If we are for it with caveats we can base actions and decisions around it and similarly if we are against. The membership survey indicated that the majority are in favour of pro-participation overall.
Is there a real issue with the American idea of day permits?
Can Dan Turnip of this parish do a nicely edited video of Yew Cogar, Gordale, chapelhead scar to generally raise the profile of other crags which are equally as good? Such videos may already exist in Quality Chufftown vids.
Bat Route became very popular once it went up to 8c. No one even considered it 10 years ago. Same with Mandela until Ste flashed it.Is there are queue below The Yorkshire Ripper?The popularity of some of these routes has little to do with the general increase in number of folks climbing and more about fashion/laziness/logbooks/soft touches/social media. IMO.
..... I'm really puzzled why you look at the BMC through such suspicious eyes.
When it comes to pro-participation, just ask 'who benefits?'.It isn't climbers; it is the BMC. That's not the way things should be.
Did you never share your toys as a child?
I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
Quote from: shark on March 18, 2018, 08:49:03 pmI can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?
Hi Simon, climbing ... it's a life enhancing (and possibly for a lot of ukbers, life-defining) activity and few would discourage others from taking it up but there's a reasonable sense of concern about what pro-participation means in practice.Personally I think the BMC should be massively welcoming and facilitating - but up to a point, supporting the interested rather than creating the interest.It depends on how it's done, that is where the debate lies.
Quote from: shark on March 18, 2018, 05:39:54 pmThere seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so. It's a shame that after all this debate you are still coming out with this. This isn't about elitism, wanting to ban anyone or a sense of entitlement. Everyone is entitled to go wherever they want on exactly the same basis what I don't understand is the need to press gang people into going. It is driven by selfishness but I don't see anyone losing out by not forcing growth whereas there are (or could be) losers with increased participation. If it was a case that me giving up my place at Malham lead to some significant, tangible improvement in someone's life then I'd have to consider it but some hypothetical improvement in someone's well being which will, at best, only be equal to my loss then no I'll choose me every time. Maybe your views would differ if you were likely to be affected by the issues. How, for instance, would you would react if some third party's actions impinged on your access to, say, eatswood or Crag X?
There seems to be a false sense of entitlement by some existing participants (Tyler, you etc) to the sport,the crags and countryside which is superior to those who haven't participated yet or might never do so.
You are honest enough to say it is driven by selfishness. The consequence of that is you are wanting to have more share of the sport and crags than the general population. On what moral basis? That you got there first?
If that's the position then it is equally reasonable to ask you to do less as it is for you not to enable others to enter the sport.
I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education.
If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....
It's about helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled,
Quote from: ferret on March 18, 2018, 09:04:16 pmQuote from: shark on March 18, 2018, 08:49:03 pmI can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.Edited, as I realized your point is a bit unclear. Start what? Do more what?In answer to your edited post explain why a locally organised BMC climbing festival (of which there are many) and Caff teaching trad skills to newbies (possibly from under privileged backgrounds) is morally or environmentally different.
I think it's hard to really comment until the bmc provides some more detail on what they actually mean by increasing participation. I imagine there are ways that would be more acceptable to the current climbing population.While queuing for routes sucks, I'm far more concerned about land owner conflicts, parking, erosion, polish, chipping, hold breakage due to wet rock, and general anti social behaviour.
Pete posits that pro participation is purely a BMC empire building scheme as if there is no other possible reasons for backing pro participation. I think there is a higher purpose to share what we enjoy especially if we are what we claim to be, a national body beyond just members interests. To fundamentally shut down that pro participation is bad as Pete does can only be rooted in entitlement and selfishness. You can dress it up how you like. We all here participate. If participation is a problem then we are logically the problem. The BMC is potentially for responsible participation. The detail of that, as JR said, is yet to be debated and worked out. I can discern no environmental or moral difference between actions that promote new participants to start and existing participants to do more.
It's also about aiding the transition from...summer only to winter climbing and alpinism, and so on.
helping remove barriers and make access to climbing more equitable - for say the disabled, for under-represented groups
I see two major risks in not being involved in promoting participation ... 1) you risk losing credibility with other organisations
2) promotion involves contact with new entrants to the sport, who you give up on the opportunity to influence for the better right at the beginning.
the BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.
Quote from: Will Hunt on March 19, 2018, 01:45:06 pmthe BMC should not be a missionary organisation trying to convert as many as possible to the true path.Is this really your interpretation of the policy as written?Can you explain how you interpret it please as I'm struggling to understand how the above could be got to. Thanks
I think promote the sport - because we love it and want to spread the love and its healthy (unless you die doing it). It's not for most people anyway for obvious reasons (fear of heights, broken fingernails etc) but I would like to think that everyone who might have got hooked at least got the chance and not everyone has the chance and then we manage the consequences through what ever mechanisms but principally education. If Malham became too crowded I would go elsewhere. I love it but the drive is a ballache. There is an unclimbed cave in the Peak that could keep me happily occupied for at least two years, then there are two unclimbed trad climbs Ive been meaning to do for 20 years, a good looking quarry near Ashover that could be developed ....