[duncan]

Two posts from Richard Wheeldon on the Climbers Club FB page:

Important information for those thinking of heading to Lundy next year or at some point in the future... In the last few weeks there has been a complete update / revision of the bird bans (this is the first such major overhaul for around 10 years)...

From 2019, restrictions are not lifted until the middle weekend of August and even then that only opens up about 50% of the climbing... the full ban does now not lift until the middle week of September...

The upshot of these new restrictions means if you want complete access to all the climbing on the island there's no point in going before mid-September.

Rob Dyer (The BMC Access and Conservation Officer) has been made aware of these major changes - I've seen the document produced by the warden on the island and from a 'bird' point-of-view they are fully justified; there maybe some wriggle-room but I would expect the vast majority of the new restrictions to stay in place...

Once all has been finalised we'll get the details posted the clubs website - I guess the relevant BMC webpage will be updated as well...

Under the old restrictions. I reckon about 40% of the climbing was available before the bans were lifted on 31st July... looking at the new document, I reckon the only places you'd be able to climb now, before the first batch of bans come off in the middle week of August, is the Devil's Slide (and just the slab area) and Landing Craft Bay - as things stand at the moment, these new restrictions came onto force in 2019... next year... as I say there is still a conversation to be had about this so there might be some changes but I doubt it will be anything like it has been - we'll have to wait and see...


If this goes ahead as planned it will have a major impact on access to one of the best climbing areas in the UK. 

[SA Chris]

Hope they will refund any bookings made under the assumption that current bird ban is in place. When do they start again? is it 1 March or 1 April?

[spidermonkey09]

 I've seen the document produced by the warden on the island and from a 'bird' point-of-view they are fully justified; there maybe some wriggle-room but I would expect the vast majority of the new restrictions to stay in place...

...

If this goes ahead as planned it will have a major impact on access to one of the best climbing areas in the UK.

I've never gone to Lundy but would love to. Suppose its hard too have too many complaints if they are fully justified from a bird perspective, a shame though it is...

How long does the season last? End of September?

[remus]

How long does the season last? End of September?

As in the climbing season or the bird season? Climbing season is much the same as the rest of the south west, you can get good days in to November but the weather gets less reliable. The current bird ban starts 31st March.

[A Jooser]

Not yet made it to Lundy (would love to go), but isn't the 'climbing season' also restricted by more practical considerations?

I've just looked on the Landmark Trust website and it seems the boat to the island, MS Oldenburg, only runs between 2 April - 25 October next year (2019). Otherwise it's only possible to get there by helicopter. The campsite also seems to be closed outside those dates.

Has anyone been in the winter who could let us know what it's like logistically? Assuming good weather. I'd always thought the Island basically shuts down out of season.

[SA Chris]

Depends what stays open.  They encourage you to not take own food, but use the shop and the pub. If both of those are closed I guess you could forage, fish and trap

[Johnny Brown]

Hmm. Both my trips have been in early September. I didn't see any nesting birds anywhere, nor any recent fledglings hanging around.

My recent experience with conservationists is they seem to have forgotten the term 'least restrictive option'. In risk assessment terms, the hazard hasn't changed but the level of acceptable risk seems to have been revised to zero.

I think this is generally due to a lack of consultation. Getting both NGOs and GOs to do so is an ongoing battle. If you can get in front of the right people they are often quite reasonable. But left to themselves they don't seem very cognisant of other concerns.

[Alex-the-Alex]

I dont know.. When you weigh up global declines in seabird populations against slightly increased climbing restrictions, giving the birds a few more months of space to breed seems justifiable. And if the hazard is human disturbance id argue it has increased alot and will continue to do so with more climbers and more cliffs being developed/opened up. The upside is people are probably more conscientious/aware of the potential damage than they were in the good old nest slinging days.

[Johnny Brown]

Actually this is the precise point I fundamentally disagree on. The logic seems to be:

Q: Global seabird populations are crashing, why?

A: Climate change, pollution and over-fishing are causing ecosystem collapse.

Q: So what can we do?

A: Not much really, it's out of our hands, and requires political change at a supranational level.

Q: But there must be something we can do?

A: Well I suppose we could place a blanket ban on all human access, to give the few remaining birds the best possible chance of breeding success.

The problem I have is that this last bit sounds plausible, but isn't based on any actual science as far as I've seen. It just plays on the trite emotional logic that because the problem is created by humans, removing them must therefore be a good thing. It also gives the conservationists on the front line something to do and makes them feel useful. However it doesn't actually achieve anything positive, while being a massive fail on the one thing that can make a real difference - which is outreach and PR. The only way to enact real change is to win the hearts and minds of the general public, and by far the best way to do that is through direct experience. By engaging recreational users and working with them to come up with the least restrictive option, you get a double win - the birds are better protected and you are creating informed ambassadors for them outside the conservation bubble.

[Offwidth]

Well said. I'd add it damage relations between climbers and  bird protection groups elsewhere and probably the income of the Lundy trusts. Bird bans need to based on evidence.

[SA Chris]

Slightly OT, but it's interesting there are no formal bird bans in place in NE Scotland; it almost self regulates - if it's covered in nests and shit you don't want to climb there anyway and risk getting bombed, vomited on, shat upon, attacked or end up having to crimp the edge of ledges covered in slimy poop.

People know which cliffs are OK and which are not, and there are always informal discussions via FB etc as to where are latest go / no go areas. Only twice in a decade or so of climbing up here have I felt like I've placed either of us at risk; once at Greymare and once at Logie Head, and both ended amicable with us retreating elsewhere, and seemingly no harm done to nests.

Not sure if this is due to only a small part of the coast actually having any decent climbing, the relatively low numbers of climbers, or that there are no particularly rare birds. Or possibly a combination of all of the above.

[Johnny Brown]

I think this applies to a lot of Scotland tbh. A long time ago, despite having carefully asked the right people beforehand, we were escorted off Strone Ulladale due to nesting eagles. When I posted this info on UKC, to save anyone a wasted trip, it was interesting to see appalled-of-Scotland's response to my suggestion that folk can't just go anywhere they please...

[SA Chris]

I'm sure. AFAIK Raptors are the only reason I've seen bans being imposed. Except on  estates where they just get killed off by gamekeepers!

[remus]

Good news, looks like the new restrictions have been significantly refined, so the climbing is still pretty accesible.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/south-west-area-lundy-cheddar-climbing-access-update-2019

Full details on the RAD https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/rad/view.aspx?id=245