 1% of motivated climbers and care a lot more about access than your average punter, so a nifty little website sounds like a great idea to us. However, we've seen that the majority of climbers don't seem to read simple signage. Adding more steps in to the process without a clear and immediate pay-off will not make those same climbers more engaged.
In my opinion what you'd need is someone who is willing to confront climbers who are not adhering to the access arrangements at the crag, a la Martin Crocker's top working checking people's insurance at cheddar. It seems a pretty thankless task though.
-
Honestly the simplest solution is just ensuring that you and your friends all post regular access updates to social media accounts, specifically Instagram as that’s what most punters use. It would also be very useful if the better known climbers all shared this information but even they don’t bother and then complain when access gets withdrawn. You’re not gonna get people to sign up to a website or app or group chat. You need to disseminate information where the majority of people browse climbing content: Instagram and YouTube. The problem is that 80% of the people on this forum are stuck in 2002 and think posting on Instagram is lame.
Like Remus says, majority of people are just casual punters and may not know/care about access issues as climbing isn’t their entire lives like everyone on here.
-
Honestly the simplest solution is just ensuring that you and your friends all post regular access updates to social media accounts, specifically Instagram as that’s what most punters use. It would also be very useful if the better known climbers all shared this information but even they don’t bother and then complain when access gets withdrawn. You’re not gonna get people to sign up to a website or app or group chat. You need to disseminate information where the majority of people browse climbing content: Instagram and YouTube. The problem is that 80% of the people on this forum are stuck in 2002 and think posting on Instagram is lame.
Like Remus says, majority of people are just casual punters and may not know/care about access issues as climbing isn’t their entire lives like everyone on here.
I really don't think there's any need for an aggravating rant like this. How exactly do you think this is going to help?
All anyone's done is offer up options for potential solutions, since we all clearly care about access to these places, and this is relevant since Jim suggested they were still looking for ways to make it work. Throwing insults around is only going to make a bad situation worse frankly.
-
Sorry if it came off as an aggravating rant and insulting but it’s kind of at the point where this discussion has been had numerous times without any real resolution? Just a bit frustrating at how slow the mechanisms move.
Why is it that Jim has now banned access (rightly so may I add) but I haven’t seen either the UKC/RAD updated? Neither have I seen any singular posts from the BMC channels notifying people of access changes, could see people turning up this weekend and climbing on the rocks not realising the ban is already in place, further jeopardising access there in the future.
-
Honestly the simplest solution is just ensuring that you and your friends all post regular access updates to social media accounts, specifically Instagram as that’s what most punters use. It would also be very useful if the better known climbers all shared this information but even they don’t bother and then complain when access gets withdrawn. You’re not gonna get people to sign up to a website or app or group chat. You need to disseminate information where the majority of people browse climbing content: Instagram and YouTube. The problem is that 80% of the people on this forum are stuck in 2002 and think posting on Instagram is lame.
I don't think Instagram or YouTube will be a major part in any successful solution.
Instagram isn't designed for getting across more than a sentence or 2 of text. Write any more than that, and it gets hidden behind a "read more" link. Most people will scroll on without ever clicking the link.
Most people won't post a video about the access issues at a crag. They'll post about sending their sick new project. Or their crazy new challenge to tick 200 v points in a day or their challenge about a beginner vs a pro climber. Or world's strongest climber crushes churnet's hardest climbs etc etc. Even if they add a brief section to their video about the access issues, how many people are going to be concentrating on that part of the video? People's attention spans on social media are very short and admin like sections at the beginning and end of videos get skipped a lot and get punished by YouTube's algorithm. The accounts that could theoretically have the biggest influence on awareness only maintain that influence by being slaves to the algorithm.
If you do get the message across successfully via social media posts, they'll only be viewed for a few days, before being forgotten when replaced by newer posts in people's feeds.
Clear, attention grabbing, unavoidable signage on the access route to the crag with clear, blunt wording is the only place that you can guarantee all climbers at the crag will see it. I think that's the only way to remove any plausible deniability of knowledge of the access rules and the consequences of breaking them.
I think removal of that plausible deniability is key to trying to persuade/guilt the problem people to behave.
-
I get the impression that Wright's might be an early destination for people venturing outdoors. I don't know the area well but have got chatting to a couple of people in that category - up from London, strong as anything, straight out of the gym. By that definition they're going to fall into the 'hard to reach' category. Likely not big UKC readers or RAD checkers. Just as likely to be getting 'news' from Instagram, ie looking at random leaves from a tree, rather than reading the wikipedia entry for that tree.
How do you reach the hard to reach?
-
How do these people get to the crag, or know where to park without consulting ukc or a guidebook?
They don't; they look at ukc and ignore the access stuff. Theres no excuse.
-
People don't go on Instagram to think. Quite the opposite, in fact.
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
-
Sorry if it came off as an aggravating rant and insulting but it’s kind of at the point where this discussion has been had numerous times without any real resolution? Just a bit frustrating at how slow the mechanisms move.
Why is it that Jim has now banned access (rightly so may I add) but I haven’t seen either the UKC/RAD updated? Neither have I seen any singular posts from the BMC channels notifying people of access changes, could see people turning up this weekend and climbing on the rocks not realising the ban is already in place, further jeopardising access there in the future.
As no one had posted Jim's update on the other channel I did it on Sunday... access is clearly only Friday and weekends only, so the next pressure point is this Friday.
RAD IS the main BMC channel, but expecting one full time access officer to be working on this every hour of every day is unreasonable. If anyone wants to know how the two relevant full time BMC Access officers for England and Wales struggle with time in their roles, despite dedication and expertise, just talk to them: the vast majority of BMC access work is always going to be done by volunteers.
I simply don't 'buy' innocent ignorance being the biggest factor: nearly all these bans and parking clusterfucks come from climbers who should clearly know better, yet from their actions and inactions (especially not checking RAD) don't give a shit. This is fundamentally a community problem and as part of that we simply need to self police better in sensitive venues or risk losing them. RAD and the UKC logbook link and signage help but efforts needs to be wider than that, given way too many climbers don't spend a minute checking RAD (or the logbook links) and sadly signs sometimes get removed.
As a positive aside on access and the BMC, I'd add that Dave instigated cross England and Wales BMC zoom meetings over a year ago, for leading access volunteers, to better coordinate responses to common access and policy threats and to share good practice. These are working very well in my opinion, communication is better and hopefully this will slightly reduce pressure on staff. Also the one full time BMC Wales policy and access role was recently split into two seperate roles, with one full time on access, and before that Dave moved from CEO into managing Access, Conservation and Sustainability: so BMC staff resources on access are larger than ever. However, Jon must be especially busy being newish in role in a time of ongoing significant organisational change and facing a growing volume of serious access problems.
-
So what’s the process for changing the access advice on RAD/UKC? I’m more than happy to volunteer to do admin work if necessary in my free time if it means we can get the message across more quickly.
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
I hate Instagram for many reasons, and loathingly use it for some things.
As a pure thought experiment and learning exercise how would I go on the IG and figure out the access situation of a specific location? Or do I just need to follow the feed day in, day out? Would there need to be a specific access page for, say Wrights Rock and updates posted there? if so, who manages it?
These are slightly loaded questions, but I'm fully open to being shown that it is workable through this terrible medium.
-
I get the impression that Wright's might be an early destination for people venturing outdoors. I don't know the area well but have got chatting to a couple of people in that category - up from London, strong as anything, straight out of the gym. By that definition they're going to fall into the 'hard to reach' category. Likely not big UKC readers or RAD checkers. Just as likely to be getting 'news' from Instagram, ie looking at random leaves from a tree, rather than reading the wikipedia entry for that tree.
How do you reach the hard to reach?
I don't get the impression the new to the outdoors are the main problem at Wright's and they are almost certainly not in other recent problem cases.
Having a BMC access page on multiple social media platforms seems inefficient and unworkable to me, everything should point to RAD in my opinion. Posting on the main BMC outputs on especially sensitive issues might work sometimes, and occasionally posting on bans, reminding people of the importance of always checking RAD would be good. If BMC Instagram posts happened for Wright's (before the latest ban) and all similar cases, it would swamp those BMC media links and require too much duplicate work for the access officers.
We best reach the hard to reach by education. The BMC provide RAD and many educational resources, and Mountain Training teach the issues on courses, but the community need to educate and provide pointers as well.
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
All this I agree with, but I'll ask again; how do people who consume their climbing media through instagram actually find out where to go and how to get there....?
The answer is they google it, ukc comes up and they ignore the access section. Sure the most recent update isn't on there yet, but all the previous ones were.
Also wtf is the point of an Instagram story on access changes? The thing is gone again in a day!
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
I hate Instagram for many reasons, and loathingly use it for some things.
As a pure thought experiment and learning exercise how would I go on the IG and figure out the access situation of a specific location? Or do I just need to follow the feed day in, day out? Would there need to be a specific access page for, say Wrights Rock and updates posted there? if so, who manages it?
These are slightly loaded questions, but I'm fully open to being shown that it is workable through this terrible medium.
You don’t need to have a separate account for wrights access you just need people to come together and share it on their feeds.
Much like how people see news of people sending stuff you would just have news of wrights rocks access change.
A dedicated BMC access channel is not even required, just a post and a share of that post to their story works, you don’t even need to duplicate it to every BMC account, just the local relevant ones. Maybe even scheduling it using an Instagram scheduling tool to post every Thursday/Friday on stories would work and make it an automated process rather than manual.
I also don’t see people who are well known in the community sharing the information either. I’m just a lowly punter but I know my story gets out to a few hundred people so better than nowt.
I also don’t think you need to follow a feed day in day out. Chances are you or a friend will see the news and you or them will let others know through word of mouth.
When the news was posted here by Jim I shared it across my socials and messaged the group chat letting my friends know. They then told others etc etc
Ideally we would all band together as a community and help share this info with others, it’s not that hard I don’t think.
Regarding how people find how to get to crags, most casual climbers I come across and know personally don’t use UKC, they buy a guidebook from their local gym and use that to get about or use the rockfax app which doesn’t include access info (this needs to be an update I think). Those guidebooks don’t have up to date info. These same people all use Instagram regularly and I speak to them through there and I see them share their climbing on there etc
-
Also posted on UKC:
The Churnet is one of the closest areas to SE England with good outdoor bouldering. It is a popular venue for folk new to bouldering outside. I know these people as I sometimes climb with them. Most of them don't know about the BMC RAD. They primarily use "The App" as they call it - digital RockFax - sometimes augmented by what can be gleaned from the UKC database.
I don't subscribe to digital RockFax but there is enough information visible in the free version to have a productive trip to Wright's. Nowhere in what I can see on the RockFax app for The Churnet in general or Wright's in particular is there any mention of access arrangements.
This is a major omission and I wouldn't be surprised if it was a primary reason behind people not following access requirements.
-
So what’s the process for changing the access advice on RAD/UKC? I’m more than happy to volunteer to do admin work if necessary in my free time if it means we can get the message across more quickly.
Word. It feels like there's a bottle neck in getting RAD updated, and given the info there feeds in to UKC and is meant to be definitive removing that bottleneck seems sensible. I'd be happy to help out with updating it if it would help.
-
@Duncan I've just pointed some of the Rockfax developers to this after checking the downloaded crag page - as you suspect there's no mention of access issues.
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
I hate Instagram for many reasons, and loathingly use it for some things.
As a pure thought experiment and learning exercise how would I go on the IG and figure out the access situation of a specific location? Or do I just need to follow the feed day in, day out? Would there need to be a specific access page for, say Wrights Rock and updates posted there? if so, who manages it?
These are slightly loaded questions, but I'm fully open to being shown that it is workable through this terrible medium.
You don’t need to have a separate account for wrights access you just need people to come together and share it on their feeds.
Much like how people see news of people sending stuff you would just have news of wrights rocks access change.
A dedicated BMC access channel is not even required, just a post and a share of that post to their story works, you don’t even need to duplicate it to every BMC account, just the local relevant ones. Maybe even scheduling it using an Instagram scheduling tool to post every Thursday/Friday on stories would work and make it an automated process rather than manual.
I also don’t see people who are well known in the community sharing the information either. I’m just a lowly punter but I know my story gets out to a few hundred people so better than nowt.
I also don’t think you need to follow a feed day in day out. Chances are you or a friend will see the news and you or them will let others know through word of mouth.
When the news was posted here by Jim I shared it across my socials and messaged the group chat letting my friends know. They then told others etc etc
Ideally we would all band together as a community and help share this info with others, it’s not that hard I don’t think.
Regarding how people find how to get to crags, most casual climbers I come across and know personally don’t use UKC, they buy a guidebook from their local gym and use that to get about or use the rockfax app which doesn’t include access info (this needs to be an update I think). Those guidebooks don’t have up to date info. These same people all use Instagram regularly and I speak to them through there and I see them share their climbing on there etc
Honestly, this sounds like a :shit: way of managing access info - feel free to continue doing this, as it clearly augments existing methods and spreads the word but there's no way that can ever be the sole medium for this.
-
Guidebooks hardly ever get updated and thus access advice isn’t up to date
RAD and UKC haven’t even been updated to reflect to change in access status at wrights rock.
Instagram is where the majority of people consume climbing content - easiest way to let people know of access changes. I always share access advice and changes on my Instagram stories and people regularly message me about the updates so obviously it works. Yet I don’t see many people from UKB posting on their Instagram about access changes, why is that? Some of you have a lot of followers too yet choose not to post anything. I will give a shout-out to people like Dave Mason and Dave Parry who are usually on the ball and good at calling out bad parking or updating people on nesting of birds etc. but majority of people here don’t bother.
Signposting etc should obviously be a part of it but again that’s low hanging fruit. It’s about educating the more casual climbers about changes.
I personally think wrights rock is a bit of a lost cause and should just let it go and learn from it cause people aren’t going to abide by the rules.
I hate Instagram for many reasons, and loathingly use it for some things.
As a pure thought experiment and learning exercise how would I go on the IG and figure out the access situation of a specific location? Or do I just need to follow the feed day in, day out? Would there need to be a specific access page for, say Wrights Rock and updates posted there? if so, who manages it?
These are slightly loaded questions, but I'm fully open to being shown that it is workable through this terrible medium.
You don’t need to have a separate account for wrights access you just need people to come together and share it on their feeds.
Much like how people see news of people sending stuff you would just have news of wrights rocks access change.
A dedicated BMC access channel is not even required, just a post and a share of that post to their story works, you don’t even need to duplicate it to every BMC account, just the local relevant ones. Maybe even scheduling it using an Instagram scheduling tool to post every Thursday/Friday on stories would work and make it an automated process rather than manual.
I also don’t see people who are well known in the community sharing the information either. I’m just a lowly punter but I know my story gets out to a few hundred people so better than nowt.
I also don’t think you need to follow a feed day in day out. Chances are you or a friend will see the news and you or them will let others know through word of mouth.
When the news was posted here by Jim I shared it across my socials and messaged the group chat letting my friends know. They then told others etc etc
Ideally we would all band together as a community and help share this info with others, it’s not that hard I don’t think.
Regarding how people find how to get to crags, most casual climbers I come across and know personally don’t use UKC, they buy a guidebook from their local gym and use that to get about or use the rockfax app which doesn’t include access info (this needs to be an update I think). Those guidebooks don’t have up to date info. These same people all use Instagram regularly and I speak to them through there and I see them share their climbing on there etc
Honestly, this sounds like a :shit: way of managing access info - feel free to continue doing this, as it clearly augments existing methods and spreads the word but there's no way that can ever be the sole medium for this.
I didn’t say it’s the sole medium but I believe it’s the easiest way to alert people of changes. Ok here’s what I would do:
1. sign post every path towards wrights rock, with clear and unambiguous language stating the rules: 6 people only at the crag at all times, if you arrive and there are 6 people there already please find alternative venues etc
2. Update the RAD and UKC information more quickly. Maybe speak to UKC about having a pop-up for the crag if access issues change which a user has to click before they can go through to the crag page to see the climbs
3. Have local BMC channels automate a story every Thursday/Friday from a post stating access changes, maybe put a small marketing budget on the side and advertise it to targeted users: climbers, based in London and surrounding areas, age brackets etc
4. Reach out to local influential climbers (in this case London due to its proximity) and ask them to share the access information. Also reach out to local gyms and ask them to maybe put a poster up in their reception areas
5. Work with rockfax to update the app to include RAD and also add a pre-page here showing access issues before users can see the climbs and crags
Those are some ideas.
-
2. Update the RAD and UKC information more quickly. Maybe speak to UKC about having a pop-up for the crag if access issues change which a user has to click before they can go through to the crag page to see the climbs
The way it typically works is there's an API link from the BMC RAD to UKC, so if there's an update to the RAD it filters across fairly promptly. Not 100% the case - sometimes the link is overridden. Unsure on Rockfax, likely a different primary source. The RAD is a fine thing but as already pointed out, it's a lot to get through with limited resource and approximately a bazillion crags. I've got access permissions for the NW and have dropped a line offering to help out for other regions if it helps. I'd happily update Wright's, but keen to avoid treading on anyone's toes. It could of course be being discussed right now.
-
I've been away for six days in Scotland with zero phone reception. Hence being unaware of ban or updating RAD. Currently travelling till late, so will update tomorrow.
Had anyway contacted the office or my email address they would have been redirected to a colleague who would have updated it sooner.
I have been and continue to be in contact with Jim about the access, so he will be aware I've been away if he's tried to call or email.
-
Oh, just started writing this before you replied Jon.
I can edit the RAD for Peak area bird restrictions - I wouldn't usually want to change anything else without running it by Jon, but I think he's away until tomorrow if i remember rightly. So I've added a note to Wright's.
I think I can see why it's slightly old info pulling through to UKC as well, as there's a number of different ways to enter info into the RAD and that "user attention" bit goes in a different box to the rest, so maybe doesn't copy over.
-
4. Reach out to local influential climbers (in this case London due to its proximity) and ask them to share the access information.
Wright's Rock is in Staffordshire, though being a sandstone crag now banned due to climbers ignoring the access agreement, I can see why you might think it's in the south-east.
-
4. Reach out to local influential climbers (in this case London due to its proximity) and ask them to share the access information.
Wright's Rock is in Staffordshire, though being a sandstone crag now banned due to climbers ignoring the access agreement, I can see why you might think it's in the south-east.
It’s more it’s proximity to London compared to peak. When I lived in London we would regularly go to churnet as opposed to the peak due to the extra hour travel. I’m still aware of lots of friends in London who still go churnet for that reason too, wasn’t a dig at Londoners, more that a lot of Londoners frequent there and it’s low hanging fruit educating at the gyms where they’re based!
-
Dingdong is 100% right about Instagram and Social Media being important platforms for engaging re. Access imo. A lot of new people don't know what UKC or the RAD is at all and wouldn't ever check it.
RAD needs to be better but also like, even if it updated at faster than light speeds, it wouldn't fully solve the problem because there are clearly people who don't know or care.
-
has anyone mentioned Twitter? Set up an account, post live updates on numbers at the crag? I know there are other major issues, but this could be a potential fix for one of them.
-
I didn’t say it’s the sole medium but I believe it’s the easiest way to alert people of changes. Ok here’s what I would do:
1. sign post every path towards wrights rock, with clear and unambiguous language stating the rules: 6 people only at the crag at all times, if you arrive and there are 6 people there already please find alternative venues etc
2. Update the RAD and UKC information more quickly. Maybe speak to UKC about having a pop-up for the crag if access issues change which a user has to click before they can go through to the crag page to see the climbs
3. Have local BMC channels automate a story every Thursday/Friday from a post stating access changes, maybe put a small marketing budget on the side and advertise it to targeted users: climbers, based in London and surrounding areas, age brackets etc
4. Reach out to local influential climbers (in this case London due to its proximity) and ask them to share the access information. Also reach out to local gyms and ask them to maybe put a poster up in their reception areas
5. Work with rockfax to update the app to include RAD and also add a pre-page here showing access issues before users can see the climbs and crags
Those are some ideas.
Good ideas, Dingdong.
6. Approach ABC and climbing walls directly and get them to promote using RAD with posters bearing QR codes at reception where people will see it at walls.
-
I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD
-
It’s also recently come to my attention that even once a crag is banned you can still log stuff on UKC. Would make sense to turn of logging for banned crags to deter it.
-
It’s also recently come to my attention that even once a crag is banned you can still log stuff on UKC. Would make sense to turn of logging for banned crags to deter it.
IMO that would be a little heavy handed. What if you climbed at the crag when it wasn't banned and wanted to log your ascents?
-
It’s also recently come to my attention that even once a crag is banned you can still log stuff on UKC. Would make sense to turn of logging for banned crags to deter it.
IMO that would be a little heavy handed. What if you climbed at the crag when it wasn't banned and wanted to log your ascents?
Grey out dates post ban?
-
I say let them log - easier to name and shame, like the time waddy climbed on Sron Ulladale despite there being a nesting Eagle ban... :whistle:
-
Im firmly in the camp of “we” don’t care so no wonder we lose crags.
At Broomgrove right now, a “crag” I’ve always been very surprised that we can visit…
The window shelf is fully detached and it says Ben Moon stinks/sucks with lots of smiley faces on the windows. We can’t be helped.
Access section on UKC is huge.
I’ve cleaned what I can.
-
I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD
Out of interest, how did you check access? For nationwide coverage I'm only aware of RAD and UKC, and UKC directs you to RAD. If you google "crag access" RAD is the first result.
-
I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD
Out of interest, how did you check access? For nationwide coverage I'm only aware of RAD and UKC, and UKC directs you to RAD. If you google "crag access" RAD is the first result.
I’ll admit that it generally just doesn’t cross my mind to check access. I’m definitely in the camp of looking through a guide and seeing what looks interesting (or being drawn by a video on social media) and deciding to go.
Things like this make me more aware but i suspect that the majority of people are similar to me.
Sometimes I’ll check UKC to see what people have logged against a problem, which is how I’ve found out about a ban at a boulder near me ( https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/shelter_cliff_field_boulders-21491/ ) as its super obvious on there.
But if i hadn’t checked that I would have just gone to try it.
The equivalent small “restricted access” logo on Wrights Rock is so much less prominent, and you then have to open it too if you do see it, that i don't think I’d have noticed it if I’d have done the same thing.
Signs at the crag have helped (e.g. kilnsey parking, craig-y-longridge). And if i know somewhere has a restriction i will check details before going (Chapel Head).
-
Thats very honest of you James/sirlockoff. Although to be honest I also find it pretty alarming!
I guess I really don't see it as unreasonable to expect that climbers are cognisant of access. Perhaps this is the new reality, but its a shame if so. Even looking at guidebooks to find out where to go, every single one has a paragraph on access at each crag, even if there are no issues. Shouldn't be too much to expect people to read that, and if its an old guide check it online.
-
Thats very honest of you James/sirlockoff. Although to be honest I also find it pretty alarming!
I guess I really don't see it as unreasonable to expect that climbers are cognisant of access. Perhaps this is the new reality, but its a shame if so. Even looking at guidebooks to find out where to go, every single one has a paragraph on access at each crag, even if there are no issues. Shouldn't be too much to expect people to read that, and if its an old guide check it online.
I think for me, as 99% of my climbing is at places where there are no access issues (other than obvious things like parking sensibly) i can take access for granted, especially when things are in a guide with no issues at the time of publication.
No one ever mentioned access when i was getting into climbing at Uni (i just followed people around - maybe they had checked). The only time I ever hear about it is times like this when there’s a problem and it is raised on UKB or UKC or I see about it in a guide.
And I don’t alway think to check the guide either - I went to Pigeons cave once and only happened to notice the restrictions when i was at the parking and checking the walk-in description. Went to Parisellas instead but it never once crossed my mind that a bit of tidal limestone might have an access issue.
It’s definitely a mindset which is hard to change!
-
UKC just released this good little video about starting to climb outside. They do a good job of mentioning issues like not climbing on wet rock, brushing tick marks and excess chalk off, but there is no mention of checking access and parking arrangements. Perhaps we could ask them to add that to it.
https://youtu.be/9U3Y95zWzd8
-
UKC just released this good little video about starting to climb outside. They do a good job of mentioning issues like not climbing on wet rock, brushing tick marks and excess chalk off, but there is no mention of checking access and parking arrangements. Perhaps we could ask them to add that to it.
https://youtu.be/9U3Y95zWzd8
They’ve mentioned they’re working on a separate video that will talk about access
-
Ah ok. Good stuff.
-
It’s also recently come to my attention that even once a crag is banned you can still log stuff on UKC. Would make sense to turn of logging for banned crags to deter it.
In practice there are many shades of 'banned' and there might be instances where a block on logging is appropriate and some where it definitely would not, for a variety of reasons. It's worth noting that only registered users see logged ascents, a guest visitor will not.
There's obviously plenty more I could comment on on this thread, including some valid suggestions, but as I'm just back from several days leave I have a lot of other stuff to catch up on. I'll try to comment on a few things though when I get time.
-
I have been bouldering for 8 years and it is the first time I hear about RAD
Out of interest, how did you check access? For nationwide coverage I'm only aware of RAD and UKC, and UKC directs you to RAD. If you google "crag access" RAD is the first result.
just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future
-
just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future
It wasn't a criticism, just a query.
-
How do we deal with crags that are technically banned, but cheeky visits where you don't get caught seem to be tolerated within the community? One that springs to mind is listed on UKC as Bo Selecta. I've seen videos from visible members of our community that didn't raise an angry mob. For the record, I've climbed there myself. Another ban that I've seen ignored without pitchforks being raised is a grit crag with a long cave near Bradley Edge (I've 'trespassed' there as a walker only without climbing gear). Wherever access is sketchy, a blanket ban from the community without nuance would easy to understand, but I wouldn't vote for that.
Clearly, the Wright's Rock issue is different as the landowner seems more than reasonable. I'd respect his wishes, but it's difficult to convey clearly why I/we don't have a consistent stance on access restrictions.
-
How do we deal with crags that are technically banned, but cheeky visits where you don't get caught seem to be tolerated within the community? One that springs to mind is listed on UKC as Bo Selecta. I've seen videos from visible members of our community that didn't raise an angry mob. For the record, I've climbed there myself. Another ban that I've seen ignored without pitchforks being raised is a grit crag with a long cave near Bradley Edge (I've 'trespassed' there as a walker only without climbing gear). Wherever access is sketchy, a blanket ban from the community without nuance would easy to understand, but I wouldn't vote for that.
Clearly, the Wright's Rock issue is different as the landowner seems more than reasonable. I'd respect his wishes, but it's difficult to convey clearly why I/we don't have a consistent stance on access restrictions.
Are those crags banned banned though? Or is access just a bit sketchy? I think there’s a difference between something being outright banned by a landowner Vs a crag having sketchy access issue where a ban hasn’t been outright declared but is an ongoing conversation with the land owner
-
The long cave near Bradley edge is definitely banned i.e. if you're caught there you'll be asked to leave.
-
The most meaningful distinction is surely between crags where the access situation won't improve and so those that choose to climb there aren't really jeopardising anything because the landowner is clearly not open to negotiation - the 'long cave', Bo Selecta - and ones that are currently banned - Griffs, Wright's - but have the potential to be sorted out through a combination of long-term access negotiation and people staying away in the meantime to avoid making the situation worse.
With regard to disabling logging: I'm a puerile little toad myself, but if we're at the point where the one thing that might actually prevent people from flouting bans is that they won't be able to log ascents on UKC, I'd say there's a pretty good argument for binning the whole thing off, getting a nuclear war or whatever going, and starting over with single-celled organisms.
-
I think the access situation is different for Impossible Roof to the other areas at Roche. A number of years ago I was asked to leave Beef Buttress by someone working at the English Heritage site who suggested we go over the road instead.
-
Note: I've split off a separate topic for related discussion not specifically about Wright's. If folk could use that topic instead of this (unless it is about Wright's) that would be great, thanks.
-
Anecdotally: I was out at Churnet yesterday and saw two boulderers unloading at the parking when I was leaving. I asked if they had heard about the access issues and they hadn't. I then asked if they had checked out the crag on ukc, and they had. They seemed fine about it and thanked me for mentioning but obviously the message isn't getting through, even to those that might be accessible by RAD.
-
Looking at UKC even the access notes are confusing in my opinion.
It says restricted, rather than banned initially. Then when you open it you have the most recent update saying Not to climb. But then you still have the old wording saying continued access is allowed if you meet these rules (with a big BMC logo next to the rules).
If its currently banned, it should say banned (which i think means the access page is way more prominent) and I’d get rid of the rules etc in there unless anything changes.
-
I thought the same. Also I agree the "groups of no more than 6" is easily open to misinterpretation if you wanted to.
-
Have you refreshed your cache? UKC and RAD both have 'Access Banned' front and centre, in bold, in red and written multiple times.
I retained the old rules underneath, in brackets and italics, after bold text saying they no longer apply due to the ban, as I assume people will want to know the context of the recent ban, i.e. what the rules were which people failed to follow. I really don't want any confusion though, so if people think this is unclear or confusing I will change/remove.
-
I think its fine Jon, and appears how you say it does for me. It couldn't be any clearer.
-
RAD app still has 2020's Covid-19 guideance at the top and more promiment than the current actual access issues - maybe time for that to be removed!
-
Have you refreshed your cache? UKC and RAD both have 'Access Banned' front and centre, in bold, in red and written multiple times.
I retained the old rules underneath, in brackets and italics, after bold text saying they no longer apply due to the ban, as I assume people will want to know the context of the recent ban, i.e. what the rules were which people failed to follow. I really don't want any confusion though, so if people think this is unclear or confusing I will change/remove.
It’s very clear now. I’ve not refreshed anything but it’s changed to banned when I’ve revisited the page. Sorry for any confusion 👍🏻
-
just to clarify it is not because I don't care about access. I've always just gone to UKC and see the climbs / if there is anything about crag access / parking. I just haven't heard of RAD before, but sounds like RAD is behind of all/most of these UKC crag access messages, so kudos to them, and I will check RAD+UKC in the future
Every UKC logbook page with access issues has a link to a page with more details and on that page there is always a BMC RAD button for more information. Although I'm bemused, I'm not especially fussed if climbers using UKC are so inattentive they haven't noticed the buttons, the important thing is to check access details where there are issues.
I think it's most important we follow access advice at venues where we can climb but access is very sensitive, or those that are banned where negotiations are ongoing to arrange access. I'd like to see red for these two categories to emphasise that. Visits to totally banned crags with no hope of negotiating access really don't risk much.
-
RAD app still has 2020's Covid-19 guidance at the top and more prominent than the current actual access issues - maybe time for that to be removed!
I'll ask IT to change that as I'm not able to edit the app outside of the crag specific content.
-
I think it's most important we follow access advice at venues where we can climb but access is very sensitive, or those that are banned where negotiations are ongoing to arrange access. I'd like to see red for these two categories to emphasise that. Visits to totally banned crags with no hope of negotiating access really don't risk much.
This isn't something that can be done using the current RAD functions. The colour can't be decoupled from the access status. Crags can only be marked red by assigning them as banned. I agree this could be improved. I've added it to a list of requested changes.
-
Cheers Jon. To be clear I have no criticism of you whatsoever: I think you are doing a fabulous job. However capable hard-working and enthusiastic someone is in their work role, we can't assume they can magically force immediate change on things that take time, nor be available every hour of every day. My biggest concern is no amount of BMC effort will more than dent the damage caused by those idiots who should know better: improving that situation really needs significant community pressure....
-
Isn't the crux of the issue - sadly - not how do you ensure people check access, but actually adhere to the rules/advice?
Jim has said he's asked people to leave, and pointed out the access rules - and people have had the audacity to challenge him?
So no matter what solutions are implemented, if people have this much arrogance - they'll do what the fuck they want.
-
Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.
-
Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.
Not all banned crags are equal though, as is discussed on the other thread.
-
They will be if people persist in ignoring agreed arrangements.
-
+1 to Dave’s comments about this in his latest weekly.
-
They will be if people persist in ignoring agreed arrangements.
This isn't the case.
I climb at a crag that is, on paper, banned but not banned at all in practice. Using the logbooks there is useful for subtly advertising to others that access is possible and gives information about what is clean there.
-
+1 to Dave’s comments about this in his latest weekly.
+2
-
Maybe the ukc logbook function could be disabled if a crag is marked as banned.
I think the update that UKC added to the logbooks this week are positive. If someone clicks on a climb at a banned crag such as Wright's, there is now a big red banner at the top of the page that is impossible to miss.
Nobody could use UKC to find info about climbs at Wrights now without being aware of the current access situation.
I presume they've added the same to the Rockfax app?
-
That's a good addition to UKC
Re Dave's thing, I didn't find it a convincing piece at all. Which is weird, since I probably agree with what in theory is its core argument. A few bits that stuck out:
- The proportion of visits involving misbehaving isn't what's relevant if you live there, it's the absolute frequency/volume. Not knowing the proportion is irrelevant.
- "there’s no suggestion that the ‘bad behaviour’ of climbers at Wright’s amounts to anything other than simply being there" ... Meanwhile "with their bluetooth speaker blaring out" :-\
- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak
- Lots of the old trick of writing things that it's hard to disagree with but that aren't really relevant to the core point in what seems like an attempt to make the whole piece seem more convincing (works if reading fast, backfires if not)
I'm sure there's a good article to be written on broad access rights, but for me this was not it.
-
Yeah I have to say that I came away from reading Dave’s piece that if everybody took his stance then access issues would become worse and bonjoys job would end up being even more difficult.
I do however totally agree with his assertion that access in the England is a shambles from a legislative viewpoint and something needs to change.
How we get there as a community needs to be a very delicately trodden path however given that we are largely relying on people’s sympathies rather than any significant resources.
-
Dave who? Where is this article? Chris says hi etc....
-
- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak
I don't think that was the argument he was making at all. It's that, as I pointed out when the rules were publicised, they were unreasonable and unachievable and therefore always doomed to fail:
Playing devil's advocate; I get that the landowners have every right to make the rules (although that's a wider debate :worms:), the six person limit seems both strange and very hard to comply with. Why six? Why not four, or eight? Why does allowing six at a time make access allowable?
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't. Particularly in the context of access only being allowed on select days as well; giving an extremely narrow window of opportunity for a large and growing community.
Bringing this up because whilst "the rules" should be respected they also need to be reasonable, and it strikes me that that particular one probably isn't.
There doesn't need to be any rules full stop. We don't have the right to climb at these places, there is no automatic privilege, but sadly it's beyond some people to comprehend this, look after them and respect the owners wishes.
Access was negotiated for climbing in a nature reserve and the very agreeable conditions were part of the negotiation.
That's some of the most polite access signage I've seen - such a shame it's been shat on.
Perhaps reasonable is the wrong word to use. How about achievable? The existing rules seem to me designed, or destined, to fail, as indeed they have.
The point around access to private land is a complex one; there are many people including myself who believe our current laws on access and the right to roam are completely wrong. They favour landowners who hold sway over vast areas of the English countryside, restricting what in my view should be a default right of access for responsible recreation.
It looks like almost the entirety of Dimmingsdale is CROW access land. Why is that part of the dale so special? Other than the whims of an individual landowner.
Which, cynically, I imagine was the goal all along. Set it up to fail, escape blameless when it inevitably does.
I thought Dave's point around historical access was most important though, compounded by the situation across the rest of Dimmingsdale as I mentioned above. Climbers have been visiting Wright's Rock for decades and there is therefore a strong historical precedent of access, which combined with the fact that the rest of the dale is CROW access land to me makes the previous rules and subsequent ban morally indefensible (albeit sadly legally so).
That said, I've never actually been and I understand some parts of it are fairly close to the landowner's house? In which case sensible policies like no lamping, small groups, etc. as are frequently practised at loads of other venues make reasonable and proportionate sense.
Dave who? Where is this article? Chris says hi etc....
https://www.penninelines.com/emails/wrightswrongs?fbclid=PAAaZzjhNrnnsbC5JqxNXUll7PpVhbcUmkccZ04pohjbRMuYlB2_Y0PigW7L8
-
From speaking to the landowner I think one thing that is maybe underappreciated by some climbers is the type and level of noise that is causing offence. Due to the proximity, shape and angle of the crag, noise makes its way quite efficiently to the house below, this is sometimes made worse by wind direction. So, any enthusiastically shouted encouragement or post-send praise is very likely to be heard from the house and this is causing offence, especially so when it includes swearing. I had/have offered to draft a new sign (currently the sign is produced and written by the landowner) which retains the bold headlines but goes into greater depth below, and to make up a small reminder sign to place at the crag itself, as I felt this was perhaps not fully grasped by all visitors.
-
I thought Dave's point around historical access was most important though, compounded by the situation across the rest of Dimmingsdale as I mentioned above. Climbers have been visiting Wright's Rock for decades and there is therefore a strong historical precedent of access, which combined with the fact that the rest of the dale is CROW access land to me makes the previous rules and subsequent ban morally indefensible (albeit sadly legally so).
After reading Dave's piece I was quite surprised to see that, as you say, the majority of climbing in the Churnet including bits included in the 'Wrights Rocks Area' on UKC are on access land, and as such not at risk.
Interesting that you and Dave both make an appeal to the morals of the landowner.
-
I don’t believe that rules were set as an elaborate strategy to deny access over the longer term. Working with the landowner to understand what they hoped the rules would achieve and minimising annoyance is much more constructive.
As more climbers come into the sport there will be more pressure on access. The jump from an indoor culture to the outdoors will be a factor for some and that needs to be supported. If there’s a wider culture of dos and donts selfish behaviour should be more isolated and hopefully, that bit easier to call out. Thanks for your efforts with this Bonjoy. Educating people to coexist is key to keeping access. Look at Eagle Tor.
-
I'm with Barrows, that piece says nothing useful. Its all very well wanting land reform (i do as well) but sentences like this are basically exactly the sort of debates the landowner was having with climbers at the crag, which are totally unhelpful.
Be responsible, behave in the right way but don’t be walked over. Don’t just tug our forelocks and accept whatever crumbs we are thrown from the table.
I don't buy that the landowner never wanted climbers there, he just didn't want them there in the way they were there before. I agree Wrights should be public land, but it isn't. We have to deal with the world the way it is.
-
Interesting that you and Dave both make an appeal to the morals of the landowner.
Well we've no legal grounds, so what else do we have if not to appeal to the morals and kindness of the landowner?
I don’t believe that rules were set as an elaborate strategy to deny access over the longer term. Working with the landowner to understand what they hoped the rules would achieve and minimising annoyance is much more constructive.
Yes, this would be the best outcome, while also communicating to them the importance of the place and history of it. 100% not accusing the owners of some sort of nefarious plot.
There has to be an element of common sense as well; it reminds me a little of something my sister told me about recently after walking Hadrian's Wall. Apparently people had bought houses with gardens adjacent to the Wall, whereby the longstanding walking route quite rightly went through the gardens, next to the wall, rather than taking a significant detour. The new owners then tried to close the walking route, as if they had some expectation that people wouldn't want to walk along the wall!
Of course that goes both ways though and clearly we need to be better at limiting noise etc. I can totally appreciate that having the sound of people shouting and swearing wafting in through your living room window would be very irritating!
-
It's worth looking at the OS map to get an idea of the anomaly that restricting access to Wright's presents.
(http://adamlong.co.uk/files/Screenshot%202023-05-23%20at%2009.18.56.jpg)
Wright's is in Threap Wood. Note that almost all the surrounding valley side woodland is open access. Sod's law that the best and most popular crag is in the little exception. The woodland areas that aren't are pretty much all de facto open access too; the whole area has been used for recreation for many years. Note also that the nearby nature reserve of Hawksmoor is also open access; clearly the National Trust don't believe access and conservation are incompatible here.
I suspect the owners bought the wood with lots of worthy plans but no idea climbers were even a thing; I doubt the sellers would have been at pains to point it out. I don't get the impression that the access agreement was designed to fail but it does suggest a level of naivety - I'm not aware of any similar agreement (in terms of limited days and times and self-policed numbers) operating successfully anywhere else in the country. In short, I don't think it has a realistic chance of succeeding.
Labour have just committed to looking at a 'right-to-roam' in England and even if they don't go the whole way it seems highly likely that an area like this would be included in a review of CRoW. So medium term I suspect even a total ban will be reversed. However either is at least a couple of years away.
Over the years doing access work I've become rather cynical of respecting bans in the hope that the landowner will have a moment of peaceful reflection followed by a change of heart. All it seems to engender is the impression that they can make climbers disappear on a whim, which tends to suit them very much. Here we also have the access issue being conflated with behaviour at the crag. I suspect were the arbitrary restrictions removed it might be easier to encourage good behaviour.
-
Andi posted this on the other channel
"I'd like to add that, having spoken to the landowner, one of the things that really seemed to have irked him is when he's approached "climbers" who have been breaking the agreed access, they haven't left but instead tried to enter philosophical debates with him about land ownership and have said they'll happily climb until the police come etc... It doesn't take many of these encounters to really knacker a relationship."
As such either people are saying the landowner is a liar or much of the speculation here and on the other channel is nonsense. This is clearly mainly down to poor action of a tiny number of opinionated idiots. Dave clearly didn't know rhis when he wrote his piece.
-
I don't know Steve, I suspect 'man massively restricts access and then is surprised to get push back' is exactly what Dave was raising an eyebrow at. Not having witnessed any of the encounters first hand I wouldn't be so quick to label either party as idiots, and am pretty disappointed that your position seems to be to consistently to do so for climbers. I'm not advocating for people to behave like twats, but the problem here was created by the restriction not the history of responsible access.
-
…the problem here was created by the restriction not the history of responsible access.
That is one perspective. To the land owner, “the problem” may have been inconsiderate behaviour.
I don’t have any first-hand proof of such at Wrights but a casual wander in Cheedale of a summer evening or to Malham or Raven Tor would suggest that some climbers can be somewhat inconsiderate, even rude. This is not to deny that some are very polite and courteous. Heck, some are (like every other human) even both. To be considerate takes self-awareness and that takes thought and thus (some) effort.
Human behaviour seems particularly affected by group size. Members of even very modest sized groups can appear to show little regard for others not within their group, perhaps due to diffusion of responsibility.
I am an advocate for vastly improved access to land and waterways in England. The guidance on what constitutes land exempt from open access in Scotland is that which is “intensively managed for the domestic enjoyment of the house.” Some landowners will feel hard done by, that they never anticipated access and it devalues the worth of their property. (Given that the price of land and housing has generally increased more than interest rates, I’m sympathetic but unconvinced by this argument.)
However, I am also for considerate behaviour and respect for others (from all) using the land. Some general self-awareness and consideration of others would be nice.
-
the history of responsible access.
Which looked at from another perspective, need not be taken into account by the purchaser as we never had a legal right to be there. Anomaly or otherwise in the context of Dimmings Dale as a whole, thems the facts. Sods law etc as you say given its the best bit of rock there.
Even if land reform did take place, which would be very welcome, given the proximity of this patch of land to the owners house I bet there would be mechanisms for an exemption etc.
-
- The argument around the idea that rules will always be repeatedly broken (so having rules is unreasonable or naive) is weaker than weak
I don't think that was the argument he was making at all. It's that, as I pointed out when the rules were publicised, they were unreasonable and unachievable and therefore always doomed to fail:
"Rules imposed on users - who are human beings and hence by definition flawed, make it inevitable that at some point those rules will be broken" and "the restrictions were always doomed to fail, aside from the clumsy nature of the rules themselves" seems pretty close to what I was saying. It may well be that Dave meant to say what you were saying, but it didn't come across like that to me.
Despite Dave's assertion that the rules "were simply in response to the owners presumably not wanting climbers present", presumably they were an attempt to create a situation where it wasn't noisy and busy but by using something more quantifiable than "don't be noisy and don't turn the crag into a shitshow". There may well be better ways to achieve those things, or at least the noise part, but it would still rely on people following rules or guidelines at least reasonably closely. It doesn't seem hard to understand why the owner would think that putting vague guidelines in place wouldn't work if people can't even follow clearly laid out rules... even if it may actually be that the vague guidelines with some reasoning attached would in fact achieve the outcome more easily?
I wouldn't be so quick to label either party as idiots, and am pretty disappointed that your position seems to be to consistently to do so
Arguing back when asked to leave somewhere that you don't technically have a right to be does seem kind of, I don't know, idiotic though doesn't it? There's a time and a place for making those arguments and surely it's not when someone's likely to be a bit pissed off with you?! It seems a bit like being told off by your boss for being late and deciding that that's the perfect moment to engage on a discussion about how you think flexible working should be a universal right; at the very least it's bad tactics...
-
Hi Adam
I broadly agreed with your earlier post and would acknowledge the negotiated access arrangement was far from ideal but it was what it was, and I really don't see any excuse for the behaviour described. If climbers don't want to be called idiots (I certainly don't consistently do that, only in very specific cases where I think it's deserved.... and in the context others here have called them worse) and want to take such protest action there are plenty of way better targets, with landowners who unreasonably prevent any access at all. Was the access arrangement necessary for the ban to have occured, sure, the sufficient part was arguing about access rights and refusing to leave.
I also think the wide speculation (on both channels): risks undermining access negotiators and local access volunteers; was sometimes insulting to those new to the outdoors; sometimes insulting to Londoners specfically .... why not start from trusting what our local access volunteers and Jon tell us.
-
Andi posted this on the other channel
"I'd like to add that, having spoken to the landowner, one of the things that really seemed to have irked him is when he's approached "climbers" who have been breaking the agreed access, they haven't left but instead tried to enter philosophical debates with him about land ownership and have said they'll happily climb until the police come etc... It doesn't take many of these encounters to really knacker a relationship."
I suspect a basic appreciation of where the power really lies in this scenario would have helped curb a tendency to be argumentative.
-
[Removed this - thought better of it]
-
Arguing back when asked to leave somewhere that you don't technically have a right to be does seem kind of, I don't know, idiotic though doesn't it?
Like I said, I wasn't there, so I wouldn't presume. In other contexts, is the correct action when faced with a moral wrong to back down immediately?
As above, the idea that the best way to make access agreements is for the BMC to have a civilised sit down with the landowner and then make the climbers disappear is at best unrealistic (as here) and at worst ultimately counter-productive (as at Eagle Tor). Add to that the fact that the landowner has proceeded with an access 'agreement' that surely goes against the better judgement of the BMC access reps (as I said, such arbitrary restrictions don't work elsewhere either but were presumably all that was on offer). So at some point they need to meet the reality that their plan is unworkable (and understand that the BMC only represent climbers and cannot hope to control them). Climbers getting philosophical is part of that, there will be climbers who have been happily visiting responsibly for fifty years, I think they have every right to question it in person. It's not easy for either party to remain civil but if he wants to throw people off his land I think he should experience it personally rather than by remote control.
given the proximity of this patch of land to the owners house I bet there would be mechanisms for an exemption etc.
There is a process, like planning. They can object. Given the context (see map above for surrounding woodland, plus history, detail of SSSI dedication etc) I think it unlikely they would succeed. Hence why the Vixen tor owners were desperately trying to fertilize it out of moorland status. The fields probably wouldn't be included, fair enough. But bear in mind this is 2001-era CRoW process, there is a good chance that 2025 legislation would be much broader and we'll be given blanket access to fields and woodland anyway.
-
Interesting post. Just on a point of order, what was counter productive about Eagle Tor from the landowners perspective? Its basically not climbed on now.
-
Well exactly, nothing. All our negotations and good behaviour and word spreading simply proved that if she asked us to go away, we would. Forever. Having had subsequent conversations with her she's not actually against responsible low-key access but is not likely to do so publically because what's in it for her? If we had been more militant and less controllable it could not have been worse and might well have been better. So the only hope is Keir comes good...
-
Shadow Environment Minister Alex Sobel MP told the Commons:
"We will introduce a Right to Roam Act, a new law allowing national parks to adopt the right to wild camp, as well as expanding public access to woodlands and waterways... Like in Scotland, Labour’s approach will be that our right to roam will offer access to high-quality green and blue spaces for the rest of Britain. We will replace the default of exclusion with a default of access"
Bit vague but very promising. On the evidence of these threads the attitude that we have a default of access may take a while to catch up mind. As an aside I bought a kayak a few years back and the state of access to waterways is absolutely shocking, makes climbing and the BMC look very successful.
-
What do you think is the best approach? I guess there's a big challenge in predicting what will get someone on side and how that individual is likely to respond when people don't know them... I know I'd respond better to a civilized sit down and if people just kept doing whatever they wanted I'd probably feel very much like fucking them over just for the sake of it! But I can see why that might not be true for all...
-
Its difficult, and highly dependent on individual personalities. We don't have a stick really, so yes the sit down, share a carrot is about all we have. With small areas like this the owners are often not well informed and really appreciate the chat with someone who understands what is happening, because often they don't.
Where there is a gap between prior assumptions and reality, time will pretty much always be required. Ultimately our strongest tool is the understanding that 'fucking them over' with a total ban won't work - people will still turn up, you'll have to turf them off, have aggro both ways, and trespass still won't be a crime and the police won't be interested etc... plus with a venue like this there is even the possibility of widespread bad press of 'selfish landowner removes access to beauty spot after 70 years'. At some point the penny might drop (faced with some very nice philosophical hippy perhaps) that they might be the baddie?
But as above I think we're in a very strong position that any restrictions in the short term will be moot in a couple of years anyway.
-
On the evidence of these threads the attitude that we have a default of access may take a while to catch up mind.
I don't see this from the thread at all, everyone commenting, whether in Camp Dave or not has said access laws need changing, and once they have been I'm sure everyone will be very happy exercising those rights. Most of the commentary has been around the futility of rallying against the current situation, where the only recourse is hoping land owners are nice and might act in line with what climbers see as their moral prerogative to touch rocks.
I guess an interesting counterexample to this situation is Snowden, which is on access land, but this hasn't stopped the owners getting pissed off with climbers and doing something about it.
-
One problem with militancy which you don't mention, JB, is that a crag like this could easily go the same way as that popular roof near Brimham (not that I think militancy was the problem there but the same outcome is possible).
-
Agreed, by nature I'd happily go climbing on all of the banned areas while chanting eat the rich and flinging sharpened rocks at any landowners who protested. That however would clearly be very stupid so the viable alternative is to try and spread awareness on both sides.
I doth my cap to the ukc bods for sorting things quite quickly to raise awareness of the situation on their side, more can always be done however. I'd like to see more climbing brands ( local distributors would probably have to lead the charge here ) as I reckon it's in their interest to keep climbing as accessible as possible.
-
Well exactly, nothing. All our negotations and good behaviour and word spreading simply proved that if she asked us to go away, we would. Forever. Having had subsequent conversations with her she's not actually against responsible low-key access but is not likely to do so publically because what's in it for her? If we had been more militant and less controllable it could not have been worse and might well have been better. So the only hope is Keir comes good...
I've known a few people quietly boulder there after the ban and even a Scandinavian pair who knocked on the door and got permission.
It's weird sometimes how landowners with the most intransigent reputations will bend on a single occasion. We climbed at ERF rocks once by mistake (mistook it for a neighbouring crag)... the owner soon arrived with a long angry tirade about the BMC, but soon after Lynn made him laugh.... and he said we could stay.
It's a sadness for us that Wright's is banned. We reassessed all the obscure areas for the Roaches reprint but a few places, like Wright's, were a real treat between all the stealth and bush wacking.
I really hope you are right about the new CRoW outcome for Wright's but I'm more pessimistic.
-
Those believing that it will be fine once Labour get in, clearly have forgotten their ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Plus the right to roam might be in the manifesto but given the shit they will have to sort out first it might not be a priority.
-
man it was only £1.4mill, we could have just thrown a few quid in each, or the BMC could have moved there from Manchester! https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3025599/doc_0_0.pdf
-
man it was only £1.4mill, we could have just thrown a few quid in each, or the BMC could have moved there from Manchester! https://media.onthemarket.com/properties/3025599/doc_0_0.pdf
Fuck me - that's so cheap compared to Surrey (where I live). A relatively affluent Londoner could easily afford that, run it as a bunkhouse, problem solved.
-
Hi guys.
We are thinking about a better <trial> way of managing the access. Don't fret, we are not evil. 90% of climbers are a pleasure to have here. It may invove emailing us beforehand to pre-book with a photo ID of some sort. That way there is mutual accountability for free access. Twice I have shot guns towards at the rock (pest control - aka grey squirrels) and after found climbers present (who sneaked in after close time).
Pre-booking manages the numbers too - we don't want any more than six as we are part of a SSSI and trying to manage the footfall and also, every whoop, laughing, shouting or chant of "fucking come on" we hear as the rock reflects (like a great megaphone) the sound to my family enjoying the quiet outside garden in summer.
Be in touch via BMC.
We do not have any issues this way with fisherman on the River Churnet - albeit they pay and know their personal access is at risk.
Jim @ Wood Farm