/ NEWS: Friends of Nevis - Clearing Polldubh Crags

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
The crags of Glen Nevis are a fine selection of small buttresses offering superb rock climbing in a beautiful mountain setting. The cover photograph of the iconic book Extreme Rock is of the classic route Just a Little Tease, on Whale Rock, on the south side of the glen.

Whale Rock sits in sunshine and enjoys an open aspect free from the enclosures of thick foliage. The Polldubh crags on the north side of the glen are tree covered, but these trees are a relatively new addition...


Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=45972
Dave C on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: This thread had me confused for a minute coz I didn't think Nevis had any friends!

>grabs coat & quietly closes door as he leaves<
Eric9Points - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

Hmmm, the "Friends of Nevis" sound like a body whose raison d'etre is building paths. Friends of whom I wonder? Certainly not friends of anyone who likes Glen Nevis to be kept in as natural a state as possible.

Michael Ryan - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Eric9Points:

Eric

Have you read the news report fully?
Eric9Points - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Yes and I checked out the website and the organisations aims.

Why do you ask?
petestack - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
> The crags of Glen Nevis are a fine selection of small buttresses offering superb rock climbing in a beautiful mountain setting.

Agreed (one of my favourite places to climb), and the clear-up is good news. But some of the buttresses are called **** Buttress, some **** Crag and your photo of Pinnacle Ridge should be captioned simply 'Pinnacle Ridge'. ;-)
toad - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC: Perhaps somebody needs to show community involvement to get at their HLF funding. Set up a "friends of <insert project here>group voila! funding. Web site seems well produced, but suspiciously sparse. Links to corporate supporters, but not to SNH, when the site is an SAC? Fund raising dinners - that'll be to get the corporates on board again.

And what does it offer that the Nevis partnership - a "Scottish company, limited by guarantee with charitable status" doesn't?

I'm really sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick, and particularly if I'm being unduly suspicious, but this doesn't sound grass roots, this sounds like a paid corporate fundraiser ticking the appropriate boxes to give the project a "community-led" veneer.
Michael Ryan - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Yes and I checked out the website and the organisations aims.
>
> Why do you ask?

Appears that they are getting rid of an invasive species and consolidating footpaths to reduce erosion.

Would like to know more.

Eric9Points - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

What makes you think that in it's natural state most of Glen Nevis wouldn't be afforested?

The article makes it sound like the trees are something unnatural because they weren't there 60 years ago. It also sounds like these "Friends" are looking for reasons to muck about with Glen rather than leaving it in as natural a state as possible. But perhaps that's not what they're after anyway.
Michael Ryan - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> What makes you think that in it's natural state most of Glen Nevis wouldn't be afforested?

I would have thought that it would have been completely covered in trees - and filled with wolves and bears, the streams filled with salmon and sea trout!

Eric9Points - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> I would have thought that it would have been completely covered in trees - and filled with wolves and bears, the streams filled with salmon and sea trout!

..and you do get Salmon and sea trout in the river, the trees are returning and it's unlikley that there's much chance of the bears and wolves or beavers returning.

ericoides - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Eric9Points:

I'm with you on this. If it weren't for centuries of mismanagement the glen would be populated (not afforested) with birch, pine, rowan, oak and willow.

Sheep, not birch, are the invasive species.
toad - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to ericoides:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> I'm with you on this. If it weren't for centuries of mismanagement the glen would be populated (not afforested) with birch, pine, rowan, oak and willow.
>
> Sheep, not birch, are the invasive species.

woolly land maggots. There's probably going to be a lot of these debates as grazing numbers are reduced on sites with conservation designations in the coming decades.
rusty_nails - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to petestack:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
> [...]
>
> Agreed (one of my favourite places to climb), and the clear-up is good news. But some of the buttresses are called **** Buttress, some **** Crag and your photo of Pinnacle Ridge should be captioned simply 'Pinnacle Ridge'. ;-)

That picture is MEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Was taken in late summer last year, and it was an awesome place to climb.
Doug on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> Appears that they are getting rid of an invasive species

Birch can hardly be called invasive in Glen Nevis ! give the glen a century & they start to be replaced by oaks &/or pine anyway

Yonah on 09 Feb 2009 - ppc15.marlab.ac.uk
In reply to Eric9Points:

Ed Grindley's short article on scottishclimbs.com makes things a little clearer, and should allay your concerns. SNH and the JMT are involved.
petellis - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to Eric9Points:
> (In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC)
>
> Hmmm, the "Friends of Nevis" sound like a body whose raison d'etre is building paths. Friends of whom I wonder? Certainly not friends of anyone who likes Glen Nevis to be kept in as natural a state as possible.

If we want crags to remain climbable then I'm sure we will have to be rough with them or vegetation will take over. It might be nasty to the trees and not in keeping with current fashons for leaving everything natural to run its course but thats just how it is.

I'm not familiar with the area but might the lack of trees 50 years ago have had something to do with the use of wood as firewood? In pictures from c.a. 1900 near my yorks. home there's not a tree standing where there must be 1000's of them now.

Eric9Points - on 09 Feb 2009
In reply to petellis:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
>
> If we want crags to remain climbable then I'm sure we will have to be rough with them or vegetation will take over.... I'm not familiar with the area ...

I am familiar with the area.

I've probably climbed there at least once every Summer since 1976. The trees aren't a particularly big deal, no more so than at many Lakeland crags. If one or two are getting the chop then fine. If on the other hand a bunch of self appointed "friends" have decided to landscape the crags then not fine. Anyway, I'll check out the article on Scottishclimbs and see if it's any more informative than the one here.


Geoffrey Michaels on 09 Feb 2009 - host86-147-45-12.range86-147.btcentralplus.com
In reply to ericoides:
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
>
> I'm with you on this. If it weren't for centuries of mismanagement the glen would be populated (not afforested) with birch, pine, rowan, oak and willow.
>


and people.
Geoffrey Michaels on 09 Feb 2009 - host86-147-45-12.range86-147.btcentralplus.com
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:

The current little spat on here with people using terminology without thinking about what they are on about illustrates the major debate, in my opinion, which needs to be had in relation to land management in the Highlands. Simpley put, there are many people who want a completely empty land and an equal number, if less vocal, who dont and simply want a landscape which is available to all and provides jobs etc.
danm - on 15 Feb 2009
In reply to Donald M: It's an interesting dichotomy isn't it. As a climber, I want clean rock with plenty of sun to dry it out - in other words, trees cut back from the crag. I want easy approaches with no bashing through undergrowth. It's a selfish viewpoint, but there you go.

On the other hand, I also love being out in the quiet places, with a sense of wilderness. I'm annoyed when I have to share a crag with others - this is my time to escape all the detritus of the modern world and I don't want it spoiled by others.

Hopefully we can reach a compromise, where managed landscapes can still offer some sense of wilderness, be a haven for wildlife and let us engage in our pointless climbing obsession. And whilst we're there, we can contribute to the local economy so everyone's happy.
mav - on 16 Feb 2009
In reply to ericoides:
" If it weren't for centuries of mismanagement the glen would be populated (not afforested) with birch, pine, rowan, oak and willow. "

And yew. One of the tops on the Steall ridge is Sgurr an uibair (badly spelt) which roughly translates as 'hill of the yew'.

I assume that this group would allow some trees to stay - the pine that acts as a belay at the top of pitch 2 on Storm, for example.
ericoides - on 16 Feb 2009
In reply to mav:

And holly. And juniper?

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