In reply to Adam Long: Thanks Adam, I hadn't read that article or the thread, I have now.
Unsurprisingly I disagree with Martin about the need to place bolts, any bolts, anywhere, even bolted lower offs. Neither am I an elite climber seeking to keep routes elite, as he suggests was the case at a Peak Area meeting. (How funny that statement reads when you see me struggling not to fall off a v-diff!)
I am concerned though, that from my perspective there is an agenda in within the BMC to shake itself free of it's traditionalist roots. And a resentment within the BMC that any move towards modernisation it seeks to introduce is opposed simply for oppositions sake by crusty old feckers. I feel there is an antipathy towards clubs and the 'traditional' values they represent. My view is that the current people who make up the management and organisation of the BMC are out of step with the membership, who are naturally conservative in their climbing.
The drive towards sport ethics, competitions, the olympics, the bolt fund are all driven by a minority number of climbers that represent the majority who attend Area Meetings.If I agree with Martin it might be that Area Meetings are undemocratic, but then neither he or I seem to get our own way.
Democracy may have little to do with it. At one of the first meetings I attended there was a lively debate about the bolting of one particular (limestone) climb. (insert the name of the climb here) It was agreed that it should be investigated further and discussed again at the next meeting. No need. By the time of the next meeting it had already been bolted, and climbed safely without fear of a ground fall, albeit without the blessing of, and funding of, the BMC. The same applies as has already been said, if the bolted lower off appeared at Millstone one afternoon, it would be gone in the morning. I think it is called voting with your feet.
