[Offwidth]

The news is that the office is physically closed but most of the staff are still working (and the alternative information channels where some are furloughed). It's a legal requirement to communicate on the AGM.

I have no idea how useful such communication with Austria might be but I bet it will be little.  It is still worth doing when the really urgent stuff they have been dealing with is complete (many hard recent deadlines on various matters). Some communication has happened (through IFSC calls). The lockdowns in France and Spain are way more strict than the UK and they have very similar (if not slightly less) levels of problems to us in terms of the virus.

[petejh]

I missed the Q&A with Dave as I was working. What was the outcome?

And what did he say is the BMC's plan for promoting the recommencement of climbing ASAP?

[Johnny Brown]

The BMC has in my view pressed the pause button in terms of outdoor climbing

This made sense the day they did it (see Stu, mine and Pete's posts above). That day is now long past and it's increasingly irrelevant to today's direction of travel. My sense is we will see a slow return to normal over the next six weeks or so followed by another lockdown for the second wave - potentially much longer than this one. The difference will be that we should be much better informed by then (as we are now compared to six weeks ago) both on the most significant lines of transmission and the secondary effects on healthcare capacity. The second lockdown is the one I see affecting the economy most, and will require and allow a more nuanced approach.  I haven't seen anything that suggests outdoor recreation is high risk for transmission. The BMC's position for the second wave should therefore be very different and the time to begin turning the ship is now.

Also, every time I post here I'm not talking about 'climbing'. I'm largely talking about visiting open access areas in the uplands, many of which are adjacent to towns, which may or may not contain crags - all of which come under the BMC's unique remit more than any other organisation. As I said above, there's a continuum of risk from dog walking to choss soloing and the BMC, informed as they are, aren't going to be able to strike a line through it. The tack to take must be that users can be trusted to behave responsibly and wider society reaps the resilience from the physical and mental and health benefits.

[Offwidth]

I missed the Q&A with Dave as I was working. What was the outcome?

And what did he say is the BMC's plan for promoting the recommencement of climbing ASAP?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=544199533170872&id=381399730827

It's still available. I saw it on Facebook after the start of the 'live' event. Unsurprisingly BMC advice probably won't change at the moment, whilst waiting for a change in government advice.  I think some extra detail is needed on those walking from their home on local hills that would not normally require Mountain Rescue if they slipped and broke their ankle. I can't see how the Mountain Rescue situation can be improved with so many working at emergency level in their day job or self isolating. I can't see how any hint of encouragement of driving won't cause crowds.  I'd love to agree with Adam and start steering the ship to encourage the normally clear benefits of open access to the wilds but it seems impractical and politically very risky for the BMC right now. I won't be naming or shaming any individual who disagrees.

[abarro81]

And what did he say is the BMC's plan for promoting the recommencement of climbing ASAP?

The BMC have a plan to start thinking about things like having a plan over the next few weeks.

[Offwidth]

The BMC has in my view pressed the pause button in terms of outdoor climbing

The second lockdown is the one I see affecting the economy most, and will require and allow a more nuanced approach.  I haven't seen anything that suggests outdoor recreation is high risk for transmission.

Lots of people mixing closely in popular car parks is a big risk (Austrians must be better behaved). Not having  a fully functioning MR is a risk. Going into hospital at the moment is a risk (according to the A&E doctor on our weekly quiz last night).

Any extensive second lockdown would be another sign of government failure (reopening too early for the likely modellled outcomes)... hopefully other European countries will demonstrate if it's feasible before then. At the extreme end Sweden is not doing so well currently with lax rules but clear advice to social distance: record deaths yesterday.

[Paul B]

I've lost which thread I should be posting in (insert R0 joke here):
https://twitter.com/CarolineLucas/status/1252993574716801024?s=20

[petejh]

I took a look at Dave's Q&A from earlier. An issue that stands out in this debate is the point about not risking MR team members. I think this idea needs addressing because it's emerging among some people as a popular justification for not going climbing or hill-walking.

Before I do, I want to say that it's sensible to avoid putting anyone - an MR team member or anyone else - at increased risk of infection.

Mountain rescue is a luxury, not a necessity. There is no legal requirement for civilians to have medical coverage provided by an MR team before you go out adventuring in the hills. There's never been an onus on UK civilians to base their plans for going climbing or hill-walking on whether an MR team might be able to help you and whether you might put an MR team at risk. I'm very glad they exist and grateful for their work but they mustn't be allowed to be used as a justification for curtailing our recreation - the hills are ours to enjoy, not an MR organisations' to defend. It's allowing the tail to wag the dog.

The obvious solution to not putting an MR team at risk is for them not to know about your existence in the first place. This requires a change of attitude among climbers, to one that people would have needed to have pre-1947 (formation of civilian MR in Cumbria). We could communicate among our community the message that you must simply not go into the hills unless you can avoid calling an MR team. People have the freedom to just not take a phone. If MR don't know that you're lying bleeding out and with hypothermia, you can't be a risk to them. Of course that requires the sort of attitude toward risk that's less common today then in the 1930s. It might require informed conversations with loved-ones before deciding to go out to partake in an activity that may hurt or kill you. Is that a bad thing? Have we become so cossetted we can't face this?

Or we could do something a bit more sophisticated. With the BMC and MR's co-operation we could design a simple opt-in system. Similar to us having to opt-in for other voluntary services - such as giving blood or donating our organs when we die, or even agreeing with a doctor to a DNR notice for a loved one or ourselves -  we could create a simple system electronically whereby people opt-out of the expectation of an MR team coming to care for them in event of an accident. Similarly, if individual MR team members feel at risk during this period o virus then they could opt-out of working on rescues. By a combination of informed consent on both sides we could come to a solution where both sides were satisfied with their decision about risk.
Having experienced what's it like to drag on a sked an injured partner for hours down a frozen canyon in Canada, I for one certainly would begrudge anyone who didn't want to come and rescue me!

What is obvious to me is it's nonsensical to deny us our individual liberties to enjoy the hills, by using the existence of a voluntary mountain rescue organisation. That would be an ultimate irony!

[mrjonathanr]

Somewhere, in a Welsh village, the ringing of a telephone disturbs a family gathered round the hearth:
‘There’s a chap here says you’re needed for a rescue dear, some fool has just fallen off the Indian Face apparently’
‘Bugger, Pobol y Cwm is on in a minute, best just check that telephone number ... Brilliant, it’s a Mr PJH, he’s on the the DoNotRescue database, we can get back to S4C..’

[petejh]

Ha!
In villages around the country, people in MR teams are picking up phones and constructing the argument that members of the public mustn't go out into the hills they love because - despite said MR team members having freely chose to join a voluntary outfit which provides a luxury not a necessity to mountain users - they feel compelled to try to come out and rescue everyone and they don't want to have to.

DNR - Don't Nanny Ramblers?

[Nigel]

What is obvious to me is it's nonsensical to deny us our individual liberties to enjoy the hills, by using the existence of a voluntary mountain rescue organisation. That would be an ultimate irony!

Couldn't be bothered to back read the BMC stuff to be honest, so I don't know how the thrust of this post of yours relates to that Pete, but I agree with the principle of it.

The expectation that *no-one* should walk in the hills due to concerns for MR should be resisted. For an awful lot of people going for a walk in the hills is no different from any other walk. If you were to do something more "testing" then you rely on yourself, as a rule. MR is great to have of course, but not a necessary condition for upland access. At all.

[Bonjoy]

Bonjoy is correct about the usual fine line for access but the situation here, in public perception at least, is completely different. We are talking about activity which will be seen to actively risk harm to our fellow citizens and society at large. We have a credible voice as a community despite being seen as risk takers and extremists by the general public. Not taking a hardish line could destroy decades of work in short order.

And conversely, failing to challenge public assumptions only serves to entrench them and hence help drag out restrictions way beyond their (already questionable) usefulness.

An uncharitable view of this thread is that it shows how entitled and middle class climbers are, where dummies are spat out over not being allowed to go to the Tor whilst millions go hungry, are trapped in city apartments with no access to green space, or are forced to work without adequate PPE.

This is a climbing discussion site. Do you actually think it's a bad/surprising thing that underoccupied climbers debate the parameters of their confines and explore the whens and ifs of how they might safely improve the situation? Climbers have unanimously stopped climbing, despite the vagueness of the advice, and the likelihood transmission risks are low and mitigatable (certainly in my preferred branch of the sport). Seems pretty off-colour to call out a level and reasoned debate as entitled middle class dummy spitting. The debate and it's outcome has the sum total of zero impact on the availability of ppe in the nhs and I can't really see where you're going with that. Are you suggesting that because lots of people are having a hard time everyone should put up and shut up, or redirect the 30 mins they spent writing a post on here to lobby Matt Hancock?

[Bonjoy]

What is obvious to me is it's nonsensical to deny us our individual liberties to enjoy the hills, by using the existence of a voluntary mountain rescue organisation. That would be an ultimate irony!

Couldn't be bothered to back read the BMC stuff to be honest, so I don't know how the thrust of this post of yours relates to that Pete, but I agree with the principle of it.

The expectation that *no-one* should walk in the hills due to concerns for MR should be resisted. For an awful lot of people going for a walk in the hills is no different from any other walk. If you were to do something more "testing" then you rely on yourself, as a rule. MR is great to have of course, but not a necessary condition for upland access. At all.

Yes I agree also. The presence/absence of MR cover has never influenced what I have chosen to do in the hills. It would not change my personal risk assessments if they weren't a thing. So it seems perverse to not do something on behalf of a service I would rather crawl home on broken stumps than break a thirty year habit and call upon.
This line of argument seems suspiciously like a repackaged version of the yearly media debate around winter climbers risking MR by going up hills in winter.

[Offwidth]

It could be looked on that way but also in other ways.  I guess MR in winter might wish muppets would be way more careful around areas of very high avalanche risk but go and help anyhow if someone got stupidly avalanched, in a similar way as right now they hope people don't go out and risk having a climbing or mountain walking accident, but would still help.  As far as I can tell MR are currently telling the BMC that they know this is exceptional but for the moment they want this (and they and the BMC have with others been fighting more draconiann access limitations like those footpath closures).

https://www.mountain.rescue.org.uk/stay-safe-be-adventure-smart/coronavirus-covid-19

The BMC advice is a pause.... the situation will likely be different in a month and if access limitations become unreasonable the BMC will just have to change the advice if their membership insist. That's democracy.

Dave and Lynn are both aware of this thread.. maybe ring them and make your views heard (Dave said this was OK in the Q&A and Lynn as the organisational lead member's representative always says that).

[Davo]

Had a watch of the Facebook thing with Dave Turnbull. I thought it was pretty good and helpful to be honest.  He had some good points that I hadn’t thought about: for example what happens if someone is out climbing and has a bad accident and requires a large mountain rescue effort ? His point was that this would likely make the front pages of the newspapers and put climbing in a spotlight that it does not want.

On his point about MR I completely disagreed and I think we need to be very careful about accepting the idea that we are a burden on MR as a community and the argument that by going climbing we out then at risk. Personally like many others I have never considered there being a rescue service in my own planning and have never used the service in about 30 years of climbing. I appreciate all the efforts that they put in and think it is an amazing service but whether they exist or not I will want to climb and their availability or not does not determine my climbing. If they decide not to go out on rescues during the virus period that is fine with me and we can all go into the hills or climbing with an awareness of the risks involved.

[moose]

It's all about "optics" really.  Last week a mountain biker broke their leg on Ilkley Moor and required a helicopter rescue.  When I was on the Moor a few days later, there were still lots of moutain bikers, hurtling down footpaths with "No Cycling" signs and attracting no comment.  I am almost certain that if walkers found me bouldering at the Cow & Calf or in Rocky Valley (which I can walk to from my house), I would have lots of abuse accusing me of ignoring the potential for burdening the NHS / rescue services.

[danm]

I agree with you all on the MR side, not a good argument for restricting access at all. It's a filtration problem though, how do you separate the hardy self contained adventurers from the rest?

Jon and others, sorry if the comments about entitlement felt out of place - I did say they were an uncharitable view, and they don't completely reflect my own feelings. But they are likely to be fairly close to those held by outsiders looking in on this debate, and more pertinently by those we have to negotiate access with. I don't think we should flinch from that.

I'm also nearly as frustrated as you at not being able to go out to the Peak when I know I could probably do so with minimum risk to others, and I'm very sympathetic to your viewpoint as I'm subject to the same yearnings to climb and be in nature as you are.

But, I'm also aware that we are in the midst of a global pandemic in which I see myself and many of my climbing friends being among the least affected. I made a joke about Barrows' unused kneepads colouring his judgement, well yesterday mine too was skewed somewhat by a trio of events:

Salvo #1: I go into the garden, trying not to think about how nice it is likely to be out in the Peak. I breezily ask my neighbour if she's doing OK. She breaks down, turns out she's having a bit of a wobble. She's scared her A&E doctor husband will get Covid and give it to her. The wobble is from the guilt at what she thinks are selfish thoughts. I comfort her as best I can.

Salvo#2: After that I nip into the local shop. My weekly organic vegbox means I haven't been to the supermarket properly in weeks. The usually chatty assistant is terse and rigid behind her mask. As I leave I recognise the look in her eyes and it hits me like a jolt. Fear. Fear of having to work, probably for minimum wage, in a shop too small for social distancing to work effectively.

Salvo#3: I'm chilling in the sunny garden when my allotment buddy comes to collect the key. A primary teacher, she's been calling parents today to check if they received their food parcels from the school. She describes talking to a parent who lives in a single room along with her family of 6 including a one week old baby, with no outside space. I feel like the sun has gone behind a cloud suddenly, but it hasn't.

A psychologist would probably say I'm externalising feelings of guilt at being able to ride this out in relative comfort, and they may well be right. Whatever the reason, climbing just doesn't feel quite as important to me right now somehow, although I'm sure that will change if this goes on much longer.

Finally, my chill out comment was a reminder, not least to myself, that it is more important to be kind to each other right now than ever. The lens of a forum can distort what we mean to say in unfortunate ways sometimes, which is a dangerous combination given the stresses people are under currently.

Stay safe friends and hopefully see you at a crag soon.

[Bonjoy]

Cheers Dan. I can totally sympathise with that. And I agree we need to be acutely aware of how we come across to the public right now.

[mrjonathanr]

It's all about "optics" really.  Last week a mountain biker broke their leg on Ilkley Moor and required a helicopter rescue.  When I was on the Moor a few days later, there were still lots of moutain bikers, hurtling down footpaths with "No Cycling" signs and attracting no comment.  I am almost certain that if walkers found me bouldering at the Cow & Calf or in Rocky Valley (which I can walk to from my house), I would have lots of abuse accusing me of ignoring the potential for burdening the NHS / rescue services.

I suspect you are right, not least because most people can identify with MTB as something they might do and not be utterly reckless in doing it. Whereas climbing is commonly perceived as the domain of thrill seeking nutters.
Perception vs reality. That fall off Cyrn Las on March 21 https://www.facebook.com/llanberismrt/videos/vb.104892002917230/517915882203965/?type=2&theater   is exactly the sort of thing that sticks in people's minds-  and perception will matter a lot when future access is under the spotlight.

[petejh]

I agree that image and perception is important. But like MR not wanting to go out and rescue you, concern over access is not a justification for completely stopping going climbing. When you examine each of these justifications one by one none of them in my opinion is a solid justification for stopping ALL climbing.
Concerns about access are specific to areas.There are many areas with no access concerns, even though they might not fit 'your' personal criteria they will give other people enjoyment. During foot and mouth one of the few places in Wales you could go climbing was Castle Inn Quarry because going there didn't involve crossing countryside - there being none of the more recently-developed A55 sport crags.

I'm not suggesting everyone congregates in limitied venues, clearly this is a different situation to Foot & Mouth.

But this which is why it's so important for the BMC to plan and communicate the importance of returning to climbing ASAP in areas with no access concerns. They could consider voluntary bans at areas of access concern - Cheedale?  (I don't know I'm not local).
Also bear in mind that the BMC own cliffs - Tremadog, Horseshoe, Longridge(?), Wilton (?).

[abarro81]

Would be useful to know where is/isn't s good idea too - I can't remember who owns what in the peak, who's likely to be chill and who's likely to get pissy etx and rad isn't always that useful in this regard.

[Lopez]

I found interesting seeing how different sports approached the lockdown rules, and out of the bunch surfing seems to be in stark contrast to cimbing.

When all this started it went through the same motions, Surfing England/British Surfing put out their statement saying no surfing, the RNLI put out their statement asking people not to surf so as not to put their staff at risk, and the same argument about not stressing emergency services/A&E/NHS was pased around.

However, unlike with climbing, surfers (not all of course but a large enough group) were having none of it and were vocal about it. They argued that SE cannot dictate them and make that decision, that the availabily of rescue by lifeguards/RNLI is not a factor on whether to surf or not and stressed their self-reliance when surfing, and similarly alluded to the lower risk to surfing as compared to 'acceptable' lockdown sports like road cycling. All similar arguments as found here, and people kept going out surfing.

After some back and forth at the beginning with the police which wasn't sure what to do, and a lot of calm and adult beachside reasoning with officers, statements began coming out from the Police saying they had been monitoring the situation closely and were happy that people surfing were within the rules/guidelines and behaving responsibly. That so far as they keep seeing people maintaining their distance, not milling in the car parks in groups, and effectively getting in, doing their session, and heading straight back home, they don't see a problem with people surfing.

As of now, even though some newspapers still try to stir the pot with sensasionalist stories about surfers defying the lockdown, surfing is largely accepted and going on without issues. Even Surfing England ended up changing their statement to reflect this and advocate for surfing when done sensibly and within the guidelines.

Both climbing and surfing started up the same path, but whereas the surfing community took the stance that surfers are responsible, self-reliant and able to surf without adding risk or becoming a burden, the climbing community took the opposite stance. That we, as a whole, can't behave responsibly and are a potential burden to the rescue and emergency services every time we go climbing and rely in Mountain Rescue when the chips are down.

That's not to say it isn't true to an extent though, the Cyrn Las rescue didn't help the situation and might be testament to that, but the way i see it we should take a page out of surfing's book and push back on the notion that we are irresponsible risk takers who need Mountain Rescue on speed dial and an ambulance on stand-by every time we go for a boulder.

We are not doing ourselves any favours while our community and the BMC are our biggest critics

[Wood FT]

https://www.lacrux.com/en/klettern/Swiss-Alpine-Club-can-be-climbed-and-bouldered-under-these-conditions/

[Ru]

I found interesting seeing how different sports approached the lockdown rules, and out of the bunch surfing seems to be in stark contrast to cimbing.

The obvious difference is that the original advice from the surfing bodies was no surfing (as it has been from the BMC) but this was ignored allowing the police to come to terms with the idea, presumably after a few close shaves. If the police have now said that surfing is ok, within limits, that's great. The surfing bodies can now advise accordingly, with the confidence that they are not misleading anyone or advocating something that will get their members in trouble.

The BMC have been in touch with the police who have given no such reassurance about climbing, so the BMC cannot say that there is no risk to climbing.

If you want to spearhead the climb-anyway movement like the surfers did, you can, it might have similar a similar positive outcome, or it might have a bad outcome. You can't expect the BMC to recommend that though.

[mrjonathanr]

Falling off on a 10" break off Berwick-upon-Tweed vs a 10' runout on the Milestone Buttress. Both are plausible. I can see the BMC's problem tbh