[cofe]

get her



on topic: ground erosion should be tackled first but the erosion on rock should be given equal weight. chipping, by climbers or otherwise, will be far more difficult to resolve.

[Bonjoy]

I agree with the comment made at the meeting that experienced bodies should be consulted on the ground erosion measures (ie footpath restores).
 On the foothold erosion thing I think the sooner the better on trialling materials. Summer would probably be the best time to apply as the rock will be drier. I am happy to get involved in this in some way. As has been said before Joe Picalli does architectural repair for a living so may know something about products available, does anyone have contact details and the stuff used on southern sandstone is an obvious candidate.

[Bonjoy]

Is that an Elvis and Camilla handbag? How rare!

[AndyR]

What perhaps most didn't understand last night was just how localised any turf repair would be. We're really talking about a small number of spots that have recently lost vegetation and are deteriorating fast.

Do you think straight returfing would work? My experience of those areas is that although vegetation loss has taken place, and the shallow mineral soil has been removed, there's also been hefty compaction of the remaining soil as well - might be a difficult substrate to get regrowth on?

You may need to speak to people who have some experience of this - might need to look at de-compaction of the remaining ground and use of geotextiles to help longer term stability. Would the people who work for the peak park know about this?

[john horscroft]

In reply to Johnny Brown:

Yep, we're trying to put something together.  Trouble is as with all these things, we're all volunteers and running to stand still.  Keep the pressure up, keep the debate going and give us whatever help you can.  Email if there's anything specific you'd like to do or if you're interested in the working group.

Cheers
JH :?

[Percy B]

Brick stabiliser is the stuff used to sort out crumbling holds. Been successfully used in Northumberland - works well.

As to the damage done to ground under boulders (eg: The Pebble at Stanage), the ground is completely ruined and will take many years to fix. The top soil has gone (the medium that vegetation grows in) and the sub soil has been compacted to death by plumetting boulderers, making it impermeable to rainwater and anything else (eg: grass seed, etc). You could re-turf it, re-seed it, whatever, the stuff won't grow. Leave it alone for 10 years or so, and you might be in business. I guess the ten year bouldering ban at Stanage would not be so well supported.

Whats done is done. I'm sure Stanage edge had grass under it once, all the way up to the base of the routes. The damage can't be undone, and attempts to put grass back will almost certainly be fruitless, so why don't we look at another solution. If you did mange to re-grass the plantation, it would be gone within a couple of weeks bouldering action anyway!

How about some nice pea gravel, or some wood chip....maybe a water feature.....

[andy bowie]

Sand seems to work well in font.

[dave]

Brick stabiliser is the stuff used to sort out crumbling holds. Been successfully used in Northumberland - works well.

What problems has it been used in northumberland? Someone told me that it was used on vienna, but from what i've seen of late the footholds on vienna are just as sandy as they have been in the past.

I agree however that redoing the gress probably won't last if i'm honest. If you look at photos of stanage from the 20s the whole ground was covered in heater and stuff like moorland, but by guess is that was all long gone by like the 70s if not earlier, the difference being at the crag theres a bed of rocks in many cases to stop the erosion going too deep, but you don't get that at the boulders usually.

And for the record i don't buy this crap (as spurted on cocktalk) that bouldering guides make ths situation worse. If bouldering guides dind't exist thed it'd be even worse cos we'd ALL be at the plantation every week cos we wouldn't know of all the other places.

[Percy B]

The Crack was fixed in the County using brick stabilizing jiz, as was the starting flake on Vienna. The foot holds may have been done, but it sounds like they need doing again. Of course, there never used to be any footholds years ago...... I'll ask the Earl what else was mended, but there were a few problems that got sorted out.

[Alan James, Rockfax]

I agree however that redoing the gress probably won't last if i'm honest.

I agree with this but would also add that we need to be very careful in establishing self-imposed bans. This could be taken as a precedent by environmental lobbies to suddenly start pushing us for all sorts of things, after all if we are prepared to not climb in areas because of missing grass then it is going to be difficult to argue that we should be allowed to climb in areas with rare, semi-rare or even common birds.

And for the record i don't buy this crap (as spurted on cocktalk) that bouldering guides make ths situation worse. If bouldering guides dind't exist thed it'd be even worse cos we'd ALL be at the plantation every week cos we wouldn't know of all the other places.

I don't think people on Rocktalk are really taking that seriously. It is quite obvious to most who think about it that you are correct in your assessment - remove guides and people just go to the obvious places which happen to be the ones suffering the worst erosion anyway.

Alan

[Jim]

I think the woodchip idea is a good one. seems regrassing is not really viable.
anyone tested this brick stabaliser on grit yet? does it have any side effects eg make holds smooth or weaken the whole structure etc...
where would be a good place to test, footholds on the arete at higgar?

[Jacqusie]

The woodchips were put down by the ranger in the lodge next to the trackside...

i thought it was a good idea - although the woodchips now have been scattered.

However using them everywhere?? hmmm dunno....

[Bonjoy]

I would not write off the idae of re-grassing without first speaking to people in the know ie footpath restorers. I also don't see what we have to loose running a trial re-growth on one boulder then we can say yay or nay with some confidence and we only forfeit one boulder for a year or whatever. It doesn't have to be something as popular as the pebble for this, there are plenty of areas of heavy erosion under fairly minor stuff.

[Johnny Brown]

I'd agree with that.
I don't like the woodchip idea - parts of the peak look enough like a supermarket car park already.

[bigphil]

I agree with Percy about the difficulty of restoring the devegetated and compacted ground around boulders like the pebble.  I did a study into the vegetation under popular areas of stanage and the quieter areas of bamford at uni.  The species of grass you find around the pebble for example are the most disturbance and trampling tolerant.  Hence the reason there are so few species compared to the less climbed on areas, which are far more diverse.  And Percy is also right about the compacted nature of the remaining subsoil being useless for the growth of new plants.  There are no places for seeds to get established and those that do get trampled before they get a chance to thrive.  Unfortunately for places like the pebble, a localised ban for a year or two would allow some regeneration but again the the first generation of colonising plants would not be the disturbance tolerant ones and the erosion would return as soon as significant numbers of climbers returned.  A long term ban is what would do the trick but as pointed out already thats hardly going to be acceptable.

I think the demand from climbers to use locations like the plantation and other popular areas is always going to make the trade off between protecting the environment around the boulders and actually being able to climb on them a difficult one.  Wood chip works in some places but does make the trackside boulder for example feel more like a playground in the park.  AndyR's idea of a geotextile that could provide some stability for the topsoil underneath boulders is a good one but again time would need to be given to allow the plants to recolonise properly.  I don't think the use of disturbance tolerant non-native or even non-local species is an ecologically sensitive idea and I'm not sure there are that many species that could tolerate the disturbance given by bouldering throughout the winter.  Its during winter that the soil is most saturated and when the most damage is done by trampling feet.  Thats why farmers don't go near there fields with heavy machinery during the winter months.

At the end of the day the problem can be fixed but in my opinion it would take a combination of some remedial treatment (geotextile, topsoil replacement and reseeding with native species) and a change in the habits of climbers, i.e. go somewhere else for a period long enough to allow the vegetation to sort itself out.  And how long would that be?  Who knows but it would perhaps be longer than we'd feel acceptable.

Right.  As I climb down from my soap box I await a howl of complaints, corrections and counter suggestions.

[Bubba]

I think such measures should be put in place for as long as it takes.

If a long ban on a particular boulder is deemed unacceptable by some people, then really I think they need educating. Imagine how the Pebble will look in 10 years time if nothing is done? It'll be a complete fucking mess.

[Percy B]

Whats the point though, Bubs? You ban climbing on the Stanage boulders for 5 years, and repair the damage under the blocks, reseed the soil, etc.

So, after your 5 years is up, everything is looking lovely. You let boulderers back for 2 weeks and it will look the same as it did 5 years ago!

Climbers walking around blocks will kill the vegetation. Even with pads, the falling climbers will compact the soil making it useless for vegetation growth.

The only way to fix the erosion problem is to ban bouldering - an option that I think we would all find unacceptable.

Therefore I think temporary bans are a stupid idea. Lets think of a way of minimising any further damage rather than shooting ourselves in the feet.

[bigphil]

I agree with Bubba.  To be honest there are loads of places to boulder and although they may not be the same quality we really should be more sensitive otherwise complete bans like that place in Italy (or is it switerland?) will be forced upon us.

The huge increase in popularity of bouldering has increased beyond the volume that the peak can sustainably cope with and I think some measures will have to be put in place and we will have to change our ways slightly to ensure that our environmental impact is minimised.  As I said before it is just bad luck that the best bouldering season coincides with the worst time to trample sensitive vegetation and that the impacts are so visible.

However, I also agree with Percy.  I wouldn't like to see a complete ban on bouldering and I for one would respect and help where I could any initiative to reduce our impact whilst maintaining the right to climb.

[Bubba]

You let boulderers back for 2 weeks and it will look the same as it did 5 years ago!

No it won't - that's a very pessimistic point of view - it took years for it to get into it's current state.

[AndyR]

...useful knowledge......

So Bigphil, you're saying that recolonisation by the more trample-resistant species would take several years, even with minimal disturbance and use of reinforcing geotextiles?

If so, it would seem that more intrusive methods might be necessary? Are there alternatives to stone paving/woodchips/gravel etc?

[Percy B]

that's a very pessimistic point of view - it took years for it to get into it's current state.

This is true, but it only takes a couple of weeks of folk walking on the same bit of ground for the vegetation to die. This is how paths are formed, and we know how quick bracken, heather and grass disappear when continually walked upon. I admit that soil loss (as can be seen under Deliverance, for example) has taken a lot longer

Am I being pessimistic, or realistic?

Management a la Harrisons Rocks could be the answer, with the base of the crag/boulders being terraced and filled with gravel or something.

However, you will not find the utopian grassy landings under any popular boulder problems - it is simply not a realistic thing to expect. Neither is banning bouldering at certain areas realistic. There used to be grass under the popular end of Stanage many years ago. I wonder if a ban on climbing routes on the eastern edges to allow grass to grow back would be a popular choice?

[Percy B]

Oh, and climbing bans at most other bouldering areas in the worlds have come about for a variety of reasons, but I can't think of an instance where an area has been closed due to loss of vegetation or erosion.
Hueco - banned because of the (perceived) threat posed by climbers to the rock art there
Cresciano - Access threatened by the quarry company who wanted to blow it up for roadstone
Meschia - Access severly restricted as the land the boulders are on is used by the locals to grow chestnuts (the major source of income for the locals), and the hundreds of climbers filling the places with shit, toilet paper, litter, etc. was not perceived as a good thing by the locals
Little Rock City (US) - banned 'cos the landowner built a golf course around the blocks
Hundreds of areas in the States are closed just because they are on private land
....and these are just the examples I can think of off the the top of my head.

The impact of climbers on bouldering areas in the UK is an important issue, but I think most Brits behave well at the crag. Loss of vegetation and erosion are major problems for us. We don't have such a problem with litter, people shitting at the crags, chipping, use of resin, boulderers behaving badly at the crag, etc. because we have educated ourselves. I'm not saying that this stuff doesn't happen 'cos obviously it does. However, compared to areas abroad (particularly in Europe) British boulderers behave pretty well, and have some respect for the limited natural resources we have. Area closure is a very negative way of dealing with a problem - its just sweeping it under the carpet and ignoring it, the head in the sand approach. The BMC and local activists should think up a strategy to stop erosion getting worse rather than just banning areas.

I'll get off my high horse now, and go and pull on some rock instead.

[bigphil]

So Bigphil, you're saying that recolonisation by the more trample-resistant species would take several years, even with minimal disturbance and use of reinforcing geotextiles

Yes and No, I'm saying that I think it would take several years for proper recolonisation but I also said that the species that exist under popular boulders are the most trample resistant.

If so, it would seem that more intrusive methods might be necessary? Are there alternatives to stone paving/woodchips/gravel etc?

Those rubber tiles you get at playgrounds?  
No seriously, there really isn't that much you can do.  Bouldering causes disturbance to plants and soil, its inevitable, and that leads to erosion, which is worse when the ground is wet in winter.  Bouldering mats help reduce the impact by spreading the load across a wider area and preventing direct damage to the topsoil and vegetation beneath but this will only help in areas not already damaged.  Woodchips hide the damage but also prevent any new colonisation.  Gravel has the same effect.

As much as I'd like to think there was an easy, sustainable solution to erosion in popular areas I don't think there is one.

[clm]

you wanna be listening to phil....hes an environmental consultant.

[petje]

Oh, and climbing bans at most other bouldering areas in the worlds have come about for a variety of reasons, but I can't think of an instance where an area has been closed due to loss of vegetation or erosion.
Hueco - banned because of the (perceived) threat posed by climbers to the rock art there
Cresciano - Access threatened by the quarry company who wanted to blow it up for roadstone
Meschia - Access severly restricted as the land the boulders are on is used by the locals to grow chestnuts (the major source of income for the locals), and the hundreds of climbers filling the places with shit, toilet paper, litter, etc. was not perceived as a good thing by the locals
Little Rock City (US) - banned 'cos the landowner built a golf course around the blocks

In fontainebleau there is an area closed due to erosion. dame jouanne. The (high) blocks where/are getting more and more unstable.