UKC

The definitive thread for the upcoming bolt debate in Cornwall.

When:
Saturday 7th May at 6.30pm

Where:
Cape Cornwall School
Cape Cornwall Road
St. Just
Penzance
Cornwall
TR19 7JX

Why:
It's about time to get a clear and precise fixed gear policy for Cornwall on paper and in the public domain
AND
There is a proposal that the roof at Carn Vellan should become a sports crag. (One route is currently bolted)
AND
Die Umkehrung der Fuge F8b+ at Menachurch Point has recently been put up.

Who:
Me and hopefully throngs of interested parties.

Links:
BMC
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/event_det.asp?event_id=987

Barnaby Carver's thoughts followed by Des Hannigan's response
http://www.javu.co.uk/Climbing/Articles/CornishBolts/index.shtml

Map
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&db=pc&cidr_cli...

Agenda
1) Proposal to designate Carn Vellan roof area as a bolts acceptable area
2) Bolting at Menachurch Point
3) Clarification of Cornish fixed gear policy

In reply to Haggis:

Thanks for this, I found the articles very interesting.

So - can people only contribute to and hear the debate by actually attending?

In reply to Haggis:

I'm bound to say that Barnaby Carver's propaganda doesn't do his case much good. I don't see that 'a large proportion' of Cornwall's climbers are going to be marginalised by the unavailability of four sport routes starting at 7c. I think it's time bolters accepted that Edwards' bolting of, in particular, Red Rose, was completely and utterly crass. And I don't understand why chopping bolts harms the rock when placing them in defiance of agreements doesn't. I am fed up with bolters trying to claim moral high ground in this fashion.

jcm

In reply to Haggis:

Support this meeting. Which ever side of the argument you're on, make sure you turn out and make this meeting truly representative. It's no good moaning afterwards.....

In reply to Anonymous:

I would appreciate it if there was someone I could send a letter to about this, which coud be read out at the meeting. I can't attend for work reasons, but I'd like to make my case for the bolting of Carn Vellan...

In reply to mich & Midgets: You may contribute by sending your thoughts to me (I will be chairing the meeting).

You hopefuly will be able to see the minutes on the BMC website in due course too.

Any debating on this forum regarding the subject matter will be of interest to myself and I'm sure many others but the definitive debate, policy setting etc will happen at the meeting by debating and voting as required by the BMC.

In reply to Anonymous

jcm

‘I think it's time bolters accepted that Edwards' bolting of, in particular, Red Rose, was completely and utterly crass.’

Dear Sir,

Not being a bolter myself I don’t know if I’m qualified to respond.

I readily accept the bolting of Red Rose was completely and utterly crass. Lots of Mark Edwards past bolting was unnecessary and untidy and the local climbing community rightfully opposed it. I don’t agree with Rowland Edwards that environmental lower-offs are needed in Cornwall either. However with regard to Carn Vellan they, and those who agreed with them, were treated unfairly and the response from some was far too harsh. It is also unfortunate that a generation of climbers who had no part in Mark’s past indiscretions are denied the opportunity to climb these outstanding routes in their original style.

I would urge those who are unfamiliar with the areas climbers’ not to be too quick to judge.

In reply to Barney Carver:

Indeed. Well, you would do your case more justice if you said so, in my opinion.

Des H makes some fair points - in particular that the agreement which referred to granite was making that reference only as a reason for why the meeting didn't want to see bolting in Cornwall, and that the Edwardses knew this. If that's true, then your article presents the story rather out of focus, don't you think?

We will have to disagree about whether the Edwardses have been treated worse in the past or treated others worse. I have had some small opportunity to observe some of their behaviour and in my opinion it was not good, and we have all had the opportunity to see some of the abuse Des H has received from the pro-bolting lobby (yes, you - Mick and Alan) and in my opinion that was disgraceful.

I agree with your last sentence, or at least certainly that people who haven't seen the routes and know something of what they are talking about shouldn't be too quick to judge. But just reading your article made me (and I was previously agnostic about Carn V) check my diary to see if I could come down and vote against bolts there. You would do better - and it may not matter, most people have preconceived notions about this - to put a less obviously biased perspective forward, in my view.

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

In fact, I've just read it quickly again and all this nonsense about how there'll always be 'climbers' willing to 'reequip' the routes if the 'bolt smashers' continue to 'impose their will' makes my blood boil again. It's the Edwards' eco-nonsense revisited.

Why not rewrite the sentence as there will always be 'climbers' willing to 'enforce the local no-bolting agreements' by removing the bolts if 'the power drillers' continue to 'impose their will'. Wouldn't sound so good then, hey?

I don't understand why you feel the need to present the history at all, if you're going to do it in such a biased manner.

Who were the other climbers who placed bolts in Cornwall, then?

What your case needs is some reasoned presentation. Not one-sided rhetoric. Midgets, you're a reasonable fellow. If you want this place bolted why not post something making the case sensibly?

jcm

In reply to Anonymous:

Haven't read the full article yet but that quote sounds very Scott Muirish...

In reply to Anonymous:

Well, as a Cornish climber, I thought it was a well written and thought out article. I support its arguements entirely (even though I am unlikely to climb at such lofty grades). Dragging "Red Rose" into the discusion is an irrelevancy. It would also be a good idea to get a few facts straight: Barney has never placed a bolt or peg in Cornwall, however he is willing to articulate the case for those who choose to do so.

In reply to Mark Kemball & JCM:

After writing this, I'm emailing it to Haggis in the hope that he'll read it out at the meeting.

The history of Cornish bolting has been long and involved. There's been heated discussion and bad feeling between both sides in the past. It's also something which I feel is entirely unrelated to this debate. This debate is, or should be, about whether to allow the bolting of routes on the roof section of Carn Vellan. A side issue is Simon Young's recent bolting on the Culm. Things have moved on since the past, and I think that bringing it up here can only cause bad feeling and prevent us from reaching a decision we can all respect. With this in mind - let's look at the issues.

One argument presented by the "no-vote" will be an environmental one. That bolting degrades and de-values the wilderness. To my mind, this is clearly bunk. All forms of climbing degrade and devalue the wilderness. We carve paths through vegetation, clean rock, leave trails of chalk whose visual impact is a thousand times worse than a smattering of bolts. A fact we have to face as climbers is that we have a negative impact on the environment we love. To level this accusation at bolting any more than another type of climbing is blindness at best.

No - to my mind the relevant topic of debate is this. A minority of sport climbers, operating at the higher levels, want to bolt a section of cliff to provide themselves with routes to climb. This section of the cliff is not currently being used. To give an analogy it's rather like falling asleep in front of the TV, but waking up and crying "I was watching that!" when your child switches to the Teletubbies. My position is that if we are to deny them this there has to be a very good reason.

So let's look at some of those reasons. I've already discussed environmental concerns. Another argument commonly proposed is that if we allow bolting in one place it will all too quickly and easily spread to other cliffs. The very fact that this discussion is occurring now, after the bolting of a very small number of routes, proves that this is not the case. The climbing community is very effective at policing itself. In fact, I believe that by allowing the bolts to remain in Carn Vellan will be to help limit the spread of bolts, as it shows that the two communities can reach sensible compromise solutions. These solutions will minimise the chance that some nutter bolts Bosigran out of frustration, which is something I would hope no-one at this meeting wants! Meetings like this one will ensure that the bolting remains limited to very specific cases which are of interest to sport climbers, but currently of no use to trad climbers.

But there's that word - currently. Another argument is that these routes will one day be cutting edge trad climbs. That's fine. They can still be enjoyed today as world-class sport routes. "The Big Issue" is no less a classic today because it was once bolted, is it? If someone removes the bolts with a view to trad-climbing the pitch it is something I would wholeheartedly support, but it is a different issue to the one we are discussing at this meeting.

So, in summary. The bolting of these routes at Carn Vellan would provide me and others with world-class routes to climb, and I am selfishly and personally in favour of seeing them bolted. I see no problem with this however, as I am taking nothing away from any climbers operating today. If, in the future, someone climbs these routes on traditional gear, this should be supported, and the bolts removed. Given this, I see no good reasons why a small section of the climbing community should not be allowed to have the routes they have asked for. To grant them this at this meeting would be a gesture on your part which would help ensure good relations between sport and trad elements in climbing.

Whatever decision is reached I hope it is reached amicably, and you all manage to get out climbing afterwards.

In reply to Haggis:

Here you go - this is what I wrote:

I'm no expert, so I don't know how useful this e-mail will
be, but I guess the more views that you have, the more
balanced the outcome has a chance of being?

I've climbed regularly in Cornwall over the past 12 years,
only at lowley grades. It is a special place and I'm sure
that everyone who has climbed there feels that.

It may be that there are places where the use of bolts
would be appropriate - at the grades that I climb, I am
unlikely to ever climb in such places. So for me, on a
selfish level, I would be quite happy for no bolts to ever
be placed, although I can understand why better climbers
might want them.

But I think that what should be made very clear are the
limits of any bolting. Rather than saying where bolting
should NOT be allowed, I think it would be better for
there to be an understanding that the underlying ethic is
to have NO bolting, with perhaps particular routes or
areas named as exceptions. Where such areas are named, the
limit of the areas should be made clear.

I think we are very lucky to have a trad heritage, and
that we should do our best to look after that heritage.
Bolting one route may not seem so bad, especially on a
huge roof - after all, it is allowing people to do routes
that may otherwise be impossible.

But it would be easy, once bolting has been accepted in
one area, for this then to be used as an arguement to put
bolts in other areas. I think this is the reason that
people become so polarised - this fear of what bolting one
area might lead to. I don't want lower off chains to make
things safer - the only bolts I feel are at all
acceptable, are those on very hard routes with no natural
protection, in areas where it has been agreed by local
climbers.

It is easy for some bolting to encourage those who like
bolted routes into an area, and then for that to lead to
demands for further bolting... and it isn't the bolting of
a single route, but the idea of bolts gradually creeping
into other areas which is horrible...

Anyway - sorry for wittering on, but I wanted to say
something, as it is such an important issue - I don't
really feel very qualified to comment, but I don't want to
not take any responsibility either!

Good luck with the debate.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Sure, I accept your last sentence. By 'bolter' I meant pro-bolter.

I agree to an extent 'dragging Red Rose in' isn't relevant, but after all it was in the article I was criticising. I repeat anyway - if you're going to present the history, don't do it out of focus, and if you're going to slag the 'day of action' people, even without naming them, then you do need to give the background fairly, which frankly I don't think BC does.

And actually I'm not sure how much I do agree that RR is irrelevant. The fact is that the Edwards' behaviour was entirely ludicrous on several occasions including that one, and that that is much of the reason why these routes have attracted such opposition. If they'd been put up by a climber who commanded respect (Ken Palmer for example) then there wouldn't have been half so much trouble. Much of the ferocity of the opposition arises because they are Edwards' bolts, and because Edwards apologists and bolters still fail to accept that Edwards was more or less entirely in the wrong. If you stand underneath RR and look up at it, and you don't know instinctively that bolting it was ridiculous, then I'm not on your side in any debate.

I'm trying to help your side, you know. You aren't putting your case persuasively (or at least BC isn't).

Anyway, are you serious? You support the argument that people ought to vote for this crag to be bolted because bolters are going to bolt it anyway? Way to go. The more I hear said in support of this motion, the more inclined I am to cancel my engagements, drive down to Cornwall for the weekend and vote against it.

jcm

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

Now that's more like it. Haven't time to reply now but I will do.

One point though - at least one of these routes has already had its bolts removed and been climbed without them, and as I understand it the idea now is to replace those - is that right? Which you seem to say you would oppose?

jcm

In reply to Haggis: (13:22 Tue)

And maybe the definitive slogan for the upcoming debate: Can't Climb? Sports Climb!

Agenda
1)Proposal to designate Carn Vellan roof area as a bolts acceptable area - No.
2)Bolting at Menachurch Point - No.
3)Clarification of Cornish fixed gear policy - the policy is crystel clear.

In reply to climbright:
I can still see no reason to object to bolting Carn Vellan roof, but as Menachurch is on my doorstep, I feel rather more strongly about this. Much of this was discussed earlier http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=119920&v=1#1654780 but be honest, how many of the people objecting to the bolts have ever been to Menachurch? (or even know where it is.) As far as I know, there has been no objections from the local activists (and with 3 trad new routes on the crag, I should know). I'm not at all happy with the idea of a group of people 80 miles away, most of whom have never seen the bolts in question, voting at a meeting which I am unable to attend, for their removal.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I raised this point in an email with the Chairman yesterday (26th). I've no problem with Menachurch being discussed, (although have no intention of making Mr. Young's case for him) but I too am uncomfortable with the idea that a vote might be taken on this issue. I can't see how it would be in anyway representiative of the Bude climbers and fear if a bunch of people in West Cornwall condemn this route then it may cause unnecessary friction between different areas of the county. Surely the BMC's role is to resolve conflict between separate groups not create it?

In reply to Anonymous: JCM

Dear Sir,

You have every right to criticise my opinions which I have every right to express. I’ve no control of how you choose to interpret my view but it’s clear, those who know me understand my position. The title of my article, ‘...A Personal View...’, indicates its inherent bias and I would point out that Mr. Hannigan’s letter is hardly bipartisan.

It’s true to say both pieces mislead, but together the page on Javu represents a good balance. People are free to choose what to agree with but will probably do so based on preconception. Frankly, anyone who believes all that I say, or all that Des says, is more foolish than the pair of us!

If you choose to drive down to Cornwall for the weekend I’ll happily debate this with you but would rather spend the time discussing the matter with local climbers who do have valid and genuine concerns. It’s not a two-sided debate; there is a broad spectrum of opinion that needs to be heard.

I do have the utmost respect for Mr. Hannigan and his standpoint and it’s with great reluctance that I must disagree with him. I know some of those involved in the ‘Day of Action’ and made it clear in my article I consider them to be ‘reasonable people’. They have contributed a great deal to Cornish climbing and I do not criticise their actions, or those of the Edwardses, lightly.

This may be an interesting or amusing controversy to those unfamiliar with the area but for the close-knit Cornish climbing community it has always been unsettling and deeply divisive. The Hannigans and Edwardses have been friends of my family for as long as I can remember, so it is only after much careful consideration that I make my view known.

Growing-up here throughout the past controversy, myself, and other young climbers, have been left feeling a little like children whose parents are going through an acrimonious divorce – not liking what we see but powerless to stop it. However we’ve all matured now; the children have grown up and want to make their own way in the world – and yes, gad damn-it! The kidz wana watch some Teletubbies!

In reply to Mark and Barney: It would be perfectly legitimate for anyone attending the meeting to propose that Menachurch NOT be discussed. Indeed, anyone who cannot attend can have me propose that on their behalf.

Never the less, I feel that this meeting is the right place to discuss the matter as there is unlikely to be a meeting in or near Bude in the near future.

In reply to Anonymous:


No - Rewind is to remain bolt-free as I understand it, which is as it should be.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Then put yourself out, like I will have too (and travel 200 very inconvenient miles): 'I'm not at all happy with the idea of a group of people 80 miles away...voting at a meeting which I am unable to attend, for their removal' Then put yourself out. Or do you see a foregone conclusion?

In reply to climbright: I can't, it's as simple as that, I'm working all day and it's my wedding anniversary. I don't actually see it as a forgone conclusion, a straw poll of local climbers would indicate that the bolts should stay.

In reply to Haggis:

I am a punterish local, and will be at the meeting; I'm looking forward to (hopefully) informed debate, in the spirit of what I've read on Javu, and the thread on Simon Young's Culm bolts.

In the meantime, could someone help me clear up a couple of points that seem to crop up regularly in this debate. They are both used as arguments against bolting.

1) Is 'creep' a legitimate concern? I've heard people say that once you legitimise bolting in one area, it inevitably spreads to other areas. Is there a precedent for this? I don't think the bolting that has happened in Penwith can count, since none of it had any official sanction as far as I know. [Related to this - can someone tell me whether there really are 'mystery' bolts at Trewavas, as claimed by Des Hannigan on Javu? I've been there a few times and never noticed...]

2) Is the fear of punterish bolting real? That is, if you allow a few 8a and upwards lines to be bolted, will you suddenly get a rash of bolted E1's, or (horror), severes? Personally, I doubt it - I don't know any climber that would do a thing like that. And yet it's an argument I've heard used, and I wonder if there's any precedent (apart from punters chipping bouldering problems).

Cheers,

Jules

In reply to Jules Lewis:

Re. the mystery bolts at Trewavas: I believe these were placed by local rescue types during a training exercise (either mine rescue or coastguard???)

cheerio
dave

In reply to Dave Henderson: Living near crags does not give you ownership of them, or the right to make decisions that do not reflect the consensus of opinion throughout the climbing community.

In my opinion, Pete Oxley was wrong to bolt Big Issue, Mark Edwards was wrong to bolt Red Rose and Simon Young is wrong to bolt at Menachurch (and I have climbed there, by the way, as if that's in any way relevant). What gives someone operating at the top grades the right to make decisions that would be completely derided by the entire climbing community if EXACTLY the same decision was made about an E1?

In reply to tomrainbow:


Without bringing rights into it, I think one argument in favour of bolting at the 8c mark is that the availability of similarly hard routes, in a style that suits your style of climbing, can be extremely limited.

E1's, on the other hand, are relatively abundant.

regards,

Jules

In reply to tomrainbow:

Another thought :


I wonder if the tone of the debate would be different if some other climber besides Mark Edwards had bolted Carn Vellan? I understand that some of his bolting in the past is widely seen as mistaken. Perhaps because of this, he will never be able to place an uncontroversial bolt?

Would the debate be less heated if, say, Ken Palmer had bolted Carn Vellan?

If so, wouldn't it be most constructive to try to leave personalities out of the debate entirely, and discuss "the bolts", rather than "Mark Edwards' bolts"?

Jules

In reply to tomrainbow: Well, a healthy debate seems to be going on here, I hope next weekends meeting goes similarly. As I'd wanted to attend, but known for some time that I wouldn't be able to, some weeks ago, I sent an e-mail to Haggis, summarising my position on the issues. He has promised to read it out at the meeting. As I suspect I may not be the only one who does not make it, here's the text:

"To summarise my position, I am strongly against any widespread placement of
bolts in Cornwall but in favour of those in both Menachurch and Carn Vellan
remaining in place. Why? Well, I don't see it as the thin end of the wedge.
The bolts, in my opinion, make some otherwise impossible (but superb)
climbing possible. I know Mark Edwards has climbed Rewind without bolts, but
the view among a number of Cornish climbers is that this would not have been
possible if he had not already worked it with bolts. So by taking the
ethical stance "no bolts in West Penwith" we are effectively denying
climbers the use of a potentially superb venue. Note - I reached this
position following discussions with "pro bolts at Carn Vellan climbers"
based in West Penwith - I think it is extremely unlikely that I will attempt
any of the sports routes.

Menachurch, on the other hand, is on my doorstep in fact, I was involved in
the first ascents of two trad lines there while Simon was working his route.
I have no problems with the bolts - they are not affecting any of the trad
lines and are almost invisible unless you know exactly where to look.
Furthermore, I know most of the local Culm activists and in discussions with
them, I have not yet found anyone who has any problems with the bolts. (To
be fair, I've not yet spoken to David Hillebrandt, and judging from our
previous discussions on the topic, I suspect he may well be among the
purists who object.)

Perhaps one way forward would be to recognise that "bolt free" climbing is
the superior ethic and so say that anyone making a genuine bolt free ascent
(ie bolts also not used in working the route prior to the eventual ascent)
would have the right to rename the route and chop the bolts. (In much the
same way as some old aid routes were renamed)."

In reply to Haggis:

Jules Lewis asked 2 questions which, paraphrased, are:
- if bolts are allowed in one area do they spread to others?
- if hard routes are allowed to be bolted, does bolt use spread down the grades?

Let’s look at Dorset.

In 1993 Pete Oxley asked a BMC southwestern meeting to agree to bolts being acceptable on certain cliffs at Swanage. He got his way over virtually every cliff he’d put forward, despite some of the people at the meeting personally not wanting bolts, because we respected that he had a different opinion and we thought that we should compromise. And we hoped that by giving him what he wanted, we would keep some areas bolt-free. One thing he did not get was bolting on one half of The Promenade at Swanage. Also agreed at the meeting was that retrobolting in Dorset would only occur with the first ascensionist’s permission.

So has there been ‘creep’? Well, a few years later in ’96 there was another Dorset bolt meeting at which the other half of The Promenade was allowed to be bolted, as was a section of sea cliff adjacent to Dancing Ledge Quarry.

And on the cliffs there’s also been ‘creep’:
- Lulworth East had been designated bolt-free in ’93, yet 9 routes were bolted on the roofs there, with the routes coyly being publicised as being on ‘Boulder Ruckle Far Far West’.
- Implicit in the retrobolting agreement was that if permission had not been obtained from a first ascensionist, the route would not be retrobolted. Obviously, if the first ascensionist was not known or could not be contacted, then permission could not be obtained. And if there was no permission, no retroing could occur. But a few people decided, when they could not easily contact the first ascensionist, that they could retro routes nonetheless – this led to six routes at The Cuttings being illicitly bolted.
- Half a dozen of my routes have been retroed on Portland, yet I’d definitely not given permission.

So, yes, bolt use spreading is a concern.

The Cuttings also supplies the answer to the second question. At The Cuttings is a short nondescript area of rock which had been climbed over at about Hard Severe but which didn’t warrant detailed description. This now has twelve bolted lines on it, such as the meanly-named Only Placing Bolts for Nigel (F3).

For these reasons and others, I’m against the bolting at Carn Vellan.

In reply to Haggis:

I forgot: At a BMC meeting in Dorset this year, Topmast Quarry was also designated a bolt area ...as was Mike's Corner...

In reply to Nigel Coe:


Your argument has more relevance to the Menachurch bolts where you have a long coastline of cliffs with similar geology and style of crag (much like Swanage/ Portland). It is understandable that many people find the Swanage/ Portland bolting rules incomprehensible when you have virtually identical limestone cliffs next to each other where some arcane wrangling from the past has arbitrarily designated one sport and the other trad. That risk of confusion and a blurred ethical message seems similarly pronounced on the Culm coast.

In contrast, Carn Vellan is a distinct oddity on the West Cornwall coast. It is a different rock type (slate? - correct me if I am wrong) to, and on average far steeper than, the other crags along that coast. The rationale for it being treated differently to Bosi, Chair Ladder, etc, etc is quite obvious visually. Bolt creep wouldn't seem to be much of a risk there.

In reply to midgets of the world unite:

In passing, I am sure I remember reading a comment by someone who'd done the route (Steve McClure? Adrian Berry) that the Big Issue is not actually very good as a trad route: reliant on eroding fixed wires and lots of prior knowledge for the other gear. Apologies if you have also done it and know better.

In reply to tobyfk:

I don't really see this - the bolted line at Menachurch is in the mouth of a cave - I can't think of anywhere similar on the coast. I think that you really need to go and look at it before you can pass judgement.

In reply to Mark Kemball: Does the bolted line at Menachurch compromise Abandon Hope or Flight of the Laden Swallow?

In reply to tobyfk:

Carn Vellan is Killas Slate. There are other cliffs described as Greenstone/Killas: Zennor, Boswednack, Gurnards Head area, Pedn Kei, Zawn Dual, Carn Gloose, Freedom Zawn. One cliff, Windy Zawn has Granite & Killas. And apart from Carn Vellan, Crowns Mine Cliff, Evening Slabs and Kenidjack are Killas.

Admittedly, venues such as Evening Slabs are unlikely to be bolted by people intent on the highest technical difficulty, but going by the example of The Cuttings on Portland, bolting could spread down the grades.

In reply to Nigel Coe: It lowers off below what is left of the traverse (Flight of the Laden Swallow?), it does not go near anything else.

In reply to Nigel Coe:


I take your point and bow to your superior knowledge (or closer guidebook proximity, mine are in another continent right now). But greenstone is quite different from Killas though isn't it? So really we're just talking about two major slate cliffs of which one is a totally worked-out slab.


Have you actually been to The Cuttings? Only the most in-bred Dorzet dweller would really consider it a 'crag'

In reply to Mark Kemball:


Agreed but I reckon I have spent enough time on the culm to imagine it. Like one of those sea caves at Northcutt Mouth but bigger?

I think personally that if we have to have rules they should be kept simple. Don't bolt North coast culm. Don't bolt Cornish granite. Don't retro popular existing lines. Do bolt overhanging slate. Do bolt limestone choss. etc

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Dear Nigel,

No one in Cornwall would wish to see any of the other Killas/Greenstone cliffs you mentioned bolted and I for one would object most strongly if they did. I’ve not even suggested re-bolting Carn Vellan but simply we should allow sport climbing on the roof section due to its unique quality.

The Cornish climbing community has always been very successful at policing itself but at Carn Vellan this went too far leaving a lasting unsightly mess on the cliff. If landowners and conservationist see the impact our disputes have on the crags they won’t take sides they’ll just blame us all and the consequences could be far reaching. It doesn’t matter who started it, or what is most damaging as climbers we all share the responsibility for it. There needs to be some give-and-take to resolve such situations in a sustainable way.

Those keenest to criticise the use of bolts or most willing to say it will spread seem very short of suggestions how to best resolve the current situation. Simply cutting the bolts again shows no appreciation for the quality or difficulty of the routes in question and, at Carn Vellan at least, has not worked in the past.

So I’ll ask everyone what should be done?

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Thanks Nigel - that's exactly what I was interested in hearing about.

At the risk of sounding extremely ignorant - when you and other talk about retro-bolting a route, are you talking about putting bolts in a route that's already been climbed trad? If so, is there any sensible reason for this?

I can understand the opposite happening, and love the idea of 'freeing' routes [with Rewind being an ultimate example, perhaps], but (imho) bolting routes that can be climbed trad is just daft.

Or is it that there are some crags that are (retro) kitted out to be solely sport climbing crags? In other words, I know I'll be able to attempt every route there with a set of quickdraws, and not bother with a trad rack?

-j-

In reply to Barney Carver:

Hi Barney,

Do you know what the current situation at Carn Vellan is, i.e. are there actually any bolts there? I went on Friday for a look, and all I found was some tat in the right corner on what I think is the aid route, Ziggurat(?). I had a good long look at the roof - maybe it's a case of knowing where to look?

To anyone who hasn't been to Carn Vellan, I can assure you that this is -not- a crag that will be seen by the general public! I passed the place twice before the guide convinced my to gingerly make my way down a wet grassy slope that looks like it ends at a cliff, but actually drops down on to ledges... For this reason, the debate about bolts there is purely a climber's debate.

Also, given the relative invisibility of the bolts (I did try!), and the visibility of tat on the aid route, I think the aesthetic argument is hardly applicable. [Unless bolt smashers are volunteering to remove rusted pegs from Cornish crags?]

Personally, I think the arguments put forward for the bolting at Carn Vellan, and Simon Young's argument for bolting at Menachurch are pretty sound, but I do worry about 'creep', as I mentioned earlier in the thread.

Perhaps it's time to accept bolting at Carn Vellan as a sort of test case - to see what the knock on effects will or will not be?

Jules

In reply to Jules Lewis:

There are a lot of trad climbs along the north cornish coast where you dont need a trad rack, you can quite happily climb with a few quickdraws and a sport rope.
Are these climbs where the only protection is from pegs, trad routes or are they simply badly bolted sport climbs?
They have metal work stuck out of the rock, and you climb up simply clipping each succesive peg/bolt....

The entire debate to my mind is a pointless argument over semantics.

Will

The current BMC policy for the Culm Coast (including North Cornwall and Devon) is that the coast should remain bolt free. With reference to the bolting at Menachurch this is clearly a unilateral decision on the part of Simon Young and as the attached list shows, against the wishes of a significant number of active climbers. The adventurous nature of the Culm coast has attracted new routers and climbers from all over the country. It is not the position of an individual or a group of local climbers to determine policy without consultation with the climbing community as a whole. The attached list of passionate climbers gives an indication of the national interest in preserving the adventurous nature of this stretch of coast.

Culm Coast

…List of people supporting the removal of Menachurch Point bolts, and the future preservation of the Culm Coast as a bolt-free climbing area.

‘We the undersigned believe the Culm Coast should remain bolt-free, and that the bolts placed at Menachurch Point should be removed by the person/persons that placed them.’

* The following names are recorded from conversations in person and on the phone, during the period April 27th – May 3rd 2005

Steve Findlay
Mike Robertson
Pat Littlejohn
Dave Hillebrandt
Dave Turnbull
Steve Monks
Steve McClure
Seb Grieve
Shane Ohly
Ben Heason
Adam Mulholland
Dave Pickford
Chris Savage
Ben West
Neil Gresham
Martin Crocker
Nick Dixon
Libby Peter
Ian Vickers
Charlie Woodburn
John Arran
Ann Arran
Adam Wainwright
Stephen Venables
Julian Lines
Grant Farquhar
Julian Walker
Steve Richardson
Paul Twomey
Niall Grimes
Andy Cave
Twid Turner
Louise Thomas
Matt Ward
Ian Peters
Nigel Coe
Scott Titt
Dave Viggers
Moira Viggers
Bernard Newman
Jan Newman
Ian Parsons
Tony Penning
Dan Donovan
Trevor Massiah
Barry Durston
Ron Barraclough
Kevin Howett
Dave Garner
Vika Moisy
Jeff Bennett
Mark Williams
Sarah Jane Dobner
Martin Corbett
Pru Waters
John Horscroft
Pat Horscroft
Gilly McArthur
Meilee Rafe
Ben Wilkinson
Andy Norton
Laura Hudson
Bob Brewer
Elise Unger
John Alcock
Rachel Carr
Steve Kelly
Ruth Taylor
Guy Jarvis
Paul Donnithorne
Emma Alsford
Mick Fowler
Ken Wilson
Elinor Currey
Chris Snell
John Volanthen
AnnabelleVolanthen
Jenny Caddick
Andy Hillon
Andrea Berg
Alex Jabubowski
Ben Abell
Dave Sykes
C Saxloft
David Cunch
Martin Dale
David Wood
Greg Cunningham
D Poole
M Shields
K Jark
J M Bracey
David Norris
Pete Jones
Garan Comley
John Roberts
Bethan O’Keefe
Y Marten
R Hayes
Chris Hudgins
Simon Wilson
Dai Lampard

In reply to Steve Findlay:

and then what?....replace them with a differant kind of bolt called a peg?....

In reply to Xboulder:

Dragging in a different issue here! Pegs are not the same - they can only be placed where the rock allows it and sometimes the placements are not reliable. The Menachurch route would not take pegs.

my twopenneth:

We should make the debate about fixed gear [1] in general (as is intonated in advert for the Cornish Bolt debate event on BMC's website.[2] ) not just confine it to bolts.

Fixed gear – what are the factors?

A. Environmental impact (visual and mechanical)

B. Climbing ethics – (climbing difficulty and style, can it be done without fixed gear)

C. Climbers responsibility – (climbing and leaving fixed gear for the next climber)

D. Creating a climbing experience (and what proportion of climbers will benefit)


All climbing has an environmental impact and all climbing has some knock-on effect to the next climber or other user. Climbing is a valuable human activity and should be one that is promoted and its freedoms preserved.

The impact of most climbing is acceptable because many of us get a worthwhile experience from it. In other words we are prepared to cause some degree of change to the rock in order to enjoy climbing it.

We are not going to stop climbing and climbing will not stop affecting the environment.

So the questions are: what levels are we happy with - what actions are acceptable?
That being; Acceptable environmental impact, acceptable climbing style and acceptable provision for future climbers, in return for a worthy climb?

Those who want to share some common view on what is best practice for the community, need to arrive at a fair and detailed working policy for that practice. It seems that the mountaineering commission are doing so for alpinism, [3] shouldn’t we do the same for rock climbing?

If we had a scoring or decision method, we can weigh up the scales of creating a climbing experience against other factors A,B,C (or combinations of) and use this to help us choose how to make the climb acceptable.

We need some hard evidence to help attach numbers to our swaying balance. To know that, we need to know the actual effects of climbing and the actual effects of using different types of fixed gear?

This is difficult to quantify and may be difficult to reach consensus, but ought to be tried. Certainly a community who seek a shared best practice agreement should try.

Of course there are, and probably always will be some climbers who think that climbing should never be regulated, and all this has no meaning to them.

But if we are to reach an agreement in some club, it has to be through the development of a fair and practical policy for placing fixed gear in the UK.

I think just saying ‘no bolts’, is not enough.

Also, it could quite possibly be an unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of judgment or opinion formed before the facts are known.


This statement may change without notice, and is a personal view of Lee Bartrop.


[1]

Fixed gear could (and it is debatable whether it should) include:
Pegs, slings, rope, chipped holds, bolts, pegs, wooden blocks, bedknobs and other ironmongery, trees, chockstones, glued on rock, glued on holds, ladders.

[2]

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/events.asp
07/05/05 Cornish Bolt Debate

Following the Dorset Bolt Debate (2nd April), it’s Cornwall’s turn to review the issue of bolting. The discussion will include clarification of the fixed gear policy and the bolts placed on Carn Vellan/Menachurch Point.

[3]

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/world/alps/bolt.htm

In reply to:

I've just written an article on planetFear about the bolts in Cornwall and tried to explain why they shouldn't be there:
http://www.planetfear.com/article_detail.asp?a_id=481

In reply to Lee Bartrop:

well said!

In reply to shane ohly:


As I understand it, it is ten years since the last proper discussion of this issue (please correct me if I'm wrong - I wasn't even climbing then!).

Since bolting -is- happening, it makes sense (to me) to re-address the issue, and see where consensus now lies. Barney's comments here, and on Javu, have come across extremely respectful (as he does in person). You seem to be implying that questioning the status quo is disrespectful by definition - surely you're not advocating some sort of climbing priesthood?

You also seem to imply in your article that Barney actually placed the bolts at Carn Vellan - something he clearly contradicts in this thread.

On one of your picture captions you say "Let's not forget that bolting and drilled pegs vandalise the rock". For the sake of balance - how do you feel about bolt smashing?

I hope you won't take any of these comments personally. Although I'm totally undecided on the issue, I understand that others have very strong opinions, including those like yourself who are much more likely to actually climb the routes we're talking about!

Jules

Just a strange little thought.....

IF every route on a random halfmile stretch of the north coast was bolted, and then one counted how many people climbed the sport routes and how many climbed the other routes in the area over a period of time, i wonder what the ratio would be?

Would people not climb the routes? would they get more traffic?

History and ethics aside, what do climbers really want?

Will

In reply to Steve Findlay:

I don't intend disrespect to anyone involved, good effort collecting the signiatures, I'm sure they've all climbed on the Culm and have carefully considered the issues (and will all attend the meeting this weekend). It sounds like you've patiently asked over 100 people individually, and no doubt some of them you have. Over the period April 27th - May 3rd.

But I can't help wondering how many signatures you got by passing a petition round in say the St Govans Inn, Bosherston, over the Bank Holiday weekend, when an awful lot of climbers visited Pembroke? I dare say a lot of people on that list would honestly say what they think and as far as I can tell you haven't asked anyone who's anything like me at all. However I for one might well sign anything there, in that situation and atmosphere, especially if asked by someone well known who I respected, in a room full of lots of other people I respected, (and someone who bought me a drink had just signed it). I hope I'm the only one this shallow, and honestly hope that out of those 100 odd climbers none are affected by peer pressure and group conformality etc.

In reply to Xboulder:

That is not a good argument. Its like saying if we stuck a motorway through the middle of the lakes, how many more people would visit Wasdale ?

In reply to Barney Carver:

Any plans to retro-bolt/replace existing fixed gear with bolts in Cornwall?

In reply to Paz: You seem to imply that Steve didn't ask the 100 or so people in the list. Well, speaking for myself, he didn't. In fact, Mike Robertson rang me, explained what he and Steve were collecting signatures for, and asked if I wished to be associated with it, which I did. I've no doubt, knowing Mike and Steve, that they did ask all on the list.

And no, Mike didn't buy me a drink. How about it, Mike?!

In reply to Jules Lewis:

Yes, retrobolting is putting bolts in an existing route. As opposed to rebolting, which is replacing bolts that have corroded or been removed.

In reply to GrahamD:
Wrong it is a very valid point. We are not talking about getting there we are talking about what you do when you get there. More people in general would climb in cornwall if we had motorways here, which really has nothing to do with bolts.

Would more people climb a route if it was bolted than if it was trad?

How can you have a debate on bolts if that very simple question isn't factored in...

In reply to Xboulder:

If (as is more and more common these days, what with wall trained climbers) people don't own trad gear, don't know anyone who can lead a trad route for them, and have learned to climb at the wall, where they have become familiar with bolted routes, then it is much easier for them to transfer those skills to bolted routes outdoors.

However, if they haven't actually experienced trad climbing, then it is very difficult for them to know if they would like it or not - or what indeed the attraction of it might be.

Should you offer people what they are familiar with, or should you make sure that they get the opportunity to experience something which may be more challenging and yet may offer them a wider experience?

To take it to an extreme, if you replaced some of the routes with B&Q stores, I'm sure that more people would visit them.

In reply to Paz:

REGULATING A CAN OF WORMS & FOREVER SHARPENING PENCILS

yes, there is something of a problem with petitions and pub chats and a gathering of people taking a vote.

Do all the accurate facts get put on the table, does everyone get a equal share of the debate, do all points of view get aired, does the collection represent the whole community ?

I'm no statistician, but it is going to be very difficult. Perhaps this is why even though some meetings in the past have come out with a no bolting policy, bolts are still appearing periodically.

In my last post I tried to think about a method of arriving at a fair decision, by looking at fixed gear in general and weighing up the odds of creating a climbing experience against the resulting factors.

It takes the premise that it is ok to climb even though it causes damage. It then is a way of arriving at a level of acceptable damage.

The thing is though, if a body like BMC are going to work with something like that, what does it mean for the freedom of expression as a climber?

And if we have a regulatory body formalising all this stuff, will that then open up the area of litigation? If there is a defined set of acceptable actions, and they are then crossed, is there then a potential for liability?

Will climbers then need to have a climbing license, gained after tests, before they can put up a new route, or climb at all?

Will climbers have to pay a toll to get to the crag, to pay climbing police and gardeners and fixed gear fixers?

When we try to draw a line around the issue of bolts we find ourselves going back and getting a sharper and thinner pencil and drawing another line - the closer we look at the edges of the line the more fuzzy it seems to get.

this statement may change without notice and is the personal view of Lee Bartrop

In reply to Xboulder:


Interesting question, but I don't think it's relevant here. The routes we're talking about (at Menachurch and Carn Vellan) are harder than F8. You wouldn't need a motorway to cater for the number of climbers working at that level.

From my punterish perspective, I can't see how any bolts put on the roof of Carn Vellan could create a route that would have mass appeal!

-j-

In reply to TLM:
Why not make sure they get the opportinty to experience both?

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Great that's 1. I tried to be careful about it - I don't intentionally imply anything for definite because I don't know (if I was sure that he'd JUST gone round the pub with a petition I'd say so but I don't think he only did this (and if you read the news then some of them are possibly still in Sardinia)). I am only wondering, and I have asked the question of how many were got in the pub. The answer may well be zero. It's just worth clarifying this before the opinions of 100 climbers are added to the number of those against.

In reply to Jules Lewis:

No, but it's very relevant to the fixed gear policy in general.

In reply to Nigel Coe:

To follow up on Lee Bartrop's point, how many decided to abstain or disagree with Mike and Steve's petition?

Probably not that many, but I'd like to know all the same.

In reply to Xboulder:

NON REGULATION, FREEDOM OF CLIMBING & FLUFF

there is no fixed gear policy, I don't think there will be. Not sure I would like there to be.

This debate is persistent and full of fuzzy logic, I expect it will be around as long as climbing is.

Whilst climbers are free to climb they will be free to make climbs, some of them will climb like alot of other people, some will do their own thing.

If we are to remain free, then we must accept our differences.

If we choose to regulate our sport we must lose some freedom.


this statement is the personal view of Lee Bartrop and may change without notice

In reply to Lee Bartrop:

Cool, no one will mind me bolting a few routes then.

In reply to Xboulder:

In principle, I don't see a problem with climbers getting to experience both.

However, in the UK, the amount of rock that we have is very limited - most of the time, the only way that you could create a bolted route would be by losing a trad route (particularly at the easier end of the grades).

Also, I think if climbers have started out on bolted routes, it can be very difficult for them to move into trad climbing - they need to get the gear, learn how to place gear, learn how to set up belays. Bolted climbing is easier to get into, and so by providing plenty of bolted climbing, you can discourage people from making that move into trad climbing.

So what? you might say - so what if people only want to climb on bolts? The problem is when they are choosing bolts because they have no experience of leading trad routes. They don't understand what exactly they are saying no to.

The mental aspect of trad routes just isn't there in the easier end of bolted climbing (I do realise that there are plenty of bolted routes which do have a significant mental aspect to them!). The whole experience of not knowing where the next bit of gear might be, of following the line of the rock, rather than a line of bolts, of cleverly finding a gear placement that other people may have missed...

I think it is a very lucky accident of history that in the UK the majority of our climbing is trad. And that is something that we really shouldn't lightly throw away. A bolted route here or there may not seem to be particularly significant. But these days, I seem to talk to more and more people who have no idea of the difference that it makes to lead a trad route as opposed to an indoor route.

Shouldn't they be encouraged to appreciate the joys of our trad heritage, rather than just provide the easy option that they think they want?

In reply to Lee Bartrop:

You are right about the debate being fuzzy - if things were clearly right or wrong then there wouldn't even be any debate!

But there is no such thing as freedom - it is just an illusion. One person's actions will impinge on what another person wants, so one climber's freedom to create the route that they want is another climber's loss of freedom to have the type of route that they want.

In reply to Xboulder:

But you are confusing large numbers with desireability. Why are large numbers a *good thing* ?

In reply to Xboulder:

Oh but they will, and quite right. Especially if they can be climbed perfectly safely with removable gear.

my matrix of factors would weigh up the balances of climbing ethics (style and difficulty), environmental impact & safety with creating a climbing experience.

If a majority of climbers can climb that route with style and have fun, with minimal impact on the environment ie traditionally, then thats good.

With the routes at Carn vellan, i dont know the crag, but: can they be aid routes?, can they be soloed, or climbed traditionally?

what experiences can we get from this rock and what climbs can we make there?

with my scoring matrix we at least have a cloud of potentials to look at and compare.

maybe sport routes are the climbing experiences we can create at that crag? maybe not?


this statement is the personal view of Lee Bartrop and may change without notice

In reply to Nigel Coe:

Just to clarify further: Steve Findlay's comments regarding his list of 100 notables seems to be specific to the Menachurch bolts. You weren't specifically asked whether you disapproved of restoring the sport routes at Carn Vellan and therefore the list shouldn't be treated as consensus against the Vellan proposal.

Is that correct?

[Not that either outcome effects me personally, but I think people should try to make the effort to consider these two bolting issues seperately. ]

In reply to GrahamD:

Why aren't large numbers a good thing?

Besides there is no confusion, If more people do A than B, then A IS more desireable than B, to more people.

In reply to Lee Bartrop:
Completly agree with you, my problem comes when it cant be climbed with removable gear.

If it really cant be done without putting a nasty bit of metal in the rock, then at least make it decent bit of metal!

In reply to Xboulder: Must say, I disagree. The fact that a poor peg placement might well rip makes the whole experience more of an adventure.

In reply to Haggis: Having read various peoples comments, I still feel my sugestion above:

"Perhaps one way forward would be to recognise that "bolt free" climbing is
the superior ethic and so say that anyone making a genuine bolt free ascent
(ie bolts also not used in working the route prior to the eventual ascent)
would have the right to rename the route and chop the bolts. (In much the
same way as some old aid routes were renamed)."

is probably the best, and certainly the most easily workable solution, particularly if "bolt free" ascents and renaming were recognised in the guidebooks.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

That's far too fair and reasonable. Will never fly ...

Presumably the first sport ascentionists should also be entitled to chop their own route if they feel so inclined?

Talking of which, does it remain true that only Mark Edwards has done Rewind? If so, it seems to me more than usually ironic that there's so much objection to restoring the sport routes when no one seems to be interested in repeating this one amazing trad route that exists there?

In reply to Mark Kemball:
How about installing pre-rusted, quarter inch bolts with dodgy hangers then?

In reply to all:

Clarifications:

Barney Carver did not place the bolts at Carn Vellan.

Steve Findlay's list does apply specifically and only to the bolting at Menachurch.

The issues of Carn Vellan and Menachurch are distinct and will be considered individually on their own merits at the meeting.

In reply to Xboulder:


That's not really relevant to the question of whether something should be bolted or not. You go out and bolt a load of the Cornish classics, more people will try them.. So what, it's still not a good thing, they're not getting the same experience as if they lead it on trad gear (being unashamedly elitist here! )

In reply to Xboulder:

well the thing is that if the rock takes a peg (and the climb can't be runout on removable gear), then it should be placed, before a bolt. I agree with mark, if it is a poor peg, then that is part of the fun and challenge of that climb.

(It maybe though, that pegs ought to be removed before they go rusty?)

drilling when a peg could be placed is not the right answer, that would be lowering the rock to your inability. (ethics)

However, where no pegs will go, AND it cannot be runout or soloed, then the question of a bolt can come into the decision arena.

BUT must be weighed up with ALL factors and against them, will the bolts make a worthwhile climbing experience?

Some may argue that if at the moment people can't solo the route, then leave it for the future when they can. A purist and noble stance, but at a certain level of difficulty, if it can't be top-roped, then there will not be a climb. (ethics vs having a route)

So, perhaps in that RARE case it is OK to bolt it, and when it is soloed, they can remove the bolts, and claim a new ascent (as Mark says, like some aid routes).

this statement is the personal view of Lee Bartrop and may change without notice

In reply to Lee Bartrop:
My view is that it is illogical to have a "cut off" grade above which bolting is acceptable. If an area is thought to be suitable for bolting, then everything should be bolted eg Portland. Cheesewring Quarry?

In reply to Lee Bartrop:


Actually a perfectly realistic one. People have been climbing steadily harder routes for over 100 years as techniques, equipment and training have improved. There is no reason to think that trend is suddenly going to stop.

In reply to Chris H20:51 Wed)

'...then everything should be bolted eg Portland. Cheesewring Quarry (where trad routes have been / are being retro bolted - in Cornwall)?'No, the first ascentionists are not happy about it. Those bolts will be eventually chopped.

In reply to Haggis: not being a regular visitor to the area and far too lazy to read the thread can Ijust add.

Leave the bolts to the bloody french etc.

I would quite happily pay a monthly direct debit of £20 into a bolt removal fund but would never pay a penny towards the bolting of a british crag.

In reply to Haggis:

The latest news:

Sometime last week, someone attempted to remove the bolts from Menachurch point. They managed to remove the hanger from the second bolt and damaged the stud in the process. This was done with the knowledge, and one presumes approval of some of the posters to this thread. The person who did this has chosen for the moment to remain anonymous.

I do not think this has done the “anti-bolt” cause any good. Effectively, they have pre-empted Saturday’s meeting and chosen to disregard any consensus that it might reach. Unfortunately in so doing, they have given any bolter permission to do the same. I appreciate that whoever did this will feel very strongly on the issue I hope that they have the integrity not to hide in anonymity.

Simon has since removed the remaining bolt hangers to prevent any damage. Incidentally, on Monday, following top rope practice, he climbed an E7 6c up the groove and wall to the right. (Unprotected).

The issue of Steve Findlay’s petition: A number of top south west climbers have said that they approve of the bolts and that they should stay. Some of these were contacted and refused to put their name on the list. No mention was made of this! Also, two of the leading activists whose names appear on the list have on a previous occasion told Simon that they approve of the bolts.

In reply to Mark Kemball: while I wouldn't want to see the destruction of rock I applaud the removal of bolts.

The fact that a line was climbed sans cheating (err memo to self did I mean sans bolts, check when sober) shows that the lines dont need to be bolted.

if you want to climb on bolts go to a climbing wall or mainland europe.

In reply to sloper:
Please do not think that the removal of the hangers is a permanent situation - it was done to prevent damage as the word was that the remover was planning a second attempt at his unfinished job.

Personally, I prefer trad, but like the occasional sport route (Cheddar or Portland - I can't get away for long trips to Europe).

In reply to sloper:
In fact the Menachurch route "Die Umkerung..." was rather a rarity - top rope practice was effectively impossible - one would swing into the boulders or hit the ground. So the fact that an adjacent line could be practised then soloed does not show that lines don't need to be bolted!

In reply to Mark Kemball: sorry no matter what the argument I would like to see all bolts removed from british crags.

What's wrong with some unclimbed rock (or rather waiting till there's a climber good enough to do it with natural gear or as a solo)?

bolts are about the ego of the climbing taking precedence over ethics and morality.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

Err, bollocks. The bolters did this in the first place, going against the area's fixed gear policy.

In reply to sloper:


Morality? What on earth has climbing got to do with morality? It's a fundamentally selfish activity.

In reply to James Jackson:


This is clearly not the case. It can be no coincidence that bolts which were placed 9 months or so ago, and were well publicised on this forum (by me) back in February, are chopped just over a week before the meeting planned to discuss them.

In reply to sloper:

I can understand and respect your point of view, but I cannot agree with it, nor, in my opinion, can anyone who has enjoyed sport climbing either in the UK or abroad.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

No, Mark, this clearly *is* the case. The bolters bolted these routes - that started all this. To slag off someone for attempting to remove them (no doubt using that old chestnut 'it damages the rock and leaves an eyesore - oh the irony!) is so hypocritical it's not true!

In reply to Mark Kemball:

and the people who placed the bolts haven't?


Why on earth should it be? I don't think it's the norm for the organisers of a petition to simultaneously organise a petition for the opposite case.

I don't know anything about Cornish climbing and I don't know anything about top-grade climbing (apart from the oft-quoted advice that if you can't climb it without cheating you should wait until you're good enough or leave it for future generations). But reading this thread, the pro-bolters don't seem to have advanced much of a case.

In reply to Haggis:

It seems to me that, as so often happens, in the heat of the debate between the pro- and anti-bolting factions another party has been forgotten. Who actually owns these crags and what do they feel about it?

In reply to Xboulder:

By your argument, building an Alton Towers theme park in Wasdale would be a good thing because more people would come ?

In reply to Xboulder:

More people walk than climb, so therefore, by your arguement, walking is more desirable than climbing to more people, and we should flatten all the crags and make them into nice walks.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

well go and prove the size of you gonads by free soloing everything and leave the rest of us in peace to enjoy our sport sensibly and safely (like the "bloody french"-a little xenophobic there sloper!) and without putting to much extra strain of the NHS

In reply to Mark Kemball:

You say:

I appreciate that whoever did this will feel very strongly on the issue I hope that they have the integrity not to hide in anonymity.

Also, two of the leading activists whose names appear on the list have on a previous occasion told Simon that they approve of the bolts.

OK Mark...I say:

Name those climbers that previously approved of the bolts and dont protect their anonimity

In reply to PaulHack:




I'm afraid I cannot do that as I promised Simon not to name names.

In reply to James Jackson:

Please note, I have not slagged off the remover, I have merely pointed out what has happened so far.

Also, I have not said that the rock was damaged in the attempt at removal.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

The meeting was called because the bolts were placed, to remove them in advance of the meeting is to clearly state that you don't care what the outcome is!

In reply to Mark Kemball:

And placing the bolts in contravention of the fixed gear policy says what about caring about the democratic outcome of a meeting (the previous one which decided on the current policy)?

I'm not saying anything about a level of support for this, I know very little about the area personally (although I'm hopefully going to the culm coast in general over the summer), but statements like this don't help your cause at all - if we go for not respecting the outcomes of meetings then I think that the debolting is not the first such action in this specific saga.

Indeed, it could be said that as it currently stands the anonymous debolter is merely enforcing the current gear policy, is (s)he not? (Devil's Advocate position in that last sentence, personally it would be better to wait until the meeting before making a decision to remove them or not, but heh)

AJM logged out

In reply to Anonymous:

There was no fixed gear policy with regards to the Culm coast (obviously a very different area to West Penwith Granite!) The ethic for the area has always been trad, but fixed peg protection has been acceptable.



See my comment above! I don't really think of it as "my cause" I would not place any bolts in Cornwall myself (I do not consider I climb at a high enough standard). If bolts were placed on the Culm on a route that was within my capabilities, then I would do my best to climb it bolt free, then remove the bolts, rename it and claim the first bolt free ascent (see my suggestion to the way forward above). If this policy were followed, I'm sure no bolt placer would object to their removal. I'm not entirely sure of Simon's motivation in placing the bolts, beyond creating a superb climb, but I think it may well have been to precipitate discusions such as this.



I must say I too feel it would have been better to wait, but the debolter has as much right to remove them as the bolter had to place them. Whatever the outcome of the meeting, though, it is almost certain that some bolters and debolters will continue to act against the concensus. I remember going to a very well attended meeting in the peak in the early '80s which voted against the placement of any bolts in peak limestone, well...

OK, fair enough. There have been some comments above about a fixed gear policy, so I assumed their was one. My mistake. If its a case of long standing ethics, I'm not sure how much difference that makes to my overall point, but its not quite the same, I'll grant you.


I'm not sure about the "no bolt placer would object" thing - depends if its isolated bolts on routes, or bolted lines on a sports crag.


Yes, this is true. Anyway, thanks for the well-reasoned answer.....

AJM

In reply to AJM:


Yes, I should have said "no bolt placer in Cornwall!"

A pleasure! I quite like stirring up a debate, but like you I prefer the well reasoned post (whatever the point of view).

In reply to all:

Becasue i seem to be mentioned in one of the letters, i thought i'd give you my thoughts.

I think they should be some bolted routes around here, so people have a choice of what to climb, at the moment there is only one choice, trad.

Parents dont like us doing trad climbs, cuz they think it's dangerous, and at the grades some of us can climb at, they are.
Why do i have to be driven for hours to find a bolted climb, when there is so much rock around here that is almost never climbed anyway.
At the very least any route that is pegged all the way up, should be bolted. There is even a "trad" climb near here that has a pegged lower-off.

I think there should mix of sport and trad climbs for everyone in every area, regardless of there ability,
so everyone can enjoy climbing!

In reply to Jake Storm:

Well said

In reply to Jake Storm:

So, what, we should go around bolting perfectly safe trad severes to make some nice F3s? Come off it. This country has a strong history of trad climbing, sure with things such as pegs etc, but not bolting. I tell you what, I'll go and bolt a nice three pitch severe in the Avon Gorge for you so your parents don't complain about trad being dangerous. As I've got your consent, I shall inform the local climbing community that you are responsible.

In reply to James Jackson:

Please do, lots of very young kids and new climbers would probably really enjoy a nice F3.

I'll solo up and pass you the bolts.

In reply to Jake Storm:

Don't worry, just because you're 15 doesn't mean you need to prove to me how hard core a climber you are with the ability to solo a F3. When you grow up you'll realise people don't really care.

Your problem is you clearly fail to recognise the UK ethic, and that is trad. The fact that 'you don't see why you should drive for miles to find a sports route' is because the UK doesn't have very many. There's a reason for that...

In reply to Jake Storm: Jake, your argument is based on the flawed premise that, for some reason, 'everybody' should be able to enjoy climbing.
I would like to enjoy swimming in the sea without having to drive for miles. I have two options.
1) move closer to the sea.
2)accept that I can't have everything I want on my doorstep and stop whinging.

That seems an acceptable level of choice to me.

Iain

In reply to James Jackson:


Yeah and in this country we've got a nice tradition of wandering round the world collonising at will, doesn't mean it's right or proper. Your attitude is typical of arragant knuckle dragging elitist who would prefer to see a cull on young climbers who might dare whisper the word bolt and question the risk taking involved in trad climbing. In this community which collectively adores a pastime that is meant to be about freedom, and in which we're probably all either lost friends or nearly lost them dus to accidents with trad protection, surely we should make room for both disciplines (or are you so overly superiour that you think people who value their own safety and responsiblities to friends and family should be excluded from your climbing clan for not having big enough balls?). With the increased popularity in climbing indoors are you going to fight to keep the new wave of climbers indoors by sitting by as we see more fatalities as strong climbers make mistakes using trad gear they have little experience with.

There was a time when we walked everywhere or else went on horseback.... and then came cars

you can still walk if you want, just as you can trad climb a bolted route, live and let live, lets have both, at all grades....

In reply to Ben Tyrrell:

So you're saying lets bolt easy routes on the grounds of safety? Oh come on, if people can't place gear properly then they should get someone to show them. If they don't want to climb a route because it's too bold, then find a route with the same technical grade but more protection. It's not difficult. Just because more climbers are now 'wall bred' doesn't give people a reason to go and bolt lots of stuff.

I would like some examples of 'more fatalities as strong climbers make mistakes using trad gear they have little experience with'. The past few fatalities I've heard of (and there's surprisingly few each year in the UK - a definite good thing) have been down to pure accident, and in all cases by experienced climbers.

P.S. Please feel free to come and shove some bolts in on any of the crags that many of us from around here frequent. I'm sure then you'll be shown just where a drill is most effective, even if you were trying to open up the crags to the bolt clipping masses.

In reply to James Jackson:

get your facts right he's 12
and the "strong ethic" is elitist rubbish spouted by elitist prats who want to keep as many people away from the crags as possible....
I'm sorry if you don't like the company but other people have right to enjoy their sport too you know. You can throw your toys out of the pram but this debate will run and run and eventually Jake and his generation will have thier way whether you like it or not so why not be gracious about it and welcome the new interest (and ethics) in a sport you're obviously passionate about

In reply to James Jackson:


Riculous patronising crap. The poor boy probably only mentioned soloing an F3 to give you a polite hint that he might actually be quite competent. Here's some clearer evidence from one of the letters on the javu.co.uk site.

In Cornwall there is quality sport-climbing, bouldering that’s receiving international interest, talented young climbers like Jake Storm and Stella Stabbins who are achieving great results in national competitions ....

In reply to tobyfk:

It was tongue in cheek... Jesus, get a grip people!

In reply to tobyfk:

Is there an echo in here? Anyway, I'm going cragging for the evening. Bye!

In reply to James Jackson:


Really? Should we assume the same for all the other pompous ethics drivel you spout on here as well?

In reply to Ben Tyrrell:

But hopefully before he has his way he'll grow up first and realise that it's not desirable to bolt everything in sight in the name of safety and having something everybody can enjoy! (ghastly phrase, reminiscent of pandering to the lowest common denominator and dumbing down at it's worst)

In reply to Jake Storm:


I must say Jake, I can't agree with you here. Trad climbing is what makes British climbing special, widespread retro-bolting would effectively take away the soul of the sport. This debate is basically about deciding where to draw the line and if it should be moved a little one way or the other. One of the biggest worries of the anti bolt fraternity and fairly middle of the road traditionalists like myself, is "bolt creep" - if people felt that allowing the bolts to remain in place on Carn Vellan and Menachurch would lead to large scale bolting on any other Cornish sea cliffs, then there would be very few, if any climbers in favour of there remaining. Where the two sides differ is that one group feels that any bolts are unacceptable, end of story, whereas others feel that on certain routes on certain crags they are worthwhile. I think this has to be considered on a case by case basis.

In reply to Ben Tyrrell:

Hello,

I just thought I'd add a few thoughts to some of your comments, coming from the perspective of a young(ish) climber.


Utter Bollocks! Indoor walls have been around for quite some time now, and I can't say I've seen very many of these strong, young wall bred climbers plummeting from the crags. Trad climbing is alive and well amongst young climbers, and the dangers involved are generally pretty f*cking obvious - it mainly seems to be older climbers (and young climbers mothers!) who worry about such things as 'safety'. I'd also argue that trad climbing is no more dangerous than sport climbing, but that's a separate issue


(Aaaaarghhhh! No you can't! Once the bolts are in you reduce the comitment to zero - this is not what I would call trad climbing)

Good luck to the choppers by the way.

George.

In reply to Jake Storm:
A very good point. And of course, once everything's bolted, there's always the option of not clipping the bolts as you climb the route. That way everyone's happy, aren't they.

In reply to Mr Pink 2:
If you can't express an opinion without resulting to potty mouth language then prehaps you might consider letting somone more articulate do it for you

In reply to Simon Caldwell :
>A very good point. And of course, once everything's bolted, there's always the option of not clipping the bolts as you climb the route. That way everyone's happy, aren't they.

Exactly, another voice of reason and COMPROMISE

In reply to Ben Tyrrell:
I'm looking forward to leading Great Slab at Froggatt once they've put the bolts in.
I just hope that the bolts in Dream of White Horses are placed sufficiently close together to prevent problems getting back on route if any of the climbers falls off. This would also have the advantage of allowing anyone who can't climb 4c to aid the route, making it available to even more people.

In reply to James Jackson:

Chill, mate.

Sport climbing is just another facet of the climbing game that many people do enjoy, even if you do not ever want to clip a bolt. There is room for both, and a more open-minded, reasoned debate is likely to have more impact than a mud-slinging shouting match.

Boldness and trad form integral parts of the UK climbing heritage. This will always be the case. However, many people are discovering that sport climbing is an excellent way to become a better climber, and it always amuses me how even the most ardent of the anti-bolt brigade are happy to jet off to Costa Blanca, Sardinia or Kalymnos for a spot of bolts, beer and basting in the sunshine. Is that a sign that bolt clipping is fine, as long as it's not on UK's hallowed turf?

After a decade of exclusively tradding my way around every nook and cranny of these isles, I've recently discovered that sport climbing is actually fun. I relish climbing at my physical limit without fearing for my life.

Sport climbing has a place in the UK, whether you like it or not. Of course it will have to me managed more carefully than in other countries where climbable rock is more abundant, but sport and trad can, and must, coexist peacefully.

Shouting is not helping your cause, I suspect.

In reply to Jake Storm:

It is quite hard, without knowing you, to know where you are coming from on this?

It sounds from the other posts as though you climb quite hard and are quite young? but sorry if I have got this wrong?

Anyway - it sounds as though you are really enjoying the gymnastic and technical aspects of climbing, and working your way up the grades.

But there is another side of climbing, which bolting a climb actually gets rid of.

I'm not sure how much trad climbing you have actually done? Do you know what is so enjoyable in doing a trad climb that is just not there if the climb is bolted? Don't argue to get rid of something if you don't know the benefits of it for yourself! (Maybe you DO already know what is so great about trad climbing!)

In reply to Ben Tyrrell:
'Potty language'?? What planet are you on?

I also think that Mr Caldwell may just possibly have been taking the piss (oh bugger, my dirty mouth again).

Happy climbing,

George.

Jake is not arguing to get rid of trad, far from it, as far as i'm aware, he has never even climbed a sport route in this country, he boulders and trad climbs.

However he is arguing that there is a place for both.

In reply to Stefan Kruger:

I totally agree Stefan. The question is - where does sports climbing happen? Are the cornish cliffs the place? The same could've been said for Portland, and Nigel Coe pointed out some problems with the bolting there.

We all know what happened when an enterprising climber shoved some bolts in the Pembroke coast...

I seem to be classed as an ethical nazi, this couldn't be further from the truth, but coastal bolting is something I feel strongly about (as, indeed, do those on the other side of the debate).

I, too, enjoy sports climbing, and occasionally travel to do it (ie the odd bolted quarries in the Mendips, the stuff at Cheddar) if I'm not in a 'trad' mood. The athleticism and training to be gained is very useful. However, and I repeat this point as I think it's important, my feeling is that bolts should be kept off the traditional inland and coastal crags. Of course, our local pad Cheddar is a bit wierd in this regards, but the bolts are needed in some places (ie for loweroffs on some of the restored trad routes) as otherwise we couldn't climb there at all.

In reply to James Jackson:
" but the bolts are needed in some places (ie for loweroffs on some of the restored trad routes) as otherwise we couldn't climb there at all."

Bolted lower offs on trad routes, bah, you wimp, come down to the north coast where you can climb proper like and have lower offs made from rusted old pegs.

Of course you could climb there with out bolts, pegs that might fail is part of the fun remember.....

So just becasue its cornwall you would except lower offs that might fail, but in the gorge its ok?

What we need is sensible, consistant discussions....

W

In reply to Xboulder:

You're missing the point. The point is that the landowner has, as far as I understand it, insisted on the bolted loweroffs for public safety, due to the liabilities of knocking rocks down from loose top-outs onto all the tourists in the gorge.

Its got nothing to do with individual views, its a "well, we either have bolted loweroffs, or can't climb there".

AJM

In reply to James Jackson:

See, now you've only gone and come across all sensible, calm and collected!

In reply to Stefan Kruger:

Yeah, I don't know what's come over me. Perhaps I was just angry yesterday...

In reply to AJM:

That's exactly the case, hence it's a bit of an oddball in the ethical scheme of things.

In reply to Haggis:

I don't want to pre-empt the minutes, which will have all the details, but very briefly:

Just over 40 people came to the meeting, and the debate was pretty civilised and well reasoned on both sides. Discussion was limited to Carn Vellan, and a couple of proposals were voted on.

The proposal to allow the roof section at Carn Vellan to become a sports crag was narrowly defeated (18 to 16, with 7 abstensions)

A subsequent proposal was put forward to allow the existing workable bolts to remain at Carn Vellan. This was carried (12 to 9, with 14 abstensions).

There was a general consensus that the stubs of previously smashed bolts should be cleaned up, but no definite course of action was agreed.

Jules

In reply to Jules Lewis:

Does this mean that Monster Munch will remain bolted, or have the bolts already been smashed?

In reply to RupertD:

As far as I know (and remember, I couldn't even -see- the bolts when I went down there), Monster Munch is currently equipped. I think you'd be better trying to contact Barney for confirmation, or head down there yourself with a pair of binoculars if you're in the area!
Cheers,
Jules

In reply to Jules Lewis:

Where can we find the minutes, please?

Tom

In reply to Thomas Gilbert: On my computer at the moment. Will go on the BMC website when completed.

In reply to Haggis: There have been several comments about the rights of the wider climbing community having greater significance than those of local climbers. The wider community, including Steve Findlays' signatories, are in a different position to the Cornish locals. They have the option of trad or sport on their doorstep, whether it be Bristol, North Wales or the Peak. It seems a very selfish argument to deny locals in Cornwall the opportunity for (very limited) sport climbing whist being able to pick and choose yourselves.

In reply to barrowboy: Or alternatively it is very selfish of the locals to want to bolt what is a national resource - the Cornish coastline, visited by climbers from all over the country.

Does anyone remember the various campaigns about how to behave in the countryside?

"Take only memories, leave only footprints."

Why do climbers think themselves above this?

No bolts, no pegs, no tat and preferably no chalk would seem to be the only way to comply.

In reply to Haggis:


I agree completely with this, but.... tat, pegs and chalk never get anybody worked up! Why is it that bolts do?

Personally, seeing the picture OTE printed of Craig y Longridge a year or two ago, I was appalled at the chalk - it totally ruined the look of the crag (in my opinion). Hopefully the 'ten commanments' will help...

Any progress with the minutes? ;-p

-j-

In reply to Jules Lewis: Tat, pegs and chalk are starting to get me worked up!

Minutes are at draft 2 at the moment.

In reply to Jules Lewis: Looks like something has been sh*ttng on the rock. Climbers probably.

Most responsible people clean up after themslves when they make a mess at home - why not in the environment they claim to love?

In reply to shane ohly:
I too have climbed in West Penwith for many years, although at not such lofty grades. I find the no bolts stance quite compelling, although I find myself in a quandry when climbing routes such as Central Butress at Avon(the bolt belay being very welcome}.
However I digress My point is that whilst recognising the the achievements of any one making purer style (bolt free) ascents of bolted routes; we should not forget that they are made in the knowledge that an individual,against whom it is possible to judge one's own performance, has climbed the line previously.

Pete

In reply to Haggis:

Minutes are now available on BMC site:

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/areacom/minutes/SWmn0505.pdf

In reply to Jules Lewis:

Updated minutes with submissions from Ken Palmer and Paul Twomey plus a second Appendix have now been added to the BMC website...

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/thebmc/areacom/minutes/SWMn0505X.pdf