[Offwidth]

It may have escaped someone just back from Mar's attention that Stanage is currently pretty high on the BMC access agenda and as such a meet there could have significant benefits over and above celebrating the climbing. I really cant see there will be problems with this and almost certainly I will be volunteering myself to encourage access awareness and activity on some of the hidden gems and would encourage others to do the same. The meet will have a very different focus from the Burb south meet where the problematic issues were greatly overstated by some in any case.

[Offwidth]

....... ukb synchronicity means there is more on the subject of current stanage access issues here (thanks John):

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,23901.0.html

[Offwidth]

Bugger. Grinah Stones not included in the new Rockfax (good news) but it looks like the Woolpacks are from the photo of Audrey on their publicity pages.

[slackline]

it looks like the Woolpacks are from the photo of Audrey on their publicity pages.

 

Thats a really bad idea, the patina on the rocks up there won't withstand heavy traffic.  If it is included (more than just in passing as it is in the BMC guide) then hopefully the walk-in will put most off.

[Bonjoy]

That kind of scrittley moorland stuff doesn't have a hardened outer skin/patina. Woolpack's will never suffer heavy traffic IMO. It's way too much of a slog to get to for boulderers and few if any will bother going a second time given the quality.

[dave]

I'd like to know what possessed rockfax to think that having the woolpacks in a guide is a good idea. Fucking dreadful idea. Even with a long walk-in they are still vulnerable to any traffic, and once they start going tits up that's it. As I've said before, this is a magical location that has the potential to be totally ruined by the misplaced interest of climbers.

[Offwidth]

Woolpack's will never suffer heavy traffic IMO. It's way too much of a slog to get to for boulderers and few if any will bother going a second time given the quality.

I really hope you are right but loads of ramblers and photographers love the place and how much traffic and chalk will it take to annoy others. The only place stuff has been listed so far is an obscure website for the Munro Pinapple Nottm Uni club.

[Snoops]

I'd like to know what possessed rockfax to think that having the woolpacks in a guide is a good idea.

Another reason to justify the new guide, sell more, make more money, its quite clear that any ethics long went out of Alan, look at the limestone guide issue........

Fucking dreadful idea. Even with a long walk-in they are still vulnerable to any traffic, and once they start going tits up that's it. As I've said before, this is a magical location that has the potential to be totally ruined by the misplaced interest of climbers.

+1

I think climbing/outdoors is getting so exponentially popular, that the the old 'codes/ethics' are getting drowned out by the desire to get on the cash train.

[nai]

No you misunderstand, by including it they're actually protecting it.

There is some sandy rock up at the Woolpacks but we deliberately only documented problems on the solid rock. We also make a point of telling people that they are likely to encounter sandy rock if they climb on other undocumented bits of rock, so in that sense, it is easier now for visitors to focus on the good sections of rock. Whatever happens the place is never going to get popular.

Simple really

[SA Chris]

No you misunderstand, by including it they're actually protecting it.

We're tyring hard to justify our actions by making up some half-hearted lame reasoning.

Simple really

Fixed.

[Offwidth]

So Alan now says we have 8 pages on The Woolpacks and the reason they included it was that Adrian, Audrey and Jamie made the effort and found "some great bouldering and the rock they climbed was solid" . I've been in the area more times than I can remember and I can't think how I missed something so obvious. In the meantime there are plenty of Moorland venues they didn't include ranging from Grinah Stones  to the really good lower grade venues that perfectly fit their demographic like Standedge.

[dave]

Since the Rockfax is definitely an original grassroots labour of love by local activists rather than a cynical "me too" cash-in effort we can safely assume Adrian, Audrey and Jamie will be along shortly to discuss the inclusion of the Woolpacks, a venue every other guidebook has seen fit to not document.

[a dense loner]

Pretty impressive stuff, looking fwd to the pics. A problem a page

[Sloper]

Since the Rockfax is definitely an original grassroots labour of love by local activists rather than a cynical "me too" cash-in effort we can safely assume Adrian, Audrey and Jamie will be along shortly to discuss the inclusion of the Woolpacks, a venue every other guidebook has seen fit to not document.

I'm waiting for their guide to the artificial Sheffield boulders, although I'll probably have to wait for 6 months after someone else does it, if only their systems allowed them to be first to market,

[T_B]

If you applaud sponsored climbers, pushing the boundaries and pushing out videos promoting the 'sport', if you boulder indoors regularly at one of the many bouldering walls, if you buy from bouldering brands, if you're a member of the ever-growing BMC, then you're supporting the growth of bouldering as an activity.

You can blame Alan James if you like, but we all need to take responsibility for the growth in participation that is leading to venues like the Plantation getting totally trashed. Guidebooks are just one of the many ways that bouldering is promoted, and debate over the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the new Rockfax is a big fat red herring IMHO.

[Sloper]

I disagree,

The Plantation etc were always at risk of damage caused by oversue due to their proximity to the road, thousands of good routes and so on: The Woolpacks are not in the same category.

Secondly the inclusion of The Woolpacks is contrary to a loose treaty between the publishers & etc not to produce a guide to the area, the only intention being (unless its shameless filler) to encourage people to go there and in so doing accept that this will lead to damage which would not have occured but for the inclusion in the guide.

While few boulderers might actually walk up to The Woolpacks the act was a deliberate one and for one I consider this to be with imputed if not actual knowledge of the inevitable consequences.

[Bonjoy]

Secondly the inclusion of The Woolpacks is contrary to a loose treaty between the publishers & etc not to produce a guide to the area, the only intention being (unless its shameless filler) to encourage people to go there and in so doing accept that this will lead to damage which would not have occured but for the inclusion in the guide.

I wouldn't have inluded Woolpacks for the sole reason that I don't rate them for climbing and they put people off going to better bouldering on Kinder and Bleaklow. I tend to agree with what T_B said.

Sloper the bit of your post I quoted above by its logic applies to the documentation of any new area, or problem for that matter. It also ignores/discounts the fact that when someone goes to crag X they are not at (and damaging) crag Y.

[Sloper]

Secondly the inclusion of The Woolpacks is contrary to a loose treaty between the publishers & etc not to produce a guide to the area, the only intention being (unless its shameless filler) to encourage people to go there and in so doing accept that this will lead to damage which would not have occured but for the inclusion in the guide.

I wouldn't have inluded Woolpacks for the sole reason that I don't rate them for climbing and they put people off going to better bouldering on Kinder and Bleaklow. I tend to agree with what T_B said.

Sloper the bit of your post I quoted above by its logic applies to the documentation of any new area, or problem for that matter. It also ignores/discounts the fact that when someone goes to crag X they are not at (and damaging) crag Y.

I think there's a distinction to be drawn re transfer of harm between areas which can 'cope' with increased traffic without 'much' harm being caused and those that cannot cope as effectively; for example a crag with v. limited parking will with an increase in use cause may 'harm' (i.e. pissing off farmers etc) than crags with plenty of parking nearby, the same goes with paths vs soft peat bogs vs more established tracks etc.

Here I think it's fair to say there are a number of factors to say than an increase will have a significantly greater degree of damage to the WP than the amount of damage 'saved' by climbers not going to other areas.

Contrast the damage to soft rock at the Bridies with say Earl, Earl crag could accommodate a signifcant increase in traffic whereas I don't think the Bridies could.

[slackline]

It also ignores/discounts the fact that when someone goes to crag X they are not at (and damaging) crag Y.

I've heard of Crag X but where is Crag Y?

[Offwidth]

YMC are continuing with the tradition of no problem details for Kebs.

Alan says "I discussed the inclusion of every area with the BMC access people. There was no request from them not to include the Woolpacks, only a request to make the issue of the rock quality clear, which we have done." (Of course he said elsewhere in the thread:  "....on good rock...")

Which is interesting as the majority of those I've spoken to who have helped on access and the guidebook in the moorland area feel quite differently, (which is partly why it wasn't detailed in the pretty recent OtM). So is this a misrepresentation of the access reps postion (its seems to me at minimum they should have have expressed a preference for non inclusion)?

[dave]

If you applaud sponsored climbers, pushing the boundaries and pushing out videos promoting the 'sport', if you boulder indoors regularly at one of the many bouldering walls, if you buy from bouldering brands, if you're a member of the ever-growing BMC, then you're supporting the growth of bouldering as an activity.

You can blame Alan James if you like, but we all need to take responsibility for the growth in participation that is leading to venues like the Plantation getting totally trashed. Guidebooks are just one of the many ways that bouldering is promoted, and debate over the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the new Rockfax is a big fat red herring IMHO.

So is making a noise about unsuitable venues getting guidebook coverage not "taking responsibility"? Is being a BMC member funding access work not "taking responsibility". Or is the point being hat if we don't all quit bouldering then were part of the problem so shouldn't complain?

[T_B]

So is making a noise about unsuitable venues getting guidebook coverage not "taking responsibility"? Is being a BMC member funding access work not "taking responsibility". Or is the point being hat if we don't all quit bouldering then were part of the problem so shouldn't complain?

I've just seen this pop up via FB, which I think is somewhat ironic ('GB Junior Bouldering Team hit Stanage') http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/

I'd be in support of the voluntary 'closure' of the Plantation to bouldering for a period. I'm not suggesting that we should all quit bouldering, but we should be prepared to modify our behaviour if it means honeypot venues aren't completely ruined. I understand why people don't like the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the guidebook, but I do think you're missing the bigger picture.

[dave]

You're right Tom, that video is shocking - I don't think the BMC should be promoting heel hooking on the green traverse.

[Sloper]

So is making a noise about unsuitable venues getting guidebook coverage not "taking responsibility"? Is being a BMC member funding access work not "taking responsibility". Or is the point being hat if we don't all quit bouldering then were part of the problem so shouldn't complain?

I've just seen this pop up via FB, which I think is somewhat ironic ('GB Junior Bouldering Team hit Stanage') http://tv.thebmc.co.uk/

I'd be in support of the voluntary 'closure' of the Plantation to bouldering for a period. I'm not suggesting that we should all quit bouldering, but we should be prepared to modify our behaviour if it means honeypot venues aren't completely ruined. I understand why people don't like the inclusion of the Woolpacks in the guidebook, but I do think you're missing the bigger picture.

The counter argument is that the 'honeypot' status of the plantation necesasrily means that it will suffer damage, but in so doing protects the other areas.  As such a temporary ban on a honey pot would be the worst conceivable idea (i.e little change would occur and as soon as the ban was lifted it would revert quickly to the damaged state, and in the mean time real 'frist' damage would be done to other areas.

[tomtom]

You're right Tom, that video is shocking - I don't think the BMC should be promoting heel hooking on the green traverse.

Christ its not of me is it?