/ Froggatt Tree Removal (Circus)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
nathanlee - on 15 Dec 2012
Went up to the edge today and noticed some trees have been removed. I'll start by saying I'm very much in favour of tree removal from the edges, in order to keep routes cleaner etc.

The reason I posted is that the two trees on the ledge above Hard Cheddar have been removed. Anyone who knows the history/nature of this route would understand that the removal of these trees renders the extension, Circus (an excellent e7), protectionless. Admittedly the first side runner-less ascent was from Ben Heason, who soloed it, but several further ascents have used the trees, as they provide some good (ish) natural pro which is much needed on the route. Furthermore, the purpose on the removal is groundless, I know from first hand experience that the route is not particularly licheness and therefore the the tree removal will not improve its condition.

Whats left after this act is a total chop route (a fall from the top wall is 10-15m directly onto a large pointy block) rather than a bold/perhaps dangerous route. I doubt that anyone who knew the history of this route is responsible, and therefore I wonder what led said person to make the effort to bother (sort belay, abb down etc) to chop down such unobtrusive trees. There are other trees far more in need of removal such as the area around the large boulder beneath narcissus (home to turd burglar/my orange) which is always green and covered in lichen.

Sorry to rant on so much, but this action has in my eyes lowered the actriveness of this route (death or siderunners), and it will therefore get dirtier and less attempted, which is a shame as i'd rate it as one of the best hard routes I've done.

Nathan.
Doghouse - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee:
> Went up to the edge today and noticed some trees have been removed. I'll start by saying I'm very much in favour of tree removal from the edges, in order to keep routes cleaner etc.
>
Furthermore, the purpose on the removal is groundless, I know from first hand experience that the route is not particularly licheness and therefore the the tree removal will not improve its condition.
>
>

Were the trees removed for the benefit of climbers? and if so why?
nathanlee - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to Doghouse:

im unsure of the purpose of the tree removal, which is part of the reason for the post, admittedly i couldve worded it better. i cant see how it could benefit anyone, climbers or not.

anyone know why they were removed?
Mark Collins - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee: I understand your frustration, a couple of years back some trees were removed from Lawrencefield. Although not turning any routes necessarily more dangerous, it did make a mockery of the route name 3 Tree Climb. I'm not familiar with the trees you speak of, but could it be possible that they were removed for crag stabilisation reasons. I don't know, just a thought. Also, due to Frogatt's proximity to Lawrencefield it may well be the same organisation that removed the trees from there that removed them from Froggatt. There is definitely a post on here about it somewhere. If you find it, perhaps you can ask them directly, or suggest that they consult The BMC before taking such action in the future.
Mark Collins - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee: Seems the Lawrencefield work was done in conjunction the BMC and other organisations:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=449171
Adam Long - on 15 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee:

The Eastern moors partnership, who now manage this area, have been removing trees form along the edges for enviromental and landscape reasons. They consulted carefully with the BMC beforehand, including a detailed site visit. Our response was that this work would generally be of huge benefit to climbers.

However, as the rep on the site visit I guess it was my fault that these two weren't singled out and left. Apologies for that, simple oversight on my part, though we did look at the whole of Curbar and Froggatt that day.

Having said that I doubt the trees would have stayed small indefinitely, and at some point might have caused problems, not because of shading but as a physical obstruction (I think Beanstalk at Cratcliffe is a good example here), so I won't be loosing too much sleep! As you point out one of the routes has already done without the tree.
nathanlee - on 15 Dec 2012

Thanks for the replies and the explanation, theyre easy to miss really, and yes as you said they may have caused problems later on. I just hope now that the route wont suffer from the change and will keep getting the (admittedly rare) attention that it deserves.

Great work otherwise, the area around white lines/eota has been transformed by the tree removal. Thanks again.
adstapleton - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee:

Wow!

From reading the OP I felt for sure this would descend into a typical UKC hate-filled rantathon! Especially after the actual guy responsible for the OP's 'disappointment' gets involved.

And yet it didn't!

My faith in the UKC forums has been restored. A bit.

Well done everyone.
Doghouse - on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Adam Long:

Fair play to you Adam.
Al Evans on 16 Dec 2012
In reply to Doghouse: Well I was on the first ascent of Hard Cheddar, and in spite of what guidebook says did not fail 'ignominiously' though Ernie might have done as he was getting on a bit at the time. Point is I can't rememember any trees, though guess they would just be saplings then, certainly nothing you would hsve thought safe for a runner.
nathanlee - on 17 Dec 2012
They wearnt massive, just useful as there isnt any other gear around there.

And yes i was satisfied with adam's reply, its hard to stay annoyed/dissapointed when you see such a measured reasonable response. In retrospect the first post was based on the belief that it was a random act, rather than part of a wide (very positive) plan to reduce the amount of trees on our edges.
efrance24234 - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee: shall we just stick a bolt on it then?
JimboWizbo - on 17 Dec 2012
In reply to efrance24234: Careful with that four letter word
EeeByGum - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee:
>
> I just hope now that the route wont suffer from the change and will keep getting the (admittedly rare) attention that it deserves.

You could always bolt the remaining stump. That would spark an interesting debate! :-)
Adam Long - on 18 Dec 2012
In reply to Al Evans:

I'm not surprised, as Nathan says they were just saplings.

I had a look on Sunday, and the bases remain. Whether they can be tied off, or may recover enough to be any use I couldn't say. No biggee...

I guess we were concentrating that day on looking for trees that would be beneficial to remove, hence the oversight. I think it's been pretty successful overall, several areas have been opened up very nicely with little mess - the snow damage from last April is more obvious in many places. For anyone confused by the choice of trees to remove, it was mainly down to species - Birch mostly went, Oak and Rowan were left.
paul mitchell - on 23 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee: On Curbar maybe someone would like to remove the tree from Nervosa.It is ruining a great little wall climb.

Mitch
Graham Hoey - on 27 Dec 2012
In reply to nathanlee:
There are still runners on this. The friend in the break near the sapling and the long, thin sling on the (admittedly) loose block, plus runners behind this. I can't remember two saplings, and the one I used was pretty weedy all those years ago! Superb route, and I don't think it has materially changed and shouldn't put anyone off.

cheers

Graham

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.