/ NEWS: New Bolts At Horseshoe Quarry: the BMC's position

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
UKC News - on 27 Aug 2009
[School's Out (6a+) on the main wall at Horseshoe Quarry, 2 kb]The BMC's Land Management Group (LMG) has been looking at some of the fixed equipment in the BMC owned Horseshoe Quarry and is proposing to replace selected equipment such as some protection bolts and some lower-offs.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=49005
Alex Mason - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC News: re-bolt demonlition man!
craig d - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to Alex Mason:

As it's the most popular limestone crag in the Peak, little needs to change really. Keep the punter's happy so they stay away from the good crags;-)
georgeg - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC News:

the whole quarry is a bag of shit so you can do what you want with it really.
Irish george
Simon - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to georgeg:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> the whole quarry is a bag of shit so you can do what you want with it really.
> Irish george


Thats what we like in the BMC arena - constructive comments that provide a sound basis for action.

well done that man...
Derbyshire Ben on 27 Aug 2009 - host84-93-66-24.plus.net
In reply to UKC News:

Good to hear. I was quite vocal on the other thread and was arguing against the placement of extra bolts on the main wall routes. I'm working away next week so won't be able to make the meeting but I hope it's a good debate.

Cheers,

Ben
Simon - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to Derbyshire Ben:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Good to hear. I was quite vocal on the other thread and was arguing against the placement of extra bolts on the main wall routes. I'm working away next week so won't be able to make the meeting but I hope it's a good debate.


Anything you want to raise Ben - I can do it on your behalf...?

Si

antwan - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to Simon:

Hi Simon,

I'm pretty sure I'll be working that evening so wont be able to attend the Meeting, But I have no arguments against replacing bolts/lower offs on a like for like basis, Might I put forward if the LMG are looking at improving the safety of all in-situ equipment looking at a via ferrata style cable to replace the roped traverse line's? or Maybee a rope is better than a cable in this particular application, I'm no expert, just something that came to mind

PDB on 27 Aug 2009 - 79-67-20-194.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to antwan:
if you mean the rope traverse that is in the Africa area then a rope like the one that is in place already would be better than a cable as it would be more dynamic if someone should fall while clipped in to it.
will9911 - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC News: ive only been there once but found the loweroffs to be quite rusty in places, most bolts seemed fine, only problem was the whole palce is a bag of choss and so loose , every route we pulled or knocked something off. something should be done to clean off all the loose crap.
PDB on 27 Aug 2009 - 79-67-20-194.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com
In reply to will9911:
where were the routes that you climbed that were loose?
Simon - on 27 Aug 2009
In reply to will9911:
> (In reply to UKC News) only problem was the whole palce is a bag of choss and so loose , every route we pulled or knocked something off. something should be done to clean off all the loose crap.


Did you mean Palace or place? ;0)

Loose rock will always be a problem as its A) Limestone & B) A quarry.

Thats not to say that a great deal of work has been done trying to free loose rock, its just that sometimes rock doesn't become loose until it does if that makes sense?

If you know where it is & on which climb / route - you can always email the BMC with your concerns.


Si
AlistairB - on 28 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC News: I've only climbed at Horseshoe once, found the climbing outside of the main wall to be pretty terrible but enjoyed the main wall. As for the bolting, I just don't see any point in having runouts in sport routes, that's not how the grading system works, nor is it the point of sport climbing and I don't think it adds anything to the experience either. To me, sport routes don't have "character" they just have either good moves or bad moves and either good rock or bad rock. I like to do good moves on good rock and the main wall fulfills that to me. I'll climb them runout or not but to me this whole debate seems to be based on the premise that bolt spacing is a key defining feature of a route rather than a means by which to climb an interesting line. I think that's a flawed idea personally.
Chris the Tall - on 28 Aug 2009
In reply to will9911:
> (In reply to UKC News) ive only been there once but found the loweroffs to be quite rusty in places, most bolts seemed fine, only problem was the whole palce is a bag of choss and so loose , every route we pulled or knocked something off.

As is mentioned in the report, checking the lower offs is one of the priorities. As to loose rock - yes I've pulled off the odd hold at Horseshoe, and in the Lakes, Wales, Spain, France, loads in the Dolomites and even occasionally on Kalymnos (not to self, time to cut back on the pies). The ability to identify and cope with friable rock is one of the most important skills in climbing, so aren't we lucky to have somewhere to practise that skill right on our doorstep.

It's easy to be put off by Horseshoe, and there certainly are some dreadful routes there, but having done around a third of the routes there I reckon that most of them are worthwhile, and do get cleaned up through traffic.

Maybe I'm odd, but I genuinely enjoy the style of climbing there - technical, small holds and just off-vertical. No traffic noise and with all that wild oregano growing around surely one of the most fragrant crags in the country

> something should be done to clean off all the loose crap.

The BMC are organising a work day at the crag on October 17th. Everyone is welcome

Aiden Wright on 28 Aug 2009 - 85.13.197.154.reverse.coreix.net
In reply to AlistairB: I agree with that. All this stuff about maintaining the character of the routes is daft. The sports routes have little character at HQ, and there is no clear reason for there to be runouts. These are sports roues not trad routes (as they used to be!). EXtra safer modern bolts get my vote.
Andrew Smith - on 28 Aug 2009
In reply to AlistairB: Well said that man, I totally agree...
Derbyshire Ben on 28 Aug 2009 - host84-93-66-24.plus.net
In reply to Simon:

>Anything you want to raise Ben - I can do it on your behalf...?

Thanks Simon,

I'm very supportive of the replacement effort.

But, I'd rather not see extra bolts adding to the routes on the Main Wall. The routes aren't run out compared with other Peak venues and are currenly mostly well bolted (the only exception being the 3rd clip on Wall Of Jerico and the 3rd clip on Nice Face) with the clips being next to obvious breaks and rest points.

That's it..

Thanks,

Ben



Mick Ward - on 28 Aug 2009
In reply to AlistairB:

> To me, sport routes don't have "character"...


To quote your good self:-

> I think that's a flawed idea personally.

Mick

Derbyshire Ben on 28 Aug 2009 - host84-93-66-24.plus.net
In reply to AlistairB:

>I've only climbed at Horseshoe once

.... and done three routes, one on TR according to your logbook. You're entitled to express an opinion of course, but maybe sample a bit more before passing judgement?

I'm not a cheerleader for Horseshoe but I do think the routes on the Main Wall, particularly in the sector between Wall of Jericho and Shot Yer Bolt such as Run For Yoru Wife, Legal Action, Private Prosecution, Megalithic, Demolition Man, are amongst the best of their grade in the Peak. They do have character, not because they are run out (because they aren't) but because the climbing is interesting, technical, sustained and tricky to read on the flash or onsight.
ian Ll-J - on 28 Aug 2009
In reply to Aiden Wright:
> All this stuff about maintaining the character of the routes is daft. The sports routes have little character at HQ, and there is no clear reason for there to be runouts. These are sports roues not trad routes (as they used to be!). EXtra safer modern bolts get my vote.

I find the following statement far too rigid...'Where it is considered that bolts need replacing the BMC's policy is that replacement should only be made on a like for like basis.' IMO the BMC should consider changing this policy to a more flexible / common sense approach with each route considered individually...not just at HQ but nationally.

Gary Gibson - on 29 Aug 2009
In reply to will9911: Just to put your comments right Will, the staple belays, if you are referring to those, are not rusty. They are copper coated 316 Marine stainless steel. This is the best stainless you can get and is copper coated to save wear on the machinery.

I also know that you may be referring to other chain belays that I did not place and I agree that they should be improved

All of the gear was replaced on the Main Wall by myself in 1998 at my own expense and I understand the reasoning behind why the BMC want to replace it and have a contractor do it for litigation reasons.

As I may not be able to get to the meeting on Wednesday, due to a deadline on a guide I am writing, I thought I'd just add my two-penny worth.

I have absolutely no issues with the BMC regearing the quarry lke for like to improve the gear on the routes. What I do not agree with, as stated elsewhere, is adding new gear between the existing. For those who think the BMC have a bolting policy, they don't. Climbers decide and decided that these routes should be so equipped. They are still sports routes, but not like ones you find on a climbing wall. They require a certain tenacity but have stood the test of time for the eleven years since they were rebolted. They don't need any more and I am glad the BMC have made it clear that they have no intention of changing the nature of the routes.

If you don't like the run outs, which I don't think there are that many of, then do another route. A route such as Demolition Man is great the way it is and adding more bolts to it would reduce its impact and style. You wouldn't add an extra peg to a bold trad route so why should sports routes be any different?

To add one final comment: if people used the belays correctly and did not run their ropes through them and instead left quick-draws in until they had finished with them, it would reduce the wear on the staples and belays by 75%. That would make them, as an example, last forty years instead of ten. An interesting thought.
Simon Caldwell - on 29 Aug 2009
In reply to Gary Gibson:
> You wouldn't add an extra peg to a bold trad route

So who was it that added loads of bolts to the former bold trad routes at Horseshoe?

;-)
Mick Ward - on 29 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador:

Did you do the former bold 'trad routes' at Horseshoe? Possibly not, if your profile is anything to go by. (I don't mean to be unkind). I did them and I'm sure Gary did too. I remember them as an uneasy compromise between trad and minimilist bolting. Some were accidents waiting to happen, e.g. the drooping pegs on Litany.

Jim Kelly took the bull by the horns and Gary has continued his work. Surely the outcome is well bolted, generally safe routes, with the odd slighly spicy runout. As with most things in life, it's a compromise - but surely it makes the best of what Horseshoe has to offer. I'd like to think that the main wall routes require a certain degree of commitment - which will hopefully give more memorable experiences.

Horseshoe isn't El Cap. But it is what it is. And, due to its position, it's popular. Sympathetic bolting has made it a climbing playground where, occasionally, a little commitment will make all the difference.

Mick
Gary Gibson - on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador: Just to put the issue you raise for some clarification.

Every route I bolted on the main wall had a bolt in or more, which in my and many others view does not make them a trad. route. They had loads of pegs as well. The only one that really changed to any degree was An Ancient Rhythym as the upper crack needed wires.

Now its very easy to sit on a forum and cast criticism as a cursory quip. I put a lot of time, money out of my own pocket and effort into contributing to sports climbing in the Peak, and, whilst you might not like some of my routes or actions I think you should consider those contributions, not my routes, before you pass judgement.

I have a vested interest in the routes on the main wall, have done them many times in their original form before they were bolted and would not like to see them changed in style. My opinion counts as one maybe, but consider the issues before you pass judgement.

And what may I ask have you contributed?
D.Musgrave on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to ian Ll-J:
> (In reply to Aiden Wright)
> [...]
>
> I find the following statement far too rigid...'Where it is considered that bolts need replacing the BMC's policy is that replacement should only be made on a like for like basis.' IMO the BMC should consider changing this policy to a more flexible / common sense approach with each route considered individually...not just at HQ but nationally.

>> I agree

Simon Caldwell - on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to Gary Gibson:
You seem to have missed the 'smiley' symbol at the bottom of my post, it's to signify that it's meant tongue-in-cheek.

As for what I have contributed - the main thing that I have contributed and will continue to contribute to UK climbing, is that I have never placed a single bolt.

;-) again

Mick Ward - on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador:

A rather negative contribution, if you don't mind me saying.

So may we infer that you've never clipped a bolt? And will never do so??

Mick
jon on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador:

Have you climbed at Horseshoe, Mr Toreador?
Simon Caldwell - on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to jon and Mick:
Apologies for the failed attempts at humour. Serious only now.

Yes, I've climbed at Horseshoe. I might even climb there again, but I prefer trad so it's not high on the list. I've no idea if the routes I did are among those considered sportingly bolted by some, probably not as they felt OK. But Horseshoe is a sport climbing crag. I think one is on dodgy ground arguing against adding a few more bolts to some routes that many think too run out. It's not like slate where bolts <> sport - Horseshoe isn't trad any more, so accept it and add bolts accordingly.

I realise of course that as I don't climb hard and haven't contributed to climbing as much as some then my opinion is worthless, so feel free to ignore me. Everyone else does :-)

ColinD on 30 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC News: The popularity of a crag can be it's downfall.

Recently in Turkey we witnessed nearly all the other climbers abseiling off the lower offs, with the Brits lowering off, running the rope through the top anchors.

Upon returning to the Uk I visted again a popular Welsh bolted venue, the lower offs are showing signs of wear. They have only been popularised recently aswell.

For replacing bad or poor lower offs is one thing, but replacing lower offs that are just worn out requires a shift in lowering / top rope approaches.

Horsehoe is a popular venue, some loose rock, some dodgy fall potentials to but also some good climbing. Having spent the weekend bushwacking around Matlock... I thought about heading to Horseshoe to save the day. Popped in and discovered Masson Lees instead, and lots of top ropes through lower offs...

As the BMC own the quarry, they surely have to inspect and replace the bolts where needed... I'd rather they did than I find a 8mm bolt in a 10mm bore or a rusted out head...

JM2PW
ads.ukclimbing.com
edwardwoodward - on 31 Aug 2009
In reply to Gary Gibson:

>
> Now its very easy to sit on a forum and cast criticism as a cursory quip. I put a lot of time, money out of my own pocket and effort into contributing to sports climbing in the Peak, and, whilst you might not like some of my routes or actions I think you should consider those contributions, not my routes, before you pass judgement.

You can take them all out again as far as I'm concerned. You may regard them as contributions: I regard them as unwanted. Just a matter of opinion.

>
> I have a vested interest in the routes on the main wall, have done them many times in their original form before they were bolted and would not like to see them changed in style. My opinion counts as one maybe, but consider the issues before you pass judgement.

Come on Gary, remember your advice to Nick Bullock when he complained about your extra bolts on Nomad (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=364826):
"Get someone to tape them up and so do it without."

Surely you can do the same at HSQ.
>
> And what may I ask have you contributed?
"Now its very easy to sit on a forum and cast criticism as a cursory quip" indeed.
I prefer Toreador's "contribution".
Mick Ward - on 31 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador:

> I realise of course that as I don't climb hard and haven't contributed to climbing as much as some then my opinion is worthless, so feel free to ignore me.

But nobody has ignored you.


> As for what I have contributed - the main thing that I have contributed and will continue to contribute to UK climbing, is that I have never placed a single bolt.

> I've no idea if the routes I did are among those considered sportingly bolted by some, probably not as they felt OK.

So you're proud of never placing bolts - yet you're prepared to use them?
Is not this utter hypocrisy...

Mick
Mick Ward - on 31 Aug 2009
In reply to edwardwoodward:
> (In reply to Gary Gibson)

> You can take them all out again as far as I'm concerned. You may regard them as contributions: I regard them as unwanted.

Please tell me that your profile pic - where you're clipped into < coughs discreetly > somewhat of an abundance of protection - is a joke?


> I prefer Toreador's "contribution".

Please see my comments above on the bullish one's "contribution".

Mick

Simon Caldwell - on 31 Aug 2009
In reply to Mick Ward:
> Is not this utter hypocrisy

Yes.

As is retrobolting a trad venue and then complaining if someone else suggests adding some more bolts.
Mick Ward - on 31 Aug 2009
In reply to Toreador:
> (In reply to Mick Ward)

> Yes.

So you admit to your hypocrisy. I'm not sure that hypocrites deserve any further attention but, just to be charitable, I'll reply (again) to your somewhat over-laboured point.


> As is retrobolting a trad venue and then complaining if someone else suggests adding some more bolts.

You just don't seem to get it, do you? Trad venue?? I refer you to my previous post:

'I remember them as an uneasy compromise between trad and minimilist bolting. Some were accidents waiting to happen, e.g. the drooping pegs on Litany.'

You've been to Horseshoe once. You should go back and try to understand the history of the place. It's been in a state of transition since the late 80s/early 90s.

I agree with what Gary's proposing because it seems to make the best use of the place. But even if I didn't agree with him, he deserves respect - from me, from you and from all of us - because of what he's given and what he continues to give.

More people have had great days out on British crags courtesy of Gary Gibson than any other climber. That's something of which to be proud.

Mick



edwardwoodward - on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ward:
> (In reply to edwardwoodward)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Please tell me that your profile pic - where you're clipped into < coughs discreetly > somewhat of an abundance of protection - is a joke?

Did I say I don't clip bolts?
>
>
> [...]
>
> Please see my comments above on the bullish one's "contribution".
Still a matter of opinion.

You seem to be big on pointing up hypocrisy. What do you make of GG's doublethink regarding extra bolts on HSQ and Llanymynech? To me, it's indicative of the British attitude to bolting in general, which is, in my opinion, hypocritical. We love them in some places, hate them in others.

kullamannen on 01 Sep 2009 - adsl-84-227-208-234.adslplus.ch
Why don't you just make a general decision that limestone in the UK is for sports climbing and bolt it according to modern standards? Then keep crags like Stanage unbolted for the trad climbers. There is no inherent historical or other value in a long runout on an otherwise well protected climb.
Mick Ward - on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to edwardwoodward:

> Did I say I don't clip bolts?

Nope. But you did say:

'You can take them all out again as far as I'm concerned. You may regard them as contributions: I regard them as unwanted.'

So (at best) you're also part of the faction below:


> We love them in some places, hate them in others.

Climbing history tells us that much the same battles were fought about pegs, from the 1930s onwards (e.g. Munich Climb).

It's a value judgement based on several factors such as the history of the crag, prevailing local opinion and making the most of what there is.

Mick



Mick Ward - on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to kullamannen:

> Why don't you just make a general decision that limestone in the UK is for sports climbing and bolt it according to modern standards?

I'd be 100% against this.

'It's a value judgement based on several factors such as the history of the crag, prevailing local opinion and making the most of what there is.'

Mick



GrahamD - on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to kullamannen:
> Why don't you just make a general decision that limestone in the UK is for sports climbing and bolt it according to modern standards?

Pembroke for one most certainly is not a sport climbing venue.
DANNYdjb on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> (In reply to will9911)
> [...]
>
> As is mentioned in the report, checking the lower offs is one of the priorities. As to loose rock - yes I've pulled off the odd hold at Horseshoe, and in the Lakes, Wales, Spain, France, loads in the Dolomites and even occasionally on Kalymnos (not to self, time to cut back on the pies). The ability to identify and cope with friable rock is one of the most important skills in climbing, so aren't we lucky to have somewhere to practise that skill right on our doorstep.
>
> It's easy to be put off by Horseshoe, and there certainly are some dreadful routes there, but having done around a third of the routes there I reckon that most of them are worthwhile, and do get cleaned up through traffic.
>
> Maybe I'm odd, but I genuinely enjoy the style of climbing there - technical, small holds and just off-vertical. No traffic noise and with all that wild oregano growing around surely one of the most fragrant crags in the country
>
> [...]
>
> The BMC are organising a work day at the crag on October 17th. Everyone is welcome

HI Chris i know this is of the main subject, but how do i find out about the meet at horsehoe on the 17th. I cant find any thing on the bmc website.
Regards, Dan
Chris the Tall - on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to DANNYdjb:
Hopefully more details will be published nearer the time, I suspect all that has been decided so far is the date
jon on 01 Sep 2009
In reply to Toreador:
> (In reply to jon and Mick)
> Apologies for the failed attempts at humour. Serious only now.
>
> Yes, I've climbed at Horseshoe. I might even climb there again, but I prefer trad so it's not high on the list. I've no idea if the routes I did are among those considered sportingly bolted by some, probably not as they felt OK. But Horseshoe is a sport climbing crag. I think one is on dodgy ground arguing against adding a few more bolts to some routes that many think too run out. It's not like slate where bolts <> sport - Horseshoe isn't trad any more, so accept it and add bolts accordingly.
>
> I realise of course that as I don't climb hard and haven't contributed to climbing as much as some then my opinion is worthless, so feel free to ignore me. Everyone else does :-)

I don't think your opinion is worthless. I only asked if you'd climbed there as your profile mentions onlt 6a, or 6b indoors. The Main Wall routes are harder than that, so I wondered about your interest. For the record, I haven't climbed there for twenty years or so...



DANNYdjb on 02 Sep 2009
In reply to Chris the Tall: thanks chris.

dan
Nic on 02 Sep 2009
In reply to GrahamD:

> Pembroke for one most certainly is not a sport climbing venue.

No, thankfully...but wouldn't it be fantastic if we could duplicate it, fill it full of stainless steel and tow it to somewhere on the south coast...
GrahamD - on 02 Sep 2009
In reply to Nic:
> (In reply to GrahamD)
>
> [...]
>
> No, thankfully...but wouldn't it be fantastic if we could duplicate it, fill it full of stainless steel and tow it to somewhere on the south coast...

No.
matthomas79 - on 02 Sep 2009
In reply to UKC News:

Replacing old bolts yes, developing routes well here are my thoughts.

Making committed moves in climbing is all part of being a climber no matter the grade or the style and I agree that it adds to the experience.

I've only climbed at Horseshoe and Harper hill in the peak, but have found that the most enjoyable routes I've done have had good placements lower down making the route safe combined with some longer runouts towards the top - as I found at Harper Hill by which point on a route you should be more than safe in the event of a fall while still adding that all important experience. Personally I like this style of bolting - safe in terms of falls (especially lower down) but also requiring commitment further along the route.

But also as a point of query does a hard sport route have to include big falls, do extra bolts detract from the route, would extra bolts in fact allow more routes to be accessible spreading out the climbing traffic and hopefully resulting in less polished routes, while allowing people the opportunity to develop on rock without the risk of a big fall.

Finally I do think we need more development of easier sports grades in this country - people starting out in climbing especially leading need something to build confidence on - the ones we have are hit hard by lots of traffic and the routes are becoming rapidly polished especially at easily accessible crags.
Enty - on 02 Sep 2009
In reply to matthomas79:
> (In reply to UKC News)
>

> Finally I do think we need more development of easier sports grades in this country

What do you suggest then?

Enty

Chris the Tall - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to UKC News:
Here's a summary of what was discussed at the Area meeting last night

First of all Henry Folkard discussed some of the many issues that the Land Management Group (LMG) have to deal with in respect of Horseshoe Quarry. In particular the fact that if the LMG was aware of particular bolts were liable to fail, or were in unstable rock, it may be under a duty of care to replace or remove such bolts.

The meeting was unamious in it's support of this position

The second, more contentious, issue is whether the LMG should also consider repositioning or adding additional bolts in order to reduce the risk of serious injuries, in particular with respect to the spacing of the first 3 bolts on a route.

I'm not going to try and summarise the various arguments for and against, it's all been done before, but it did cover history, character, memorability, beginners and almost all the various points that have been raised in the discussions on here.

In order to bring things to a conclusion, a vote was held on the following statement
"This meeting feels that the LMG should have the ability to add additional bolts as it see fit"

Voting was 8 in favour, 3 against and 7 abstentions - yes folks it was a pretty low turnout
matthomas79 - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Enty:

You pose a serious question, I wont be flippant and say I suggest we place more bolts or bolt more easy routes, I think your question to me required more thought.

In fact I wondered if this was in fact a reflection of the style in which Brits climb which maybe it does. I think it comes back to that word 'commitment', even easy trad needs a certain level of commitment placing gear and relying on it, maybe having excessively bolted easy routes just isn't british.

Maybe it would just a be an idea to have the first set of bolts slightly further down to improve safety as they said in the meeting (taken from notes of the meeting but on the forum), which would improve safety on routes and certainly taking a little of the uncertainty of starting out on the route, I know some trad routes have long initial run outs before gear placements but isn't sport climbing meant to be slightly safer so people can concentrate more on the climb and enjoy it without so much fear.

Thanks Enty.
idiotproof (Buxton MC) - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Chris the Tall:

bllody nora, that was a low turnout - feel really guilty I didn' come but had done quite a bit of running about that day and didn't fancy the (relatively short) drive to glossop
Simon - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to idiotproof (Buxton MC):
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> bllody nora, that was a low turnout - feel really guilty I didn' come but had done quite a bit of running about that day and didn't fancy the (relatively short) drive to glossop



Problem is that we go to Glossop as the Locals asked for it and last year we obliged & turn out was fair to middling - with a few locals & new folks.

Last night my journey was, leave work 5pm, wait for bus at work - didn't turn up - went for another - 15 mins wait - bus to city centre Sheff.

Bus out to Peak Broke down - replacement bus took 25 mins - rendevous with lift in Peak late - & then Drove over the Snake pass all in the pouring rain.

I'm not looking for sympathy - just that I probably might not rush about so madly again to some of the regions that have asked for the meetings & then don't turn up.

Many of the Peak regulars were there last night & had to drive a long way to see a poor local turn out apart from Caroline & Dan et al.

Just a thought like!

;0)

Si
Michael Ryan - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Simon:

Hi Simon,

"Problem is that we go to Glossop as the Locals asked for it and last year we obliged"

When you say 'we' who exactly do you mean? And what is this 'obliged' bollox.

There does seem to be this us and them attitude sometimes, rather than an all encompassing we.

As an aside, I couldn't make it last night, but I was at the last meeting. At that meeting I put my name down on a mailing list, with my email address.

I have yet to receive any minutes from that meeting, nor did I get notification of the next meeting.

Now for me that is not important, as I pay attention on here, and it is my job.

But for many other climbers who have busy lives, it would be great if they get a reminder of local meetings, and the minutes and that the word is spread far and wide.

Is the best use of modern communications being used by the BMC?

Find out for US if YOU can.

In addition+ be great if someone at the Area Meetings did a short write up for UKC, seeing as we are the most read climbing media in the UK : we'd stick it on the NEWS page and in the FORUM so that it would get maximum exposure. Thanks Chris for your short report, but not everyone reads the forums most do read the NEWS page however.

Here's one I did last Peak Area Meeting:

BMC Peak Area Meeting - A Quick Sketch
by Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com Jun/2009
This news story has been read 1,591 times

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=47879

Thanks for being a good UKC'er Simon!!!!!!!

Mick
Simon - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Hi Mick

I'm not against going to other places in the Peak for the Meetings Mick - in fact I support it.

By "we" I mean the Peak Area Meeting & a joint collective decision to go to other places in the Peak for meetings.

>>As an aside, I couldn't make it last night, but I was at the last >>meeting. At that meeting I put my name down on a mailing list, with my >>email address.

>>I have yet to receive any minutes from that meeting, nor did I get >>notification of the next meeting.

>>Now for me that is not important, as I pay attention on here, and it is my job.

>>But for many other climbers who have busy lives, it would be great if >>they get a reminder of local meetings, and the minutes and that the word >>is spread far and wide.


I'm not in an elected post whom with that resposibilty lies I'm afraid. Like you I'm busy enough with work to be involved at that level, although I try to help as much as possible - e.g being stand in Secretary last night.

However links on here were posted by Martin Kocsis, myself & Trudi on the BMC forum, to the meeting dates & Peak Newsletter etc. I try to do what I can in my increasingly limited time what with other bits & bobs.

I can't help you with the minutes situation as like I said, that's not my role to discuss as such.

Cheers

Si
Michael Ryan - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Simon:

Cheers Simon. I salute your activism.
robw007 - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I totally support the view that the BMC ought to use the tools at all of our disposal to gather the required data to inform (relatively) important decisions.

When this issue was discussed in the previous thread it was obvious that using forums and blogs is a sensible way to canvas popular opinion and generate a representative viewpoint.

Rather than just go on the vote of a number of extremely committed but unfortunately low in number attendees at the meet.
Simon - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to robw007:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> I totally support the view that the BMC ought to use the tools at all of our disposal to gather the required data to inform (relatively) important decisions.
>
> When this issue was discussed in the previous thread it was obvious that using forums and blogs is a sensible way to canvas popular opinion and generate a representative viewpoint.
>
> Rather than just go on the vote of a number of extremely committed but unfortunately low in number attendees at the meet.


I don't disagree - but that is how the way the BMC Area Meetings are set
up at the moment & its a good point to take to the BMC National Council.

The Area Meetings are there for opinion & debate and I agree if people cannot make them - maybe there should be a veichle for those people to add to the debate, and maybe ultimately decision making?

Its a interesting school of thought...

Si
Coel Hellier - on 03 Sep 2009
In reply to Simon:

> The Area Meetings are there for opinion & debate and I agree if people cannot make them - maybe there
> should be a veichle for those people to add to the debate, and maybe ultimately decision making?

It's interesting that only 18 people participated in the debate and vote at the Glossop Peak Area meeting, whereas 2700 people have read this thread (so far).

And in this day and age of green awareness, everyone burning fossil fuels to attend in person seems less sense than internet-based discussion and decision making.

(E.g. I didn't attend since Glossop is quite a trek from Stoke, as is Sheffield, though I attended the last two near Leek.)
Chris the Tall - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Whilst I believe UKC is a great place for airing opinions and getting people talking about issues, I do believe that the area meeting is the appropriate place for a final decision/vote. The effort required to drag yourself to Glossop on a wet night is a fair test of how strongly you feel about something, whearas these forums (and the internet generally) will always be prey to wind up merchants and people looking for a argument. Sorry, but I still feel that an old-fashioned face to face meeting is much better than the alternatives. Isn't there an old adage that the first rule of politics is to be present?

And before Mick has a go at me for living in the past and not embracing the new media, I'll point out that I have spent a lot of time in the last few weeks trying to convince people that the original thread about Horseshoe did need to be taken seriously, that the opinions expressed were genuine and reasonable. That this wasn't a frivilous storm in a teacup (like, for example, the Aldery thread). I've dragged the likes of Rab Carrington and Nick Colton into the debate, got the work delayed until after the area meeting had discussed it.

As far as I can tell the only people who have posted on the two threads who actually made the meeting were myself, Simon and Dan Middleton, and none of us were opposed to extra bolts. I know Ian Milward, who started the original thread, is on holiday in France, and did submit a detailed list of arguments which I tried to summarise on his behalf. Unfortunately, since I was arguing against my own personal preferences, I probably didn't do a very good job. And I'm sorry Ian, but I don't think anyone else was sufficiently bothered to take up cudjels on your behalf.

And there you have the problem, the LMG are volunteers. They are prepared to put their effort into improving our crags. So if you want to influence what they do, you have to put a bit of effort in yourself.
Michael Ryan - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Chris the Tall:
> (In reply to Coel Hellier)

> Whilst I believe UKC is a great place for airing opinions and getting people talking about issues, I do believe that the area meeting is the appropriate place for a final decision/vote.

I agree Chris. Area Meetings are the place for the final decisions to be made, and if people are concerned about a local issue they have to attend.

> Whilst I believe UKC is a great place for airing opinions and getting people talking about issues

It's not just that. UKC's strength is informing people and making people aware of any issues.

Best way to do this is a news article or an article: not just a forum post. That is what many, and several in the BMC have yet to grasp.

Very few climbers who visit UKC actually post, most read. As long as people are made aware of what is being proposed that is the most important aspect of this: it is then up to the individual to decide if they want to be involved in the decision making process.

Mick
ads.ukclimbing.com
Derbyshire Ben on 04 Sep 2009 - host84-93-24-78.plus.net
In reply to Chris the Tall:

Hi Chris - thanks for effort you've put in.

I would have dragged myself to the meeting but I was working in Aberdeen. Unfortunately for me I tend to be away 4 or 5 days each week so can never attend the local meetings.
Chris the Tall - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Derbyshire Ben:
Updated news item on the BMC website http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=3272

BTW I'm not criticising anyone for not attending - I know many people who were unable to attend for a whole variety of reasons. It seems the proximity to the bank holiday was one of the problems - I'd have been struggling to make it had the weather in Pembroke been better
Dan Middleton, BMC - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Best way to do this is a news article or an article: not just a forum post. That is what many, and several in the BMC have yet to grasp.


Hi Mick,

I totally agree that it's important for issues to be raised in depth; and it may be fair comment to say in the past that the BMC has relied too much on people turning up to area meetings without giving them too much info beforehand to inform the issues.

But in this case, in particular, I think this it's unfair to say that climbers have not been fully informed. We put a news feature up on our site outlining the main issues (and as you know, our news features are linked to UKC). The agenda for the meeting was also up on our website, and finally several BMC staff and volunteers have taken the time to post on this news thread.

Cheers
Michael Ryan - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Dan Middleton, BMC:

Sounds good Dan.

It was also run as a main news item at UKC as we thought it important to do so to add to the exposure.

When a news item starts, a forum thread auto starts (as with all editorial at UKClimbing.com; articles, news, gear etc)

New Bolts At Horseshoe Quarry: the BMC's position
by Nick Colton 27/Aug/2009
This news story has been read 4,747 times

http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=49005

If decisions are being made that effect the nature of climbing it is important to make sure that the issue gets maximum exposure to as many climbers in the UK.

Now, next weeks National Council Meeting where the decision is being announced whether the BMC is backing the International Federation of Sport Climbing (IFSC) in its campaign to get competition climbing upgraded to the Olympics. .... where can we find information about that..... its consequences etc

We have this article which was also in Summit

The Olympics: faster, higher, stronger?

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=3172

Is there anything else? What has been the feedback from the Area Committees and the BMC's membership?

Mick
Senior Editor
UKClimbing.com
Chris the Tall - on 04 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The Peak area voted that the BMC should support the IFSC's efforts to get climbing into the Olympics. Can't remember the exact majority, but I think there was only one vote against the motion

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