[abarro81]

I don't understand what is here for you?

I think it's the ride the tide bit. which I interpret as stay prominent and visible to the growth element so that it can influence them in a positive way.

Do you see it differently?

The seemingly endless logic that if participation is growing, with or without the BMC, then the BMC should promote participation. I'm pretty sure that "If X is inevitable, then irrespective of whether X is good/bad, you should support/promote X" is not good logic.

I think the main disagreement we have here is over whether it's possible to be prominent and visible without actively promoting? I suspect yes, you suspect no... [So a pro-participation BMC might run an advert during the Olympics saying "Try climbing, it's ace", whereas a neutral-to-participation BMC would run one saying "If you're a climber than join up cos we do good shit"

That said, I can understand JR's point (which may not actually be his point, as I'm kinda reading between the lines) that holding the cash which goes to pro-participation groups allows you to choose only those who do things responsibly...

[Offwidth]

I'd say all the above average popularity Peak bouldering venues are arguably suffering from contemporary overuse issues and most of the most popular venues elsewhere in the UK with especial problems on softer sandstones.

So why is it a good thing for the BMC to encourage even one more person to climb?

One extra good ninja does miniscule damage (use of wet rock, dirty shoes and overbrushing are the biggest rock damage issues in the Peak) and will in a small way encourage better behaviour in the masses (ie the minority who behave badly). The participation encouragement is small and with strong provisos on access and environment and so I think you are massively exaggerating its likely effect, compared to current growth that will happen irrespective of the BMC and compared to if the BMC discouraged outdoor participation. Another factor not showing much here is the BMC participation statement on risk.... like the vast majority of established climbers I would prefer those new to the games consider the risk carefully (this is an obvious continuing BMC led disincentive to taking up climbing). Finally, the joy climbing has brought me is worth sharing for those responsible to the rock and happy with the risk (pretty much the BMC ethos), and not kept as some masonic secret.

[spidermonkey09]

Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining.

Absolutely spot on in my view. Nailed it.

[spidermonkey09]

Accidental dupe of below message/.

[spidermonkey09]

I don't care.  I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?

What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.

Really? The two are linked whether you/I like it or not. The health of the BMC is directly connected to access negotiations and all the good work that is done behind the scenes alongside the provision of fixed gear etc that you referenced above. If it is perceived to be in poor order as an organisation by its members then, as has been mentioned above, subs drop and as a result influence drops as well. Nobody wins.

[Offwidth]

Participation increases for sport and bouldering are happening anyway and it needs the BMC to step up education on why honeypots can be a problem and lead to access issues. I think its harder to do that if the BMC formally stands against increases in climbing participation.

Quite simply - why?

Because it will risk being seen as an outside interefering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that, like walls and group instruction. You don't facilitate benefical change by being on the outside complaining.

I don't care.  I care about climbing, not how the BMC is perceived. Why do you care how the BMC is perceived?

What I'm getting at is you seem more concerned with the health of an organsiation, than with the activity it only exists to represent.

You seem more concerned with portraying me as a BMC lacky than someone who first and foremost supports responsiblility in climbing to preserve the rock and environment and maintain access, and who sees the BMC as the most worthy UK organisation to support in that aim. If I support an organisation I see as doing vital work in achieving those aims, of course it's public perception is important, so people support it with time, money and membership (lobbying power). Real people who were doing useful work in the BMC have lost their jobs recently, most remainjng staff are heavily stressed and worried about the future, a hard working President who shared my views resigned, and volunteer support has declined, all due to the ongoing political argy bargy and time, energy and financial impacts from Climb Britain onwards. Argy bargy that was always tangental to the most important work done by the BMC.

[highrepute]

I’ve held off posting an length because I’m struggling to decide where I stand on the issue. I feel like this is my best attempt to succinctly put my feelings into words.

Instinctively I’m for encouraging growth. I believe the BMC leads the way on how climbing is perceived and how climbers behave. And I’d rather climbers and the BMC were intrinsically inclusive and not exclusive. Offwidths statement helps articulate why I think inclusive is better - “Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining”

Despite this I think climbing is growing already and the BMC doesn’t need to contribute to this and should focus on educating the growth element. I believe this is what is currently does and will continue to do.

Regarding the policy specifically..My understanding is the suggested new policy is not different to the existing policy in that the BMC has a stated aim to encourage growth (see 1. - up for interpretation) . But the potential impact on access/environment means that they do not actively do this - this is what I believe the “responsible” caveat means.

I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?

My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.

[asmallman]

I’ve held off posting an length because I’m struggling to decide where I stand on the issue. I feel like this is my best attempt to succinctly put my feelings into words.

Instinctively I’m for encouraging growth. I believe the BMC leads the way on how climbing is perceived and how climbers behave. And I’d rather climbers and the BMC were intrinsically inclusive and not exclusive. Offwidths statement helps articulate why I think inclusive is better - “Because it will risk being seen as an outside interfering body full of selfish protectionists by those transitioning outdoors and the organisations assisting in that ( like walls and group instruction). You don't facilitate beneficial change by being on the outside complaining”

Despite this I think climbing is growing already and the BMC doesn’t need to contribute to this and should focus on educating the growth element. I believe this is what is currently does and will continue to do.

Regarding the policy specifically..My understanding is the suggested new policy is not different to the existing policy in that the BMC has a stated aim to encourage growth (see 1. - up for interpretation) . But the potential impact on access/environment means that they do not actively do this - this is what I believe the “responsible” caveat means.

I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?

My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.

Fully agree with highrepute.

I certainly don't support discouraging growth so will second a vote for option 2. However, providing this framework excludes the other option of increasing the BMCs profile within the climbing community.

[Offwidth]

I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?

My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.

I'm pretty sure clarity on that will be one of the biggest remaining concerns if and when ORG recommendations are implemented with the democratic input of the full membership at an AGM. I don't think its clear enough and I can see past some of the worries presented here. I support the concerns raised about pressure on busy crags, I just dont see it as mutually incompatible with the ORG position, for the reasons already presented above. I'm sure this debate will be repeated many times before then.

[Fiend]

Not sure how the discussion has progressed but these titbits amused me....

at the same time, the crags are completely fucked.

They are indeed. Green, lichenous, overgrown and scrittly - despite solid rock underneath. They need a hell of a lot more attention, traffic, and careful cleaning rather than increasing neglect...

Honeypots are honeypots for a reason,

Because climbers are unimaginative Rockfax-spoon-fed crowd-following herd morons. They only want to go to stuff that is easily accessible, well known, over-documented in a dozen guidebooks and a hundred Youtube compilations of mundane tickery, requires little effort, less cleaning, and no thought. I posted on FB a while ago after the most utterly perfect "get out and explore off the beaten track and avoid the hordes in amazing conditions" grit weekend:

God, boulderers can be such spectacular dullards. Exploring a variety of Stanage routes in perfect conditions on Saturday, looking down in bewilderment at the circus below in The Plantation: hordes of mundane tickers caterpillaring their way up to carpet the most unimaginative, over-chalked lowball traverses with half a dozen pads and then queuing up to dab their way along them. Meanwhile one of the best problems in the area, Honourary Caley is obviously bone dry but sees no chalk and no attention, neither do any of the many great team-worthy highballs along the edge. Embarrassing.

The problem for the BMC is not to avoid increasing the load, it is to make sure that load is well spread, and the load cares for the rock at the same time - keeping both honeypots and hidden gems clean in quite different ways.

[JR]

I’d be interested to know if people
1. support an alternative policy that aims to “discourage growth” or “not encourage growth” or just have no policy?
2. Or keep the existing policy but spell out what “responsible” means?

My vote would be for the later. Borrows has mentioned things set in motion can’t necessarily be changed and I’d worry that the first options are worse starting points than the later.

I'm pretty sure clarity on that will be one of the biggest remaining concerns if and when ORG recommendations are implemented with the democratic input of the full membership at an AGM. I don't think its clear enough and I can see past some of the worries presented here. I support the concerns raised about pressure on busy crags, I just dont see it as mutually incompatible with the ORG position, for the reasons already presented above. I'm sure this debate will be repeated many times before then.

Thanks both, agree with both of you.  It's now up-to the members to discuss and agree what responsible looks like, assuming the bigger picture is also agreed.  I think it's worth stating that the amendment report text that Shark quoted much earlier on, was in clarity to the earlier report's Rs rather than a wholesale change (pasted below for reference).Yes, long and wordy, but it's acknowledged that this is a difficult issue.

As the BMC looks to craft its strategic review process it needs to consider what its ideal membership looks like. The BMC has grown from its roots as a collective of mountaineering clubs, with a few thousand members to an organisation spanning a wide range of sporting and leisure disciplines, from those on foot reaching their  rst mountain summit, through to elite-level mountaineers, climbers and competition athletes.

This expansion has come naturally as climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering have evolved, with the BMC acting as the natural home to accommodate the growing community of interest. With this expansion has come a growth in the number of staff and volunteers needed to manage this community and this has caused the organisation to grow to a paid staff of over 30, and a volunteer community reaching into the many hundreds.

The Member Research Survey showed that although there are distinct interest groups and communities, for many, “climbing” is a broad sport and many respondents regularly take part in a number of different climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering activities, often within the same period. Very few respondents classified themselves as having a single “interest” only within the range of activities covered by the BMC.

With 2.4 million bi-monthly participants across the BMC’s recognised activities it is easy to see continued natural growth of membership (11% annual growth in 2016) and it is likely that the BMC will reach over 100,000 members by 2020 at current growth rates. The survey shows overwhelming support (73%) for the BMC to encourage participation and membership and yet many within the focus groups are concerned of the impact on our natural environment of a significant increase in numbers heading to popular crags and mountain paths.

The BMC must consider carefully where it chooses to focus its time, resources and volunteer efforts and try to balance the need to thrive and encourage participation and membership, with the need to look at boundaries as to how wide its reach becomes. The BMC should be careful to classify its boundaries and look at the edge cases (such as hillwalking vs rambling, or indoor climbing vs clip-and-climb) and make a clear statement about where these boundaries lie.

With this comes the challenging issue of whether the BMC should seek to encourage participation in its activities and grow its membership. The Member Research Survey, focus groups and the ORG all recognise the huge benefits that climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering present to those that participate. Most expressed an innate desire to share their love for the outdoors and the activities that they undertake, yet recognise the conflict that this creates: greater participation puts further strain on our natural crag and mountain environments.

The Member Research Survey provides a clear and unambiguous steer on this issue, with 77% of respondents expressing a desire for the BMC to encourage more climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers to join the organisation and 73% saying that the BMC should seek to encourage greater participation in all of its activities. This is clearly an opportunity for the BMC, both in terms of growing its organisational influence but also attracting greater funding to perform much of its access and conservation work. In particular, the ORG recognises the need for the BMC to attract younger members in order to ensure a broad demographic representation, but also to educate and inform future generations as to the ethics and history of British climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering.

It is important for any growing organisation to ensure that it has a broad and diverse membership. Diversity and balance leads to a stronger and more vibrant organisation. Since the formation of the BMC over 70 years ago, the population of the UK, its expectations, culture and aspirations have changed enormously. Within the BMC’s activities alone, there has been a huge growth in diversity of activities, where climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering have many niches and dedicated activities.

The range of people entering the BMC’s world has also altered significantly. What once was a sport catering to an elite few has now become a mass participation activity, with over 2.4 million people per month taking part in one of its activities that fall within its remit. The climbing population now represents that of the broader UK population, with broad participation across gender, age, ethnicity and disability groups. The Member Research Survey recognises and celebrates this, and whilst recognising the BMC’s activities so far (youth development, Ready to Rock, #ThisGirlCan etc) encourages the BMC to do more.

The Member Research Survey and focus groups both identified a need to develop a strategy around growth and diversity, particularly focusing on women’s participation, engaging those with families and those under 25. It was recognised that for these groups, the entry point is most likely to be indoor climbing and yet it was felt that the BMC’s role is to encourage them to understand and enjoy the broader mountain environment beyond the doors of the climbing wall.  Despite this not having universal support from focus groups, the ORG recommends that the BMC consider a targeted programme of activities to encourage broader participation from women, families and specifically the under-25s.

[Teaboy]

All good questions, but it is about the bigger picture for the whole organisation.

1. Is it just because this is what the membership wants?

Broadly, yes, but not "just" because.  You're missing the bigger picture.

If the answer is mostly yes then there's not a lot for me to argue, will of the people innit? If there is more to it then, yes, I am missing the bigger picture and I've not seen an answer to the question of how climbers and current BMC members benefit from accelerating the, already pretty rapid, growth in climbing participation.

2. What is the BMC prevented from doing because of the current participation levels?

When we did the survey BMC was though to do a good job generally, in access too.  In the last few months, we've had whitehouses, almscliff issues and more.  This won't improve with increasing participation, but nor will the BMC's ability to effectively support all these concerns if it rejects its place in the wider landscape.  Do you donate to ACT?  Will you if you leave the BMC as you said on UKC?

To avoid accusations of hypocrisy (no matter how veiled) I have donated but it seems impossible not to do so in any meaningful way without a PayPal account which I neither have nor want. I set up a standing order for BMC membership about 8 years ago and since then have paid it no heed so not really noticed the ACT before it came up on the other thread. Incidentally I accidentally joined the National Trust 5 years ago and have failed to leave that organisation due to my crap personal admin so don't be surprised if my BMC membership lasts to eternity!

3. What participation levels does it need to reach to do the sort of things it needs to do?

Participation is already there, the BMC is catching up with what's going on around it.  A reasonable strategy for it will need to be discussed and debated - get involved and influence rather than walking away from your membership.  Given the limited resource for sport climbing in the UK, it will need to be very carefully done, and you care.

Doesn't really answer the question but yes, like you say, participation is there why do we need more?

[Teaboy]

The BMC is membership led and access is their top priority. It is precisely because of the BMC good work that participation issues would be much less serious than if the BMC took a back seat on participation.  Logically, given the views of the members and how they will drive priorities,  any increases in participation will always be secondary to specific access pressures.

This is not a suggestion for the BMC to take a back seat on participation, we all know participation is increasing, surely the issue is managing whats already coming rather than driving that growth.

The idea the exec will run riot because of a few words encouraging responsible increases in participation is rather ludicrous in such context.

Which is why no one has ever said anything like that. I think BMC's attempts to encourage participation will lead to negligible growth compared to other things, I'm just puzzled as to why it feels it needs to do it at all? It started out as as simple statement but after all this discussion no one has come up with a compelling reason why the BMC needs to drive growth and I can think of some reasons why it shouldn't.

I'd add something to JRs excellent post, as ACT donations to me, although generous and very useful, are not the most effective way to help. The most effective actions are to volunteer to help BMC local area access teams, crag clean ups etc.  As a climbing community it would be great if as many of us as possible talk to climbers who are potentially causing access issues by their actions, be we BMC members or not.

I don't want to conflate the two issues. Access because of poor behaviour is different to what I am concerned about which is general over crowding of climbers not conflicts between climbers and landowners (although I can see they are related).

[Teaboy]

To my mind, this would only happen at a select few sport crags in the country (Malham, Kilnsey (why does no-one go to Gordale or Chapel Head?!), LPT, Raven Tor... although this would be impossible to police and organise and is therefore never going to happen.

If you spread the load to Chapel Head anytime in the next three months there really would be access issues which highlights the issue. Similarly the crowding at Gordale is arguably worse as when conditions are good people are keen for the same few routes which are very long.

[Teaboy]

If you read my next paragraph in that post I talk myself out of the permit idea, as, in reality, I do not hold this view. It is simply a solution which has been implemented elsewhere in the climbing world and works to solve the issue of crowding there.

If the problem is there are too many users for a resource then restricting access to some of those users is not solution, the solution is to reduce the number of users or increase the resource. Fair enough, from a sport climbing perspective you can do neither but adding more users seem particularly daft.

[Teaboy]

Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.

If all those pope I see down the walls doing one arm pull ups weighted dead hangs and 4x4s on V7s are not getting on 7b+ upwards then they don't deserve nice things anyway! 

[Will Hunt]

Worth pointing out there are loads of UK sport climbers who don't climb on the Yorks lime cause they hate the style (ergo: find it hard) Its also not exactly beginner friendly is it? If it was littered with quality 6's there'd be a massive problem but the real quality doesn't even start until 7b+.

Come on, Jim. It's thinking like this that causes the honeypotting problems. To say Yorkshire hasn't got any good 6s is complete toss. Moughton Nab, Trow Gill, Gigg North, Yew Cogar, Castleberg, Langcliffe and Stony Bank all have loads of really good 6s. To imply that they're not good is to confuse easy climbing with poor climbing. Just because it's not steep and hard it doesn't mean it isn't good.

Likewise the comment about the quality starting at 7b+. Doesn't this neatly coincide with when you personally have to start trying hard/redpointing? There are stacks of great routes in the low 7s at the crags I've mentioned above and more at Trollers Gill. Trollers in particular is dynamite in the low 7s. The climbs even follow obvious natural lines, unlike their catwalk counterparts!

And yet, I'm always staggered that people who talk down the quality of the lesser venues often haven't visited them. This baffles me especially with sport climbing, where a redpointer only really needs one or two routes to work on a particular day. So much more so than trad, you don't really need a crag with loads to go at at your selected grade.

[spidermonkey09]

Sorry, I'm guilty there of saying Yorkshire lime when actually I mean the big three honey pots. Of course there are great routes in the 6s all over the place, just not at those crags. My bad!

It would be nice if I only had to start redpointing at those grades I assure you!

[petejh]

You seem more concerned with portraying me as a BMC lacky than someone who first and foremost supports responsiblility in climbing to preserve the rock and environment and maintain access, and who sees the BMC as the most worthy UK organisation to support in that aim. If I support an organisation I see as doing vital work in achieving those aims, of course it's public perception is important, so people support it with time, money and membership (lobbying power). Real people who were doing useful work in the BMC have lost their jobs recently, most remainjng staff are heavily stressed and worried about the future, a hard working President who shared my views resigned, and volunteer support has declined, all due to the ongoing political argy bargy and time, energy and financial impacts from Climb Britain onwards. Argy bargy that was always tangental to the most important work done by the BMC.

Yeah.. I'm afraid I can't reconcile your view of the BMC with the view I hold, which is that the BMC has ceased to be simply a representative body for climbers, hillwalkers and mountaineers and instead has morphed into a organisation that IMO is too concerned with growing itself to represent everything and fitting into certain pigeon holes required to obtain funding from government agencies (sport england). The language being used to justify its growth sounds great on the surface - access, education, directing good behavior etc., but on deeper reflection I find myself - as someone most intereted in climbing outdoors and least interested in what goes on indoors and in competitions - in complete agreement with a policy similar to the FRA as posted by Teestub earlier in the thread, which I'll repeat here:

The Environment
Fell running is perhaps unique amongst sports in that it does not seek to attract ever-greater numbers of participants. The reason for this policy is that we have to balance our sporting interests with the impact on the environment. The sad fact is that the hills of Britain simply will not cope with ever-increasing pounding of feet. Protecting the environment is one of our primary aims. We continually liaise with agencies and landowners over access and racing over environmentally sensitive areas. The Fell Runners Association will continue to protect your interests in these and many other matters.
http://www.fellrunner.org.uk/join-the-fra.php



Someone said they didn't think that Fell Running was comparable to Climbing but in fact I think it makes a very good comparison: fell running is a subset of 'Running', similar to how 'outdoor climbing' is a subset of 'Climbing'.

Running encompasses any number of genres from urban jogging, competitive events in stadiums, ultra marathons, fell running, the olympics, triathalons and loads of other genres involving 'running'.

'Climbing' has evolved to become something not so dissimilar to running in it's mix of sub-genres: urban/indoor/competitive/outdoor/adventurous/low-commitment/high-commitment.

There isn't one representative body/governing body for 'Running'. The FRA exists to protect the interests of a small subset of runners who - while enjoying all sorts of running - especially enjoy running in wilder natural environments of the UK.
 
In a very similar way, a subset of climbers has always existed who - while enjoying all sorts of climbing - especially enjoy climbing outdoors in the natural environment.

Participants both in 'Climbing' and in 'Fell Running' share a concern about the impact of numbers of people in wild open places. Unlike the body representing 'Fell Runners', the body that represents 'Outdoor Climbers' also encompasses the whole of 'Climbing, Hillwalking and Mountaineering'.
The conflict between positioning itself to receive funding from SE - as part of the government's heath drive to increase bums off seats - and protecting the interests of a subset of 'outdoor climbers' who enjoy their past-time in relatively quiet unspoilt open spaces, is obvious if not immediately threatening.   

[JR]

Pete, you might have forgotten UK Athletics’ role (and England Athletics’) in running (and trail running, fell running etc) and its governance (yes, the FRA have de-affiliated, but the many of the actual clubs haven’t). 

It’s not a great comparison, because of the BMC’s breadth of different activities.  It would be a good comparsion if the BMC only represented “outdoor trad climbing” or another such discrete subset of Climbing, Hillwalking and Mountaineering (including indoor climbing and competitions etc, and ski mountaineering too). 

The entire debate is about how you do it responsibly in each of those subsets, knowing some will have a much greater environmental (or other) impact than others, therefore a much more neutral/cautious position can be adopted. Supporting the growing participation in indoor climbing for young people is an entirely different issue to promoting trad climbing on south stack, and both can have different “responsible” policies.  The BMC has a very broad reach now, hence why it’s tricky to stay out the weeds on some of these debates.

[petejh]

Hopefully most can see that you've misunderstood my comparison - I wasn't comparing the FRA to the BMC.

Re-read and you'll see I'm comparing 'running' - in all its genres, with 'climbing, mountaineering & hillwalking' - in all its genres. In that sense fell-running is broadly comparable with climbing outdoors.

[JR]

Exactly, and the whole ORG process, the BMC, and this debate is about more than “climbing outdoors”

[Will Hunt]

John, I see what you're saying, and I'm grateful that you're trying to allay our fears, but I still have concerns.

The ORGs recommendation is a clear instruction to the BMC to encourage uptake of participation, and given how chastened the organisation must be feeling at the moment (Shark does say that everyone is feeling very risk averse, I can understand why), I feel like it's unlikely that the exec are going to reject or seriously modify the ORG's proposals, so I expect the recommendation will be adopted.

However the recommendation isn't specific to what discipline it should be encouraging participation in and the caveats about being mindful of the environment and the sustainability of climbing seem a bit woolly and don't seem to really mandate much consideration. I'm concerned that consideration of overuse will be something that is thought of after somebody's developed their brilliant scheme to drive uptake of climbing, as opposed to something that is integral to the exercise. That's just my reading of it.

I, and I'm sure many on this thread, will be interested to read a published policy document on what the BMC plans to do with the recommendation, with specific consideration of the many problems that are caused by overuse. Is there anything the BMC can do to encourage people to spread out? All you have to do is make going to non-honeypot crags seem cool. Bung a few quid to a good filmmaker and tell them to make some less frequented crags look sexy and you'll probably sort it in no time.

Going back a few pages to Barrows' head banging. I don't think anybody writing here is suggesting that the BMC shouldn't try and get as many climbers and hillwalkers as possible to join the BMC. What we're questioning is whether the BMC itself should take specific steps to increase the uptake of climbing among the non-climbing population. People seem to be confusing those things and they're quite different.

[Offwidth]

At least you are honest.

The vast majority of my considerable BMC involvement was with guidebooks, access and conservation: climbing, cleaning investigating and recording stuff outdoors. I could have done such without the BMC but it would have been much more difficult, less efficient and effective and less social, so what would have been the point?  I am an area meeting regular but have been know to slink out when my head is exploding due to too much political shit.. piss stops,, buying pints or quick guidebook catch-ups  with Grimer have been a great excuse.  I've held no political roles other than the transitional  chair on Peak area elections, that I do as badly as I dare, pour encourage les autres, but with little success... maybe I'll try stripping off next time... that'l scare the buggers. Why would someone like me be a cynical apparatchik?  I'm really puzzled why you look at the BMC through such suspicious eyes.

[JR]

John, I see what you're saying, and I'm grateful that you're trying to allay our fears, but I still have concerns.

The ORGs recommendation is a clear instruction to the BMC to encourage uptake of participation, and given how chastened the organisation must be feeling at the moment (Shark does say that everyone is feeling very risk averse, I can understand why), I feel like it's unlikely that the exec are going to reject or seriously modify the ORG's proposals, so I expect the recommendation will be adopted.

However the recommendation isn't specific to what discipline it should be encouraging participation in and the caveats about being mindful of the environment and the sustainability of climbing seem a bit woolly and don't seem to really mandate much consideration. I'm concerned that consideration of overuse will be something that is thought of after somebody's developed their brilliant scheme to drive uptake of climbing, as opposed to something that is integral to the exercise. That's just my reading of it.

Thanks Will.  I think to have those concerns is fine and to be expected.  I agree that each facet and subset of climbing, hillwalking and mountaineering will need to be treated differently, hence responsibly.  I'm only trying to go so far as explaining the rationale at a high level for the recommendation, hence my reticence to get stuck personally debating the detail of what this might look like for each part of the sport (so as not to confuse explaining what's recommended, with what hasn't been, and the conflating it with my personal vie on the detail).  The further detail in the recommendation sub text goes some of the way, but it wasn't the ORG's scope to really define the minutiae of policy.  As per:

The BMC must balance the desire of its membership to encourage participation against the need to preserve finite and often fragile environments, and ensure continued access to the crags, hills and mountains of the UK within a landscape of increasing participation.

I will be as interested as you, and probably everyone else on here, to read the policy that that gets drafted and presented further down the line, whether by the current National Council, or later in a new governance environment, in conjunction with the members.  Things will be phased, and the degree to which recommendations get amended etc, will be up-to the BMC.  I'm sure there's less risk aversion to some recommendations more than others, and they'll also be prioritised throughout any implementation.  We've highlighted some of the critical ones in governance, for example.  We're still awaiting the BMC's plan on all this, but I know it's on the way, and being worked on (by volunteers).

Hope that all helps. I'm signing off for a week or so now.