[Johnny Brown]

To me there's a continuum from a walk from home, a stroll at Burbage, a run at Stanage, bouldering, scrambling, sport climbing, trad, solo etc. There isn't a clear line to be drawn anywhere. So the situation is exercise is a recognised need, you can drive a short distance to do so, social distancing is easier in less crowded areas. Local footpaths and access land on hills and moors should be open and available. The message should be that put out by the Mountain rescue at the start (and similar to the mountain bikers' advocates) - stay local, stay solo, stay safe. Very simple. If they want to go further say do less than normal, choose a safer route/ activity than normal, suggest a limit for travel (15 mins?).

The total moratorium on any risky activity was very much required in the context of the early days when we had little data on the trajectory of the outbreak or whether the NHS would cope. It's now much clearer how high the risk of collapse is and where it might happen, and guidance can bear that in mind.

This fear/risk of being booked seems only relevant in Wales and far more related to travel than activity. Guessing this would not go to crown and be decided by a magistrate - the one I happen to know well (recently retired chair if the bench in East Cheshire) would give it pretty short shrift.

[Bradders]

On the thread topic - I don't disagree with you Alex. Why they chose to address the question via a news / opinion piece style article is beyond me when a simple statement of their formal position  would have been far clearer.

[abarro81]

Why they chose to address the question via a news / opinion piece style article is beyond me when a simple statement of their formal position  would have been far clearer.

For sure. Whoever's in charge of their strategy and communication strategy needs to get their head in the game.

[shark]

- the BMC has no moral authority over climbers,

Whilst the bmc is at pains to point out that it is a representative body rather than governing body (comp climbing excepted) it has sought to influence behaviours such as good crag practice by individuals to preserve access for all such as this:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/malham-kilnsey-access-issues

[abarro81]

Yes, but that's not a moral argument - it's "if we don't stop X, then we think Y will/may happen, and we all know we don't want Y". It's not a judgement about whether an action is moral or not. I'm happy to listen to the BMC's views on access, because they're specialists; I see no reason why I'd put more store in the moral judgement of its leadership than I would the moral judgement of anyone else.

[shark]

Holding individuals to account to behave better is acting with moral authority

[abarro81]

Only if the argument is moral, not logistical

[shark]

That would be an ecumenical matter

[Bonjoy]

As a general point, I think it's worth remembering when purely considering legality and it's consequences, that climbing fairly routinely involves illegality of various forms, such as trespass (e.g Staden, eatswood, many other crags with no formal access); placing bolts without all the relevant permissions; and uprooting vegetation without landowner permission. The BMC has a long history of carefully walking a line regards these sorts of activities, being careful to neither publicly encourage, or further incriminate anyone who chooses to do any of them. This article fails to acheive this in my view.

[petejh]

Well put.

The BMC's comms give the appearance of coming out of emotional decision making. Understandable, perhaps, in the early days because as JB pointed out we didn't know how bad the places were that this pandemic was going to take us. But we have a clearer picture now and should be making rational decisions.   

[danm]

A few observations:

Pete has his anti-BMC axe to grind as usual, nothing new to see here.

Barrows seems to have allowed the sight of his forlornly hanging and dust covered kneepads get to him. A bit of an over-reaction I'd say.

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. Nobody really gives a f*** about a bit of ivy being removed, this is a different ballgame entirely.

I have no doubt we will fight for access tooth and nail once it becomes reasonable to do so. Rob D will likely be back on board for then.

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. I hope to be convinced this isn't the case, so why don't we all chill out a bit and have a bit more faith in each other for once?

[Will Hunt]

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. I hope to be convinced this isn't the case, so why don't we all chill out a bit and have a bit more faith in each other for once?

Oh come on, Dan. That stuff happens every day but to a lesser extent. It doesn't mean we have to disband the BMC until such a time as we live in a utopia.

I agree that it's not surprising to see the usual haters taking the opportunity to take the dimmest possible view of the organisation. Personally, I don't think the article was very good, not because I didn't like what it had to say but because it seemed to take the facts and oversimplify them until they were no longer the facts.

[spidermonkey09]

  with both of the above posts.

[abarro81]

why don't we all [...] have a bit more faith in each other for once?

Because I read the article and it was crap, so any faith I had evaporated? 

Your last para is the usual bollocks that you can use against any argument that isn't of life-and-death importance on a global scale. And yet, plenty of people still care about idle crap like sports, art, beach holidays etc. My clients still want to know whether their suppliers are using process x or process y so they can guess their costs better and squeeze the price of their next order down a bit etc. It's not like the BMC is distracted by the fact that it's changed role and is now devoting all resources to making ventilators, unless I missed that press release?

[spidermonkey09]

why don't we all [...] have a bit more faith in each other for once?

Your last para is the usual bollocks that you can use against any argument that isn't of life-and-death importance on a global scale.

To be fair Alex, youre as guilty of reductio ad absurdum arguments as we all are...its a feature of the forum!

[abarro81]

To be fair Alex, youre as guilty of reductio ad absurdum arguments as we all are...its a feature of the forum!

Yeah, it's a habit of mine. But I don't think damn was doing that, more that I was doing that to his argument?

[petejh]

A mix of bollocks and fair points Dan. I'm not anti BMC per se. I'm anti any organisation that is incompetent enough to give the impression that it thinks it's more important than its members. That's the impression I have of the BMC - flitting in and out of competency for a long time. Some of what they do is great. Some of what they do comes across as self-serving bullshit. And some of what they do appears incompetent - in this case communications and furloughing one of its access reps, whilst keeping on less important staff, in the middle of the greatest access issue we've ever faced.   
BMC's communications have been incompetent for years - who the hell decides to change the name and structure of the organisation and doesn't think to communicate it beforehand to the people who matter - the members? But that would be raking over past behaviour. Lets instead look at the poor communications currently.
That isn't unwarranted criticism from 'a usual hater'.

[Stu Littlefair]

But we have a clearer picture now and should be making rational decisions.

This...

We know now the NHS is unlikely to be overwhelmed and there is capacity in A&E. Arguments about risk and ending up in A&E have lost most of their weight as a result.

We are reasonably confident that current measures have reduced R₀ below 1 (https://epiforecasts.io/covid/posts/national/united-kingdom/), so there is now scope to think about opening up in the near future.

We know climbing itself has a low-risk of transmission, relative to many other activities. We don't know what the transmission risk from climbing actually is. Important questions we could do with answers to:

1) Is surface transmission a significant thing? Does it depend on mucus (coughs) or is significant virus carried in the breath? As far as I can tell from MedRxiv, we don't actually have good answers here.
2) Is outdoor transmission important at all? One study suggests not (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.04.20053058v1), but it has many flaws - including the fact that it took place during lockdown, when people weren't really outdoors. Amazingly, there seems to be no other quantitative information, but it is very likely much less problematic than indoor transmission.

Despite, this, we can be pretty confident that outdoor climbing has a "pretty low" transmission risk, and should be amongst the first things on the list for when things start to open up, given some good practice advice.

I think we have a good idea what best practice looks like when we do go back out. Keep your distance, ideally climb only with household members, use sanitiser before and after each climb...

Travel is probably the stickiest issue. Travel without contact itself is not a problem; if two climbers climb alone at an isolated crag and meet no others on their journey, does it matter if they come from nearby or not? But of course, this does not reflect reality. Encouraging travel from further away increases the numbers at popular crags; increasing transmission risk. Journeys from afar carry their own transmission risks; petrol stations etc. And then there is a disproportionate impact from travel between communities which should discourage long journeys.

My own feeling is that climbing should be amongst the first things back on the cards as the lockdown eases, but that the BMC should issue advice along the lines above, strongly urge people to stay local and trust to peoples good sense to understand what "local" means. Subject to any potential government regs on regional travel of course!

[danm]

why don't we all [...] have a bit more faith in each other for once?

Because I read the article and it was crap, so any faith I had evaporated? 

Your last para is the usual bollocks that you can use against any argument that isn't of life-and-death importance on a global scale. And yet, plenty of people still care about idle crap like sports, art, beach holidays etc. My clients still want to know whether their suppliers are using process x or process y so they can guess their costs better and squeeze the price of their next order down a bit etc. It's not like the BMC is distracted by the fact that it's changed role and is now devoting all resources to making ventilators, unless I missed that press release?

I thought the article said what it needed to, perhaps a bit ham-fistedly. Showing responsibility to the community at large now will serve us well when it comes to getting access back. So I disagree with you that it is a crap article.

I've been as obsessive and selfishly driven by climbing as anyone, but maybe this whole thing has given me a new perspective. If you think that is bollocks, fair play but I'm happy with it thanks. I'll be grateful in 6 months time if no friends or family have died. Being able to climb again, even having a job, will be a nice bonus as far as I'm concerned.

So sorry I can't agree with you, stay safe and enjoy your cellar.

Pete - thanks for the considered reply, I probably did you a bit of a disservice there, again!

[danm]

One final thing before I slink off to my nice middle class allotment (oh, the privilege!) is that I don't disagree with any of what Stu has written, but it misses out what I call the Dali's Hole factor. That is, it's not just about us and our core community. We know we can go out and assess risk and climb at a level and in such a way to minimise this to ourselves and others. Trouble is with all the others without that ability that follow.

I think we also have to remember what happened in the national parks just before lockdown, that really frightened the powers that be. We're all going to be so thirsty to get out that if there is any window opened to do so it could get pretty ugly again. If only the weather was relentlessly shite I'm sure things would all feel less emotive!

[Davo]

A few observations:

Pete has his anti-BMC axe to grind as usual, nothing new to see here.

Barrows seems to have allowed the sight of his forlornly hanging and dust covered kneepads get to him. A bit of an over-reaction I'd say.

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. Nobody really gives a f*** about a bit of ivy being removed, this is a different ballgame entirely.

I have no doubt we will fight for access tooth and nail once it becomes reasonable to do so. Rob D will likely be back on board for then.

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. I hope to be convinced this isn't the case, so why don't we all chill out a bit and have a bit more faith in each other for once?

Quite a strange response to points made on the forum. Yes some are potentially a bit anti-BMC but most seem quite balanced. I am generally a fan of the BMC but don’t think they have done a great job here. I really see no need for the BMC to have a view point about whether we climb or not, I think the guidance around is fairly clear that potentially some people could but most probably can’t. That is an individual decision and I think it would have been best if the BMC kept to that line eg follow the guidance and social distancing etc ... laying it on thick about not climbing and our moral duty does not seem wise and makes it harder for us to start climbing again at some point. I also think that rather than thinking of the reasons why we should not be climbing the BMC should be considering how we could climb safely and when it might be possible to begin accessing crags safely etc For example what conditions might need to be met if we wish to climb and what precautions should we be thinking about taking e.g avoiding honey pot crags when restrictions are eased. Looking for ways in which we can access and go out climbing seems to me to be the best role for the BMC.

As to the middle class comment: that is just nonsense. This is a climbing forum, we are here discussing climbing related topics. One of these that is important to me is when can I climb again. Is this as important as all the ails and evils of the World such as poverty and starvation? Clearly not and if your argument was valid we would all be working tirelessly towards eliminating poverty and starvation etc. As that clearly isn’t the case I think it is okay for me to wonder about whether I can climb without spreading the virus and if a large part of the guidance out there is rubbish. It seems obvious to me that having large construction sites in operation is going to spread it around much more than me driving to a bouldering spot

[Offwidth]

I'm a bit perplexed that the BMC communications can seem so very poor to some... maybe people don't see them (yes I'd agree there are usability problems with the website but click through to the news page) . Some examples in addition to Dave's live Q&A today:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/update-from-lynn-dave-and-gareth (emailed via BMC newsletters to members)

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-virtual-agm-2020

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/support-the-outdoor-community

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-office-coronavirus-closing-information

As Dave outlined in his talk I think there is no choice at present but to say don't climb or go to mountain areas. The issues with mountain rescue, the police, the press response to accidents and our reputation as climbers and hillwalkers are real.   I've witnessed (through Lynn disappearing for hours)  that the Board is working much harder than usual with weekly virtual meetings and lots to deal with from this. Many other volunteers are also working really hard.

Irrespective of BMC positions made, I would hope the BMC continues to encourage debate. I became a BMC volunteer as I wasn't happy with some aspects of BMC and wanted things changed. My issues included: some problems I saw in guidebooks; the undemocratic nature of the club block vote and some management issues distracting from the core access work.  I think the BMC is bigger than a membership organisation as much of its work is for public good (I'd prefer still to change it to a charity). I've seen the 'grey' work on access in action, as I and other key volunteers trespassed many times out of choice and yet supported BMC agreed public access advice (a situation that seems contradictory but is in fact pragmatic).

The furlough issue is to me financial realism and it's only a few months so far and there is flexibility on renewal if this causes operational issues. Dave said the numbers joining the BMC for Travel Insurance or Mountain Training have dried up. The shop has closed. Salary costs and other fixed costs contine in the meantime. Savings through reduced expenses won't match the losses. I thought the furlough details hadn't been fixed until very recently: on the access team, Dave just said in the Q&A that Rob is back this Friday on his access work ( but to furlough one access staff member from 3 doesn't seem foolish to me, especially as UK government consultation on bills with access issues will have stopped for a while and management and volunteers can pick up some urgent issues). Any decision will have been backed by the Board.  One thing that hasn't been raised here and may be causing confusion is that Sport England funded staff can't be part of the furlough scheme.

I can't see the great relevance of climbing in Austria, Sweden or Germany that Barrows raised: it's not the BMCs fault that they are UK based. As soon as the government eases lockdown, I'm sure the BMC will be pushing for similar access here (subject to issues around honeypotting ... as I suspect some social distancing will be needed for some time). I think some don't realise how serious things were after that first Sunday of 'excess' leisure travel.  Dave said in answer to one of the questions there was a serious threat in Wales of temporary closure of all footpaths.

Finishing on risk I agree that cycling is more dangerous on average (from accident rates of people I know and the stats) but this action is more about perception and policy than risk comparison and the additional need for mountain rescue where an accident happens. Those mountain biking in the hills off tracks might also need mountain rescue following an accident and that will also be regarded as irresponsible.   It is a fact that complacency does lead to too many accidents from experienced climbers so just doing 'easy safer stuff' might not be as safe as it sounds,. Focus is key to reducing risk and our psychology struggles with that when things seem too familiar.  Look at the famous climbers who have hurt themselves falling from work on their roof. Also read Dill's report of Yosemite accidents.

"Most Yosemite victims are experienced climbers, 60% have been climbing for three years or more, lead at least 5.10, are in good condition, and climb frequently.  Short climbs and big walls, easy routes and desperate ones – all get their share of the accidents........at least 80% of the fatalities and many injuries, were easily preventable.  In case after case, ignorance, a casual attitude, and/or some form of distraction proved to be the most dangerous aspects of the sport."

http://www.bluebison.net/yosar/alive.htm

.

[abarro81]

Offwidth, you seem to be forgetting that some (many? most?) of us couldn't care less about the AGM, or whether they closed their office, we just care about going climbing.

I can't see the great relevance of climbing in Austria, Sweden or Germany that Barrows raised: it's not the BMCs fault that there are UK based.

I didn't mention Sweden. The relevance is
Austria: they're now allowed to go climbing within certain social distancing rules/etiquette. Given they're ahead of us here, the equivalent bodies there may have useful materials, thoughts, advice etc to pass on, even if only to stimulate debate within the BMC or provide a template to look at.
Germany: they've still been able to climb at local crags in FJ. Is that just police choices? Was that pushed for by climbers? If so, what arguments/reasons did the authorities seem to find convincing? Did they have more luck approaching federal gov or dealing directly with police forces? etc..

The answer may be that there aren't any equivalent bodies in those places and no-one has any useful advice from there. I don't know, I've never wondered who the Austrian equivalent of various bodies are before. Maybe the BMC hasn't either and is not better placed to ask these questions than me? But these are things I'd want to know if I were in the BMC's position. If they're in no better position than me to ask these questions then I can put some effort into trying to find answers....

My main takeaway from the Q&A was that the BMC are a long way behind the community, and the ABC, in having these conversations and asking these questions.

[Offwidth]

You don't care about the AGM or office but others do and they were just examples (there are many news items since the  virus hit the UK).

I apologise if you didn't mention Sweden in your facebook questions to Dave's Q&A, it must have been someone else. The politics of climbing continuing is just different in different countries. In Austria not least because social distancing is less strict as the virus has been much better contained. In France Font is closed. I'd also bet the Austrian government advice couldn't be so efficiently lampooned here as the UK government's was by tc.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/austria/

The BMC has in my view pressed the pause button in terms of outdoor climbing. The ABC is facing existential  threats to businesses in its membership, and the BMC are trying to help, as they are with the IFSC and Mountain Training.  Talking to DAV or the Austrian Alpine club may be a useful suggestion but I suspect nothing in Austria will change the UK situation right now.

Maybe climbers will honeypot less after this. Most of my guidebook days have been on crags where its rare to see more than the odd extra pair. Even in the Peak most trad routes need more traffic to keep them clean, it's even worse in the mountains.

[abarro81]

The fact that the BMC is good at communicating about bollocks that most members don't care about (who cares if the office is closed? not the vast majority of the membership) only makes it worse that they're poor at communicating about the thing on everyone's mind. I'm perplexed that you're perplexed.

The dynamics of control are different in different countries, I doubt that stops people looking at the success/failure of different measures in different countries AND TAKING DIFFERENCES INTO ACCOUNT in order to try to learn something. Yes, of course it wont change anything right now, but it may be useful to learn from for when things evolve over the coming weeks/months.