UKC

I went to Lawrencefield for the first time in nearly 2 years yesterday and was dismayed to see that the trees on three tree climb have been cut down. The result gives that whole wall a stark characterless look. I'm obviously way behind here but could anyone tell me when they went and more importantly why? Seems like an act of vandalism to me.

In reply to colinscotchford:
I was there yesterday for the first time in 4 years and had much the same thoughts.

In reply to colinscotchford: connected to this?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=449171

In reply to toad:
The attached thread seems to relate to conservation work, but I'm not sure how having every tree in sight cut down to the stump relates to conservation.
Compared to other crags where this has been done (Tremadog & Helsby come to mind) it looks very harsh at the moment.

In reply to colinscotchford:

If this was down to the PCC's conservation work, it would be interesting to hear their reasoning.

In reply to colinscotchford:

Agreed (although I went a few weeks ago now). Real shame.

In reply to colinscotchford: the removal of the sycamore at the back of the pool is welcome in my opinion - the HVS to the right of pool wall is worthwhile but overlooked. this will now stay clean.

In reply to nickcanute:

I was thinking more of the larches? (if I remember correctly)around three tree climb and Great Peter. Never appeared to cause any problems with these routes and the trees seemed to be healthy.

In reply to colinscotchford:
I visited Lawrencefield last week for the first time in a while myself and came away with the same opinion - looks like someone's taken a very heavy handed approach to clean up the crag rather than any attempt at conservation. If anyone has accurate information on those responsible it would be interesting to hear their reasons.

In reply to colinscotchford:

yes i agree with you these were nice trees and 3 trees climb, great peter always had enough traffic. much further right around blacksmith's climb the trees taken out have improved the situation.

In reply to steveB:

Likewise!

In reply to colinscotchford:
I agree with the views expressed above, I questioned becky who had posted up about the place being partially closed but got no reply.
I'd be very keen to know why it was done because I think it's been really detrimental to the character of the place.

Whatever said now however won't really change much because it's not like we can replace the trees.

In reply to gethin_allen:

I emailed Becky also but have had no reply.

Agreed, we can't replace the trees, but raising the profile of this might prevent such blinkered activity elsewhere.

In reply to all:

The crag clean up, including tree removal was carried out by the Peak Climbing Club, in conjunction with the BMC and the National Trust who own the quarry.

The removal of trees has been carried out for the long term conservation of the crag. Crags do not manage themselves therefore conservation and management does not mean doing nothing. The large number of trees, particularly young saplings, was becoming a problem and in some areas climbs had become unclimbable due to vegetation and were in danger of being lost.

In addition to removing trees, the club also cleaned up various individual routes, opened up the area between the Gingerbread Slab and Red Wall, and installed additional belay stakes at the top of the crag.

Over the past six months many climbers have commented on the overall improvement to climbing in the quarry. Extensive notices were placed locally prior to the clean-up which was mainly carried out in October 2010.

Becky

In reply to Becky E (PCC): It looks and feels loads better Becky, and like the bolt lower offs on sargent slabs, was done for a good reason.

Obviously this is though the thin end of the wedge and I expect all trees on all crags to be chopped down forthwith, with the proceeds from the sale of the wood going towards the purhcasing of weapons of mass destruction for unstable dictatorships.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):


You haven't really answered the question about Three Tree Climb though, have you. It's a 3 star classic and was not getting overgrown, so why did the trees have to go?

In reply to Monk:

Interesting given this comment on it, by Becky E in an earlier thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=429295#x6084938.

Why chop the tree at the top of Red Wall as well?

In reply to Monk:
I agree, there was nothing wrong with the trees on three tree climb or the couple of trees above the gingerbread slab area. Infact the trees in the later were perfect for belays and now we just have a couple of rotting stumps that will fall to bits when a novice is using them for a belay.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):

With the greatest respect, your reply does not add anything to the information that has already been gleaned via this thread.

Management and conservation, involving removal of encroaching vegetation or dangerous/unstable trees is one thing - and several responses have recognised the improvements made by this.

However the removal of healthy, mature pines (I suspect they have had been on the crag for at least 60 years, given the date of the first ascent of Three Tree Climb)that were part of the fabric and character of that part of the crag would not seem to fit with my understanding of the word management and be the very opposite of my understanding of conservation.

If you can't give a better, more specific reason for removal of the pines above Great Peter and Three Tree climb then I hate to think what might be carried out in the name of conservation and management at Peak crags in the future.

As a final thought, I assume we will see a Three Stump Climb appearing in the next guidebook.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):
Well done to the PCC in general for all their hard work - we have a lot to thank them for. Unfortunately this incident concerning three tree climb is a big blunder and a real shame. If I were to speculate, I would guess that the (presumably non-climber) tree surgeon got a bit carried away with all the fun he was having. Is this what happened becky? Or was it not your group at all?

In reply to Becky E (PCC):
"Crags do not manage themselves therefore conservation and management does not mean doing nothing"

I'm sure if you try harder your could just about sound a bit more patronising; Not exactly being the ideal spokesperson for the PCC.

Although crag management does not mean doing nothing, it does not mean 'cut down anything and everything that grows anywhere near a bit of rock that people want to climb'.

Surely the ethical approach to climbing is to disturb nature as little as possible and in this case it appears to me that the clearance was overzealous.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):

Crags have managed pretty well in looking after themselves for a few millenia, it's called evolution. They don't need a few goodie goodies doing it now. Why are additional belay stakes needed as well? There are oppostunities to belay, all you have to do is construct them. Especially when half the world is pouring scorn on those bolts at Hawgcraig (or whatever it's called). So now Three Trees Climb will be re-ascended and renamed with a new grade?

So it's now OK for anyone to go and maintain crags by removing trees to get better access, improve the views and dry them out a little. I'll remember that. A few belay stakes are needed at the top of Great Slab Froggatt whilst you're at it. It can take half an hour to rig a decent top rope up there.

Utter nonsense this whole thing. Not even as if it is a major crag. How about getting on some of the Welsh sea cliffs, or maybe Lakeland crags like Goat? They need lots of management.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

From a previous thread.

non so far... its next weekend
by - Martyn Maltby on - 25 Oct 2010
In reply to Becky E (PCC):

Will this affect Three Tree Climb?
by - idiotproof (Buxton MC) on - 25 Oct 2010
In reply to Martyn Maltby:

you mean 2 tree climb or has no one told you.
by - Becky E (PCC) on - 25 Oct 2010
In reply to Martyn Maltby: No - we're not that stupid. But we will be tackling the sycamore on Pool Wall, plus others.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I've got to say I think an aggressive pruning of the tree at the 2/3 height of 3 tree would have been ok but it taking it off completely has definately made a pretty looking quarry appear quite stark!

We umm'd and arrr'd over how much to take from the tree at the top of clothesline (aldery) but hope we got the balance right

In reply to the sheep:

Quite extraodinary. Clearly they underestimate themselves!

In reply to colinscotchford: Egerton quarry could do with a good chainsawing.

I hate to jump on the trashed crag bandwagon but the crag does looks terrible now, I’m all for giving a the trees on a crag a slight trim up every now and then though in this case I think it looks far more akin to woodland massacre than woodland maintenance! As far as quarries go this used to be quite a nice one, the contrast of nature taking back over where man had left off, I always thought quite nice, evidently the people who instigated this didn’t!

In reply to colinscotchford:
Well now they've screwed up the classic HS of the crag (and my first proper lead) they might as well turn it into a dry tooling Venue!

In reply to colinscotchford & the rest:

FFS cut some slack for people who voluntarily give up their time to try and maintain venues climbable for the rest of us.

OK cutting down those particular trees might not have been the most sensitive move, but the route is still there and as good as ever. Hardly something to get 'dismayed' about in a mostly overgrown quarry but if you are that worried I suggest you volunteer for the next local crag clean up to make sure its done to your liking.

In reply to Monk:

Out of interest what sort of trees were they?

In reply to GrahamD:

Normally I'd agree with you but if this exercise was done in conjunction with climbers you would have thought that the 3 tree on that particular route would have been retained or at least just pruned?

In reply to thomasadixon: Wait, the Red Wall tree has gone?! I don't remember clearly but that was the main belay for the Red Wall wasn't it?

In reply to colinscotchford: I've just read the thread through and although I've not actually had a look myself, from the photos it does look a bit drastic.
For me the trees were not really in the way to begin with. They're/were just part of the crag. I hope they take note of peoples objections before they act on behalf of us climbers again.
I understand it's a fine line between keeping crags clean and making a mess of things though.
That said, i took a peak at the back of yarncliffe the other day and someone has made a good job of cleaning up the zapple area. I think I'll be paying a proper visit soon to tick some of the freshly cleaned lines I've never climbed like Trised Crack etc. So whoever did it thank you!

In reply to Guy Atkinson:


screwed up Three Tree Climb????? The climb has not had three trees on it for many a year, and the climbing on the route is completely unaffected, how this lead you to the conclusion that Lawrencefield should be a dry tooling venue?? Which I hasten to add it shouldn't.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

so should crags be left to evolution or meed lots of management you are confusing me with contradictions. The peak climbing club is local to Lawrencefield, which is why it is involved in local issues not in Wales or the Lake district. Please feel free to volunteer your time to either

In reply to jimjimjim:



I personally cleaned the ledges above Zapple removing much earth, as part of the Peak Climbing Club clean up at Yarncliffe. Other members cleaned other routes in this area, significantly cleaning has made Fall Pipe climbable, and i suggest that with more traffic it will be a welcome reintroduction to the crag and certainly worth the 2 stars it gets in the new BMC guide.

In reply to Graeme Hammond: I was suprised that the National Trust permitted new management work so close to the breeding season. New tree felling work in March isn't considered best practice

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Basically I seem to remember that one of the trees made a pretty nice belay and neither of them got in the way of the climbing so taking them down seems completely pointless and I don't think that 'no tree climb' has the same ring to it...

I think you take me a little too seriously... do you not remember the 'winter climbing' incident at millstone recently?

In reply to colinscotchford: Removing saplings to stop them taking over is one thing, but removing mature trees which are part of the character of the crag is something else. I'm disappointed that Becky's response on behalf of PCC doesn't address this specific complaint.

Having said that, PCC are to be commended for their efforts to look after local crags. However in this case they appear to have gone a bit too far. Perhaps in future a bit more prior consultation with other climbers might be appropriate.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I'm not great on trees, but I think they were some sort of larch.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

While I agree that the loss of the trees doesn't affect the climbing, I would also contend that having trees that weren't causing any trouble on a route called Three Tree Climb (even though I only ever remember 2 trees) has a pleasantly aesthetic quality. So far no-one has justified their removal, and it appears that it was clearly stated before work commenced that these trees would be unharmed.

Cleaning up of Yarncliffe and other areas of Lawrencefield is great work though, so I am not complaining about the work in general.

In reply to Monk: I haven't climbed at Lawrencefield for something like 20 years but it seems bizarre to be removing mature trees in the name of conservation (samplings & seedlings is another issue) - there were also certainly a host of other wildlife living in/on those trees and even worse, the work seems to have been done in the breeding season. As for the 'explanation', it seems to completely ignore the questions and makes me wonder how this group can be considered responsible if this is the best they can come up with to justify their work

In reply to Doug:

It is depressing how often this sort of thing is done in the name of 'conservation'. Let's be clear, conservation had nothing to do with it. The motivation was entirely convenience of climbers, even where the result was actually the opposite.

In reply to colinscotchford:

While it does all look a bit stark at the moment it'll not take long to start regrowing. Presumably some of the larger trees were removed to allow the sun/rain in and to stop the roots destabilising the crag. Give it three or four years and it'll be turning nicely green and soft round the edges again. While I personally agree it may have been a little overzealous in places Bex is right, it's not going to maintain itself so I'm not complaining.

jk

In reply to jkarran: the cliff would stay without any 'management' and from a conservation point of view, would probably benefit from being left alone (control of invasive alien species excepted).

As Dave Garnett says, this is purely management for the 'benefit' of climbers

In reply to Doug:

Even that is a moot point. I've only been to Lawrtencefield once and I thought it was a beautiful location. There's a lot more to the climbing experience than the raw moves and the rock. The surroundings are important and we should be able to climb in symapthy with nature rather than removing it when it gets in the way.

In reply to colinscotchford:

There was a big rockfall at Shepherds Crag a couple of years ago, caused by tree roots expanding and breaking the rock. The complaints at the time queried why nobody had bothered cutting the trees down before it was too late.

Perhaps that was the reasoning behind some of the "unnecessary" removals this time?

To the complaint that this was all done for the benefit of climbers - if it if it was then so what? That would be a valid enough reason, so long as it weren't to the detriment of vulnerable ecosystems.

But I suspect there was more to it than that - the National Trust aren't exactly renowned for their desire to help climbers at the expense of vegetation - see Yarncliffe Edge for instance. It's likely I'd have thought that thinning out the trees will be (from their point of view) designed to allow other species to thrive. This has been done at Wharncliff, where the some of the birch woods have been cleared to allow a revival of the heathland.

In reply to colinscotchford:

Is the tree at the top of Great Peter gone / killed ?
I hope not.
The sycamore did add to the landscape. But I can see reasons for at least reducing it.

In reply to Toreador:
It's likely I'd have thought that thinning out the trees will be (from their point of view) designed to allow other species to thrive.

Well, good luck with that. What other species were you thinking of? 'Thinning out' implies taking some trees out to allow others to grow.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Maybe so, but it is done with the consent of the owners. The crag is no less convenient for climbers now - maybe more so if other areas further right are now more accessible.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

I have no idea and may be wrong as usual. But the National Trust were involved, and will have every idea. I'd be very surprised if their only reason for approving the felling of trees was to make some climbers happy.

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

No contradictions just a heavy sense of sarcasm. However the point remains the same - vegetation has been removed in a highly appropriate manner. It now looks like any other old quarry. Oh, it is.

In reply to GrahamD:

That depends on what they consented to.

>The crag is no less convenient for climbers now -

Just more suburban.

In reply to Doug:


Given the work was done by a climbing club, on a crag commonly used for climbing and we're discussing this on a climbing forum I'd rather taken that as given. What's wrong with that?

jk

In reply to David Riley:


I hope not also. I can remember, after a bit of a struggle on Great Peter, pulling gratefully on that tree's roots to gain the ledge, and then belaying to it thinking "what a nice friendly tree"! It added to the character and didn't hamper any climbing.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Quite! Someones been lopping at Cratcliff too, at the bottom of Suicide Wall... But you couldn't imagine someone lopping the one off the Bower!

In reply to Cragrat Rich: I still think the trees at the foot of Bell Hagg need some forestry work done on them, the growth since I used to climb there is such as to make the crag so green it's almost unclimable. Used to be the best bouldering crag outside Sheffield.

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

The easy route to the Bower is called Bower Route 1. Has anyone ever wondered what happened to Bower Route 2? It ceased to exist when the tree that it relied on was cut down - the one at the bottom of Suicide Wall...

In reply to Toreador:

Ha, never heard of that so just checked the old red Chatsworth guide:

The Bower - Aboreal Route VS "climb the tree left of Oak Tree Chimney and traverse left to the Bower"


Cheers for that,


Chris

In reply to Coel Hellier:


I really hope not too, it is/was indeed a friendly larch to belay from for years. The tree on top of gingerbread was a good belay as well. I'm grateful for the PCC for all the work they do, but I do urge them to maybe have some dialogue with the BMC area meeting before wide scale work is carried out.

Si

In reply to Simon:
I'm grateful for the PCC for all the work they do, but I do urge them to maybe have some dialogue with the BMC area meeting before wide scale work is carried out.

Did they not? I would have assumed it would have been discussed there first - there was plenty of time. The other thread suggested it was done in consultation with the BMC.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I think this route must have changed at some stage over the 70s or early 80s (earlier pruning?). You can still traverse into the Bower (it's the easy way to do Suicide Wall if you cant jam) but the tree was not much help the first time I did this nearly 20 years back or the last time I did this a couple of years back (and will be unchanged by what happened to the tree). Route 2 as such has not existed as long as I've been climbing there.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I think you'll find 'the nice friendly tree' has gone

In reply to toad:


The other thread also suggested that they had no intention of chopping the trees on Three Tree Climb...

In reply to colinscotchford:


Well if that's true then these people are idiots and are irresponsible, and should be asked to consult someone with a clue before further tree removals.

Not that I'm against tree removal in general, there are many instances where it is justified, but it should be done sensibly and sympathetically to the crag.

In reply to colinscotchford:

Now that's a shame!!

E

In reply to Dave Garnett:

.... and they may not have chopped it anyway (someone else could have used this as a cover). I agree we should not make too many assumptions about the culprit as yet. The last peak area meeting reported two trees felled that should not have been and reported that those actions were illegal and could lead to a fine (one was at High Neb and the other was the holly under the roof right of The Knights Move). Next peak area meet is June 8th 8pm over at The Winking Man near Ramshaw (tea from 5pm at Rockhall Cottage, the Whillans' hut, at the Roaches)

In reply to colinscotchford:


...That puts my script in the guidebook out of date then... if there was one tree that Lawrencefield is known for, it was that larch tree that had been much abused, but was a tough old thing. I think most people belayed off it rather than finish the scrappy endings to TTC & Great Peter - it seemed a logical thing to do. I'm a well known champion of strategic tree removal (there are thousands of silver Birch at lawrencefield) and I do get asked often about gardening and such like.

But this tree has never, ever caused anyone to comment on it's existence and or problems its causing. It was the scene of one of the funniest moments in my climbing career:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1690

How sad...

In reply to Simon:

If I recall, that tree is (er, was, sadly) the best belay around there, and allowed you to belay from the ledge and watch your second, before you both scrambled out. There aren't easy alternative belays because much of the rock above that ledge is loose and friable, nor are there easy belays at the top of the crag. So how exactly is chopping it in anyone's interests? What the duck did whoever chopped this think they were doing?

In reply to Simon:

Someone told me at the wall today that there is a 1m high stump on the ledge now.

Chris

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There's other stuff to belay on (cams) and, until it rots, there's about 1m of tree as Chris says so you can still use it (I did). I guess that it was done cause sometimes the top of Great Peter was a bit dirty (probably due to the tree), still a real shame though one of the best things about lawrencefield was the trees. Yep the ones around red wall are gone (irrc).

In reply to Chris Craggs:
>



Which aesthetically will look awful. Would you now trust belaying / abseiling of it?

I used to think the tree was dodgy enough (although it was always fine)

Maybe it will grow back in time - but I do, like others, have to question the logic and rationale for this.

What necessitated the cutting of the Larch to a one meter high stump after its existence after all the years as a useful belay as well as an attractive feature of the quarry?

If the climbs beneath the Larch tree were so affected they were unclimbed for a generation I would be in agreement, but I would appreciate the reasoning for this particular piece of "conservation".

The larch tree should not, in my own opinion have been cut down and I and like many others, would like to know why it was seen fit to be done at this moment in time after a long life, providing climbers with a natural belay.

This is my own opine, and not of the BMC's I must add by the way.

Frustrated and sad Si

In reply to Simon: just to clarify this point, were the BMC consulted?

I also wonder if someone could get a definitive NT perspective on this. As the landowner, the buck stops with them, and I'd be interested to know if the additional tree works were done with their consent, or even at their insistence.

In reply to toad:



Disclaimer: I'm not representing the BMC on this thread, all opinions are of my own personal nature. You are welcome of course to approach them directly.

Simon

In reply to Al Evans:

I'd be happy to see a bit of careful pruning around Bell Hagg, It's really quite green and grim in some places and there are plenty of trees there to keep the pleasant setting.

In reply to colinscotchford:

That tree has been carefully looked after by climbers for decades, and some moron cuts it down !

In reply to gethin_allen:

There are several crags that could do with a sensetive sorting as they are becoming smothered, green and overgrown, Chatsworth, Gardoms and Bell Hagg probably being top of the list.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs: Lawrencefield was not one of them !

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Recent Developments on Gritstone (1924)
"Route II commences with a preparatory scramble into the roots of an oak tree growing just to the left of Oak Tree Chimney. The tree and wall are climbed for about 25 feet until the leader, his second safely ensconced in the tree's upper reaches, can make a 15-foot traverse to the left. He moves with his hands in one horizontal crack, and his feet partly in another, and partly on a small branch. Good holds on the top of the Bower Slab are round the corner and can just be reached. A delicate and sensational swing on these holds lands the climber safely into the Bower."

Both this and Route I are graded Severe.

In reply to David Riley:

When I 1st climbed in Lawrencefield in about 1968, as you came round the bend into the quarry you could see all of the cliff running away into the distance rising above a sea of silver birch which grew about 2m high.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

I was at wildcat today for a blast from my climbing past and that was also looking very overgrown. I wouldn't dream of pulling owt off there though but for those that know more, do you think it could do with a slight clean up?
PCC please note, I'm not suggesting that the tree on the lynx ledge needs stumping though!

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:


Errr.... hello!? its a man made quarry. It won't be there in a few millenia, and it hasn't been there for millenia. If it was just left then the crag would disappear.

You're pretty misguded if you think all crags will just look after themselves. Go and climb this 3* classic 6 years after its protector (a man that used to climb it and clean it religously every year) died. Then come back and tell me that some of our crags don't need some management to stay climbable. http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=57024

We need to be rough with some of our crags if we want them to remain climbable, this is not an ecological disaster, merely the management of an ephemeral feature on the landscape so it remains useable.

PCC have done a great job getting off there arses and sorting the place out early well done to them.

In reply to Chris Craggs:


Thanks Chris, you've confirmed what I thought, the crag isn't supposed to be there and the colonisers are doing a good job of removing it. To fulfill our selfish whim to climb it we will have to be harsh on them, just like we are with the rest of the manmade landscape all around it to make sure its can be used.

You got any photos Chris? Anybody know when they stopped quarrying?

In reply to petellis:


No they haven't, they have done a very ill-judged and poorly thought through job with totally inadequate (and actually misleading) prior consultation, that does not (judging from this thread) have the support of most climbers, and about which they should be ashamed.

In reply to toad: What's the BMC? Never heard of them. No, wait, I remember someone saying years ago that the BMC would be a threat to climbing if they weren't so incompetent. Maybe they got competent all of a sudden? Nobody asked me about changing Lawrencefield. I'd have said no. Still, you can't stop progress, eh? No doubt it's best to sanitise the whole experience of climbing as much as is practically possible. But why stop with removing trees? Surely there's much more to be done?

In reply to Coel Hellier: I shyed away from using the word 'ashamed', Coel, but now you've said it I second it. This Peak Climbing Club need watching, I think.

In reply to Chambers:
Indeed, draining the pond would be good. It'd make pool wall a bit bigger and then we'd have to remame it much like Three Tree Climb.
Come on PCC, what have you got to say for yourselves?

In reply to Chambers:


I have no doubt that much of what they are doing is valuable and needs doing to manage crags where trees are encroaching. However, it does seem that their decision making needs to be revised and -- certainly when it comes to iconic trees such as the Great Peter tree, about which many of us had fond feelings -- they need to consult widely and explicitly and get prior support. Isn't that obvious??

Isn't this sort of thing what BMC meetings are for? And they should have started a thread on UKC asking whether people supported the chopping of that tree. Consultation is so easy in the era of the internet!

In reply to jimjimjim: Damn right. That pool has been pissing me off for years now. It stinks in summer and attracts midges. The PCC could empty it and then refill it with spongy foam. Then anyone could attempt a solo of Pool Wall with the impunity that characterises indoor climbing walls. But why stop there? Why don't they sandblast the whole crag and fit one of those slidey-back covers that'll allow climbing in all weathers? Then lets see some nice shiny bolts all over the place, cos that'll stop the cracks getting eroded by people placing gear all the time. Stage three can involve the resurfacing of the path down to the quarry. Stage four can be a car park. Stage five? A couple of fast-food outlets?

In reply to Chris Craggs: Yeah. The last time I saw it dry was 1976!

In reply to Chambers: Actually - and far be it from me to contradict the mighty Chris Craggs - the pond doesn't drain itself. Sometimes all the water evaporates.

In reply to Chambers:

I don't think the full scale of your selfrightiousness is properly coming across, maybe you could try just a leeeettle bit harder...? Do you thin you could do that for me?

In reply to petellis: I could try, I suppose, but first I'd need to know what you meant. Perhaps you could help me with that?

In reply to Coel Hellier: I think you need to get off your high horse and regain a sense of persepctive. The tree on Great Peter was certainly not "iconic" in any way: what a lot of tosh!
You say they "should have" started a thread on UKC asking permission. You seem to be suggesting that UKC users are the great arbiters of British climbing: they are not!
The Peak Climbing Club do not, as Chambers said "need watching"...how ridiculous to even suggest suggest such a response.

It was a single tree in a man made quarry. Trees grow, they sometimes get cut down, they sometimes live to be a million years old: get over it!

In reply to Jon Santarelli: UKC is as good a place as any for a discussion, though it shouldn't be the only place, and I think discussion before action is important in these cases. From this thread it would seem that consultation with the BMC was perhaps not as thorough as it might have been, and the tone of the PCCs other threads was that outside participation in this work was actively discouraged.

So what would you suggest?

In reply to toad:

The only fact you can take from this thread is that lots of people need to get a sense of proportion!

In reply to Jon Santarelli: Hmmm. I don't think that Coel is on a 'high horse'. In fact, I suspect that your use of the phrase constitutes an ad hominem attack, and I'm pretty sure that anyone who is intelligent enough to be a climber knows what ad hominem attack are about. So we can discount that. I agree with you, however, that starting a thread on UKC - which is almost as 'establishment' as the BMC (Yes, I admit that I do know what the BMC is and that's why I've never - in three and a half decades of being an active climber - had any inclination to join it)was not the way forward. That said, I really do want to take issue with your later comments, which, I have to say, are either ill-considered or ill-informed.

First of all, more than one tree was killed. Second of all Lawrencefield is not man-made, anymore than, say, Burbage south is man-made. It was there to begin with and men changed it. That in no way justifies what has been done at Lawrencefield. Unless, of course, you want to argue for the deforestation of huge swathes of rainforest by simply saying 'Shit happens'. But you're right, partly, in your closing sentence. Trees do grow. And they do get cut down. But then you blow it. Trees do not live to be a million years old and I don't need to get over anything.

In reply to Toreador: Nope, that's the last thing we need!

In reply to Jon Santarelli: Moreover, you can't dismiss a suggestion simply by stating that it constitutes a 'ridiculous response'. Unless you work for the government, of course. No individual or group has the right to act autonomously in a way that affects others, even if they mean well. The Peak Climbing Club - like any other group of people who have designs on the world - need watching. Unless, of course, you are a fan of totalitarianism. Which I'm sure you're not.

In reply to Chambers:

What I want to know is why, WHY WHY WHY didn't PCC think of the children?!

In reply to Offwidth:

I was up at that bit of Burbage for the first time in a while just the other day, and wondering about that. Its a real shame, is it known who did it?

In reply to Jon Santarelli: People get mad when you chop things down, you get over that. The pcc obviously do need watching because if this is how they carry on someone needs to do something about it. They have fukced up and ukc one of the best places to find out what the climbing world thinks. Small minded we may be but thats the way it is. If you don't like it leave.

In reply to toad:

This always seemed a bit worrying, and wasn't improved upon by their response to this thread.

I wonder about the BMC and NT involvement in this.

Simon - isn't this your neck of the 'woods' as access rep?

In reply to Northern Alliance Commander: Which children?

In reply to jimjimjim: Anyone want to form a PCC-watching group?

In reply to toad:

The PCC's threads notifying people that the work would be taking place were here:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=429295
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=449171

In the October thread Martyn Maltby wrote:

And Becky E (PCC) replied:

In reply to Kipper: I wonder about the BMC as well. I don't wonder about the 'National Trust' - a misnomer if ever there was one. Bunch of evil spuds, that lot. But I might just be undertaking a bit of investigative journalism into the BMC, especially since some of them have been known to 'hob-nob' with politicians.

In reply to Chambers:I'm in. We need to think of a name....

In reply to jimjimjim: We do indeed. We also need to infiltrate the bastards! I just looked at their web site. It won't be difficult! How about 'PCC Watchmen'?

In reply to Chambers: I like it. I've also been to there site.....i'll be at their next meet all incognito. If i see so much as a pair of scissors i'll sound the watchmens horn.

In reply to jimjimjim: there or their who Cares!

In reply to Kipper:



Hi

Not my patch as such (even though I wrote the BMC Lawrencefield guide element) - but we are discussing going forward as a team. So forward if you wish.

Si

In reply to colinscotchford: This reminds me of a recent trip to Stanage where I discovered the heather on "Leave Heather Alone" had been removed. I think the name was probably a clue...

In reply to colinscotchford:
I like the way that the supporters of the actions have defended the PCC by stating that they should be thanked for "getting off their arses" and doing something, when the original thread started by a member of their ranks was posted to dissuade others from coming along and helping out. If it had been an inclusive invitation for anyone who wanted to come along and help then that argument may hold some water and maybe this whole cock-up could have been avoided as no doubt someone would have questioned their intentions of removing a couple of the trees. I would have been quite keen to get along to the event as I quite enjoy gardening on its own so adding climbing to the mix would be great fun. I can see that having loads of people joining in could cause a bit of an issue with H&S but this didn't seem to stop the Stoney crag cleanup.

In reply to all:

For those who have not been to the crag, here is a description of what was done.

**Three Tree Climb / Great Harry area & Pool Wall / Suspense:
This was carried out in October 2010.
Several trees have been completely removed, whilst others significantly trimmed back to re-grow. The tree at the top of Great Peter has been cut to around 1m. The larch tree on Thee Three climb where many people belay has been significantly trimmed but has NOT been removed and is currently re-sprouting. It is still possible to build a good belay using the rock on that ledge. A new belay stake has been installed above this on the top of the quarry for those who want to belay securely from the cliff top.

The large sycamore next to Suspense/Pool Wall has been removed. Mud and vegetation around Cascara Crack has been cleared and several smaller trees in that corner have been removed to open up those routes in the corner.

**The Great Wall area:
This was done in October 2010. The large grassy ledge on Excalibur has been dug out significantly to clean up the start of the route. Trees to the right of Excalibar on Jughandle, Pimpernel , Guillotine, Reprieve, J.J.2, The Gordons, Louisette and Guillotine Groove have been removed, and although still dirty these routes are now not chocked in vegetation and trees.

**Gingerbread Slab area:
This was done in October 2010. Several trees overhanging the Once Pegged area have been removed. Belays can still be built using the rock. Above Tyrone, the left hand tree has been cut down to around 1m and has started re-sprouting. The right hand tree’s lower branches have been pruned. It is still possible to belay off both trees and/or the rock. Trees to the right of Tyrone which were overhanging the slab have been removed.

**Stonemason’s Buttress area:
This was done in March 2011. Several trees have been removed from the routes making them climbable again. Most routes are still dirty and need to see some traffic.

**Red Wall Area work:
October 2010 and March 2011. The large belay tree set back above Red wall has NOT been removed. The tree just on the cliff edge directly above Delectable Direct has been removed, as well as trees to the left of Red Wall and the tree on the ledge of The Delectable Variation (before you traverse left). As a result Cordite Crack should now stay cleaner. Also the trees on and below Block Wall have been removed opening up the route.

In reply to Chambers:



Perhaps rename PCC to Pretty Crappy Choppers (or something that is actually funny)

In reply to Al Evans:

go do it then. nobody will give a shit - the precedent has been set and accepted.

In reply to deepsoup:
GOOD find......

In reply to colinscotchford: Anybody remember The Wrinkled Retainer incident?
However what about chopping the tree on North Crag Eliminate at Castle Rock? It stops a decent free ascent after all, by those who can. Then there's the one on Android, Chapel Head - plus loads and loads of other green stuff. Also Carnage at Malham needs one removing as well. Trees just get in the way after all.

In reply to Jon Santarelli:


If was a feature of the climb, one that many climbers (read the thread) felt added to the experience of climbing that route.


I suggested that BMC meetings and UKC threads were an easy way of consulting a swathe of climbers. The point is not that UKC users have special status, merely that it is widely read.

It's ironic that you disdain the idea that the wide swathe of British climbers who are UKC users could be the arbiters here, but see no problem with a small and unaccountable PCC work party being the arbiters of which trees gets chopped down.

In reply to ChrisJD:
>>

Like it. My brain was working on similar lines whilst cycling into work this morning but I only got as far as Pine Chopping Club if we leave out more abusive efforts out.

In reply to howlingbaboon:

I was similarly incensed when I went to climb Hollybush Crack and found that someone had removed the eponymous tree. An utter disgrace.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Have you climbed there recently ? really the loss of one tree does not alter the climbing one bit and arguably allows one of the best winter venues in the Peak to dry out just a bit faster.


It might have been the most convenient belay for the climbing wall generation but there are loads of good cracks that work as well. Any well placed belay allows you to see what your second is doing.


>There aren't easy alternative belays because much of the rock above that ledge is loose and friable, nor are there easy belays at the top of the crag.

Apart from the sodding big stakes there, you mean ?

In reply to GrahamD:


I've climbed there 3 or 4 times in 2010, but not so far in 2011.


A belay ledge is part of the climb, and the demise of that tree does alter the experience of climbing Great Peter.


I really don't think that particular tree was causing any problem that way.


So we chop down occuring belays such as trees and use stakes instead? No thanks, I'd prefer the tree. I've nothing against stakes where needed, but prefer the ambiance of the natural if it's available (and it's harder to judge how rusted a stake is below the surface and thus how reliable).

In reply to GrahamD:

Actually I was thinking the opposite. The perception of climbing changed by climbing walls. Trees and plants should not be there.

In reply to David Riley:

That thought had occurred to me

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Stakes are there already - have been for years - its not either / or.

In reply to David Riley:

....but convenient abseil / top rope / belay anchors should be

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The main way it affects Great Peter is that there is less likely to be a queue of people getting sack hauled up it !

In reply to the thread:

I'd be interested, how many of those supporting or not minding the chopping of the Great Peter tree have actually led Great Peter?

In reply to GrahamD:

So this was a deliberate move to make climbers climb as you think they should ?

In reply to colinscotchford:

My own selfish perspective:

Pool Wall tree gone
Three tree / Great Peter trees gone
Gingerbread Slab tree gone
Bits of rock I have never set eyes on before

In reply to all:

I hope people can keep a sense of perspective on this. Its still not clear what exactly the PCC have or have not done (it could be someone else cutting trees after their work). The BMC Peak area meeting has not commented on this as the first meeting that could discuss it is in early June (8th, Winking Man 8pm). The BMC do have a website and contact details and making well argued points there may be a useful addition to posting on UKC. The opinions on tree removal expressed at Peak Area meetings vary but the full access, ecology and landowners views are always free to be discussed on any proposed crag clean-ups; details are then arranged by access reps in association with the BMC office. Removal of invasive Birch, Sycamore and especially Rhododendron have been approved with little or no dissent in the past.

In reply to Offwidth: Apologies, I can't find the minutes for the meetings on the BMC site (probably my own incompetence) Was this discussed at a previous meeting before the work was started?

In reply to David Riley:

I don't know what the motivation was. I'm just loathe to hold a kangaroo court for a bunch of people who are voluntarily tidying up a crag for everyone's benefit (it may surprise some people that it consists of quite a lot more than Great Harry area and Gingerbread area)

Personally I'm ambivalent about the tree - the main thing to me is that at least someone is trying to keep the whole crag climbable.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Me for one. The tree, whilst convenient to belay from, is not part of the route.

In reply to toad: It was discussed but the minutes won't tell you much as they are a summary not verbatum. The proposal was pretty much the same as the PCC posts on UKC and looked very sensible. I'd point out that I'm not speaking in an official capacity: I'm not an officer of the peak area but like Simon I attend very regularly and am involved in guidebook and access work that sometimes links to such clean-ups (with my contibution more towards the guidebook end).

In reply to Offwidth:

I'll try to get the area meeting if I can. This crag clean up was publicised beforehand and, while I have reservations about over-enthusiastic tree clearance, I was reassured that this one would be carefully thought-out and was being done under the auspices of the BMC. It seems that this was complacent of me.

Maybe I'm incorrect in assuming that most responsible climbers are environmentally sensitive and would only remove what was invasive and commonplace, and only then where necessary to control vegetation encrouching on routes and rendering them unclimbable. Species such as sycamore and rhododendron are indeed frequently removed because they shade out other, less aggressive, native species. That isn't the situation here, so I don't see that the species is all that relevant, except that, in my experience, larch responds poorly to pollarding.

I guess that expecting that some consideration might also be given to the history of a climb before destroying the reason for its name is even more idealistic and unrealistic.

In reply to Offwidth: Thanks - the guidbook work is very much appreciated

In reply to Offwidth: Somebody above mentioned Wrinkled Retainer, years before that at Stone Middleton a particularly friendly tree on Medusa was cut down by a famous local activist, It probably makes the route better actually, but the way it was cut makes it a lethal target in a fall, these things need to be considered by would be forrestors

In reply to Offwidth:

Last night we posted a full description of what was done - see up-thread.

I would like to emphasise again that the nature of the work and the timing of it was agreed with representatives from the BMC and National Trust. They were happy with the proposed work, were present when it was carried out, and reported afterwards that they were still happy.

I'm sorry if the advance notices of the work were a little mis-leading. This was entirely my fault. The trees on Three Tree Climb have, as already stated, already started resprouting. The initial impressions may look a little drastic but it will soften round the edges very quickly.

Thank you to the many people who have expressed their positive responses to the work - both on and off UKC.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):

This in my opinion is the vital issue- the work was carried out in agreement with BMC/National trust and with their reps present. I couldn't ask for any more than that really.

I hadn't been to lawrencefield for ages until a few weeks back, and neither had my mates. We all walked down and said 'blimey that's better!'

I think it's great and that people are prepared to sort it out. Lets face it if everything relating to crag management had to be approved by UKC forum then can i suggest that nothing would ever get done!

In reply to Becky E (PCC):

Whilst the chopping down of tree may be good for the climbing environment.

It might not be so good for the environment as a whole.

How many tree's have been re-planted?

In reply to colinscotchford: It's still not been made clear why individual trees have been removed. I thought it had been more less established many years ago that gardening simply to improve the climbing was at best questionable and should be undertaken only with the greatest care and after full consideration of all the implications, because of the environmental impact.

The value of a tree shouldn't be judged simply on whether it makes a good belay. They're often part of the character of the crag, and of individual climbs. To take a strictly utilitarian view is to ignore that climbing is more than gymnastics, the surrounding environment is part of the experience. Otherwise you might as well stay indoors.

There may be good conservation reasons for removing trees, if they're causing damage or to open the area up for other species. Doing it simply to improve the climbing isn't sufficient.

In fairness to PCC, they seem to have consulted the BMC and the landowner. Perhaps the BMC should have thought harder about this before agreeing. Was it discussed at an area meeting?

The lesson surely is that these projects must be handled very carefully and consulted on as widely as possible beforehand.

In reply to Howard J:


The lesson surely is that if you truly, truly care for any of this you go along to the meetings where the decisions are being made.

In reply to GrahamD:

No. The onus is on those doing the doing.

In reply to mit:


That's a pretty daft question in this context. Have you been to Lawrencefield? It's full of self-seeded trees and saplings, they don't need re-planting!

This is turning into the usual stupid nit-picking UKC witch hunt.
jk

In reply to GrahamD:

Is one of the discussion points not that the PCC undertook rather more than was discussed at the area meeting?

In reply to David Riley:

Those doing the doing (in this case a crag clean up don't forget, not placeing an ab bolt or anything) did consult the appropriate bodies and publish here. Surely you don't suggest that every crag clean up has to be approved by UKCs armchair critics before they can get on with it ?

In reply to toad:


>Is one of the discussion points not that the PCC undertook rather more than was discussed at the area meeting?

If it was just a discussion point I'd agree. As it is its platform for slagging off the crag clean up volunteers.

In reply to GrahamD: Fair point, except that the agenda often isn't published until the last minute. Also, climbers who may have an interest don't always live in the relevant area and can't attend meetings even if they wanted to. Area meetings are useful as a forum to discuss views and canvass opinions but the danger is that any decisions taken there are seen as representing the views of all climbers, when in reality they don't.

It still seems to me as if the BMC were a bit remiss, either in agreeing to the work in the first place or in supervising it if PCC went beyond their remit.

Hopefully everyone involved will be a bit more sensitive next time they're planning something similar.

In reply to GrahamD:


The proposal to chop the Great Peter tree was not discussed at any BMC meeting and was not posted here. Indeed the post here suggested that they would not be "that stupid" (admittedly that was about 3-tree climb not the Great Peter tree) and was thus misleading.


So people who climb often in the Peak are "armchair critics" because they haven't chopped trees themselves?

What I do suggest -- in all seriousness -- is that concerning crags lots of us climb at and care about, those intending such work should make public before hand (e.g. post on UKC) a reasonably complete outline of what they intend to do.

I repeat -- since I've posted a couple of stroppy posts about this -- that I'm not against tree clearance in principle, and do appreciate those who look after crags, and would often support tree clearance (Gardoms and Chatsworth could do with some!), but I do think it's in everyone's interests to consult and think things through.

So far we don't know who took the decision to chop this particular tree nor their rationale for doing so. I suspect that had they consulted more widely they would have changed their minds.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):
>> Thank you to the many people who have expressed their positive responses to the work - both on and off UKC.

Can we also be assured that you've listened to those who are less than happy with some of the work? Does PCC recognise that it may have been a bit too enthusiastic, and will be more careful in future? Or is it entirely happy with what it's done and intends to ignore any objections?

In reply to Howard J:

>Does PCC recognise that it may have been a bit too enthusiastic, and will be more careful in future?

FFS we are talking about cropping one tree - which isn't even killed. How the hell could you practically run a crag clean up if every single action to every bit of foliage had to be run through UKC ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

The implication of this thread appears to be that there is a vocal group on this thread (who may or may not represent the majority of users of the crag) have some right to judge or veto actions to every bit of tree or foliage that is touched in a clean up.

In reply to colinscotchford: No difference really between adding a couple of bolts for belays and cutting down an on route tree. both amount to irreversable vandalism

In reply to tatty112:


Hardly. Bolts can be removed (and their discussion in this context is a ridiculous red herring). Trees will re-grow and will re-seed elsewhere.

jk

In reply to GrahamD:


Since this action is supposedly being done by climbers for the benefit of climbers, don't you think that the opinion of climbers is actually relevant? This thread has been read by 3,657 people, and any of them can express their opinion if they wish. Of those doing so, over a dozen have criticised the chopping of this tree, 2 or 3 are ambivalent, and no-one has actually supported it.

As for your comments about who has "right to judge or veto actions", surely you could address this to those who wanted to chop that tree. So far no-one, from any of the PCC, BMC or NT, has stated that they made the decision about that tree, nor given a justification for it. I don't know about the PCC, but both the BMC and NT are organisations responsible to their members, and thus the opinions on this thread are indeed relevant.

In reply to GrahamD:

But that's the same argument that could be levelled against the PCC. A small, vocal group acting in a way that may or may not represent the majority of crag-users.

With a few exceptions, I think most people interested in this thread recognise the good intention and the commitment of these volunteers to improve the climbing environment. However, and with hindsight, their organisations consultation process was flawed, and like any responsible voluntary group, the PCC needs to recognise the problem and learn from this in how it undertakes similar work in future.

In reply to Howard J:

"Fair point, except that the agenda often isn't published until the last minute. Also, climbers who may have an interest don't always live in the relevant area and can't attend meetings even if they wanted to. Area meetings are useful as a forum to discuss views and canvass opinions but the danger is that any decisions taken there are seen as representing the views of all climbers, when in reality they don't. "

I hear this a lot but I dont think it stands up to scrutiny.

Firstly these meetings are only one way to influence.

Secondly, speaking in my individual capacity as a guidebook volunteer and someone drving from Nottingham to these meetings (including the western peak), although many people can't make every meeting, there are tens of thousands of local climbers with interests, yet Peak Area meetings range from 25 to 75 (with some really serious issues recently including many of the most famous gritstone crags up for sale or lease). Written contributions to the meetings from ordinary members who can't attend are rare. The viewer stats for the relevant areas on the BMC website are hardly massive. Those who do attend are always heard, views published elsewhere are discussed (esp UKC and UKB). I just don't see the views of the people there being so far from the mainstream. So, I think too many climbers are too bloody apathetic and so we all rely on much the same faces to attend the area meets, clean the crags, attend public meetings where access is affected, write to MPs and other officials, work on and write the guides etc.

In reply to Offwidth:

I am completely guilty of not spending time fighting access issues and cleaning crags and very much appreciate the efforts of those who do.
However it is ironic that you are criticizing people for not attending public meetings to give their views. When that is exactly what is happening here. We are expressing our opinions on an archived public climbing forum.
How is that less valuable than attending a meeting ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Of course people can have their say but personally slagging off the volunteers is something different. Also a discussion on this forum is just that - there is no compunction for any of the parties to answer to it.



This forum isn't the vehicle for that, is it ? I'm sure it will be raised at the next area meeting and people can attend if they wish.

In reply to David Riley:


Because this is potentially unrepresentative forum is a talking shop, not an executive body.

In reply to GrahamD:

erm


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

They are the base from which the BMC grows, where local action starts and ideas get kicked about (in a friendly way). One of their purposes is to inform local climbers and walkers of developments in the wider outdoor world. They also act as a mouthpiece for the opinions of the locals in such matters as crag access, conservation issues, and national debates (e.g. windfarms, local road building schemes). They are also increasingly the forum for getting local crag clean up events started, organised and funded.

So essentially the same as here - a talking shop - they are most definately NOT an executive body.

In reply to GrahamD:


So people can chop trees down without feeling any need to consult with or explain themselves to other climbers?


I'm continually baffled by the attitude that a meeting attended by 30 to 50 is the only appropriate place to discuss things relevant to climbers, and that an open forum thread read by 3000 climbers is not. (Not that that in any way denigrates the BMC meetings or those who attend, they do a valuable and necessary job.)

In reply to colinscotchford: Maintaining and tidying crags should only be limited to the removal of human detritus - finger tape, cans and bottles, poo, plastic bags, cigarettes etc. Course this is less attractive and harder work than sorting out a few trees, and is clearly more fun for those who seek to cover themselves in dubious "glory". Leave nature to itself. These are crags and not climbing walls.

In reply to David Riley:

I'm not criticising individuals who have genuine reasons for not attending (except maybe toad who's a serial moaner, never attends and has used his Nottingham base as an excuse . I'm certainly not criticising people stating views here (I re-raise them sometimes at Peak Area - as a known regular when asked in person by the OP- or because I think someone made a good point). I was trying to indicate that Howard's points don't really add up (lack of chances to respond to a late agenda; some being unable to attend cf the overall level of attendance; misstating the view on the 'representativeness' of those who do; the other possible routes to get info to these meets or the BMC). This is important currently as much more serious stuff is happening (sale/lease of parts of Stanage and the Roaches soon as an example) and people need to wake up and start taking note (and where required act by writing letters if nowt else).

Points made at the area meetings have way more weight than most UKC posts as they feed formally direct to the BMC 'casework': very important in some areas of policy and access. Hence, its not that people shouldn't post here (they should) but they should try and attend the occasional area meet if they can as it all helps, and if they can't attend and have something important to say, write.

On the point of this thread I think Coel has it right that some of the trees removed very likely exceeded the expectation of the meeting (Coel does attend when he can of course!)

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks. I know you do lots of good work. Just wanted to make the point that those taking time to publish thoughts on here were not "bloody apathetic".

In reply to Coel Hellier:
>
From someone who usually manages to answer points without wild extrapolation from what was actually written, this is a ridiculous statement.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:


Good idea. Lets all stay at home.

More realistically lets recognise that we are not talking a natural environment we are talking about a managed one - most of the UK is

In reply to Coel Hellier:


There is a world of difference between discussing and acting. Of course we are free to discuss things here and maybe out of that discussion some people might want to take action through the appropriate route for action.

In reply to Offwidth:
Points made at the area meetings have way more weight than most UKC posts as they feed formally direct to the BMC 'casework': very important in some areas of policy and access.

I probably expressed myself badly. What I was trying to convey is that a small meeting which is inevitably attended mostly by people who live fairly locally may not necessarily reflect the views of all those who may iive some way away, and who use those crags at weekends but are unable to get along to a midweek meeting. Of course BMC meetings carry weight since as you say they feed directly into the BMC system, but it seems to me that this is an equally valid forum for expressing opinion.

I keep meaning to get along to area meetings but I have a busy job which often involves travel, a 2 hour commute, and also other commitments, and for one reason or another the meetins seem to either clash with something else or I'm just too knackered to make the effort. Feeble, I agree.

My other point, again probably badly expressed, was that I would have expected the BMC to have scrutinised the proposals a little more carefully and supervised them a bit more closely. I'm not really criticising the BMC or PCC for that matter since I'm sure any excesses were simply the result of over-enthusiasm on the day, just expressing a hope that lessons have been learned and future proposals, whether from PCC or anyone else, will be considered a bit more fully.

In reply to Offwidth:

Lots of branches snapped at the top of Embankment now as well it seems!

In reply to colinscotchford: Interesting discussion that we're having here. I have a question which I think is pertinent. Who did this work, and were they all 'volunteers'? There's a 'cui bono' question coming, as I'm sure you know.

In reply to Becky E (PCC):si

We were aware of it - however you say that BMC people were on then ground as you took the tree's out. Who please.

Despite my offer of BMC presence - The details of who, when & how would be good Becky please.

I myself offered to be on site to represent the BMC and was told by yourself I was not needed along with volunteers willing to help.


si

In reply to Simon: What I want to know - and I'll find out one way or another- is this: Did any money change hands?

In reply to GrahamD:

what's more natural than the outdoors? whether or not it's an old quarry doesn't matter. as said above, why not go the whole hog then and have escalators, fast food outlets, toilets and a roof at every crag. don't be so bloody stupid. you should stay at home as you clearly have zero idea about what it's like to be outside interacting with nature.

In reply to Cragrat Rich:

Snow?

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:


Neither have you if you think that anything we climb on in England at least is anything to do with being natural. Go and have a look at Milford to see what a quarry left to nature looks like. FFS we are talking about one tree out of god knows how many which have been cleared in the same venue which noone is complaining about.

In reply to GrahamD:

ah yes, but this is the one tree that your fellow PCC member is on record as saying 'we wouldn't be stupid enough to go near that'.

I think the tree in question has come to represent the issue of sensitivity to all aspects of the crag environment when carrying out 'management and conservation work'.

In reply to GrahamD: Almscliffe, Brimham, Bridestones, Caley, Eastby, Crookrise, et al in my immediate neighbourhood, then there's most of the peak District (White and Dark) then the Lakes, not forgetting Wales before we even start north of the Border.

Where the f*ck is milford?

In reply to colinscotchford: I am not in any club, wrong guess. read the post......properly. it's a quote........

In reply to colinscotchford:

"I think the tree in question has come to represent the issue of sensitivity to all aspects of the crag environment when carrying out 'management and conservation work'."

Sort of an 'arboreal spring' leading to a step reduction in suppression of innocent trees everywhere? (sorry, couldnt resist

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

My reply was aimed at Graham D's comment not yours. I have followed the entire thread very carefully.

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:

"Where the f*ck is milford?" its in the new Froggatt guide: on the A6 about half way between Derby and Matlock. Once large walls with some good climbing now largely buried under a mass of vegetation. This deterioration was as much to do with access as anything else. As that area goes its not so obscure (for real obscure try Horsley Castle).

In reply to unclesamsauntibess:



Do you really think that any of these crags are in their pre-cleaned and unclimbed on state ? really ? Milford was in the previous Chatsworth guide and is in the current Froggatt guide. It is well over20m high and just North of Derby. Because access is not steraight forward, it has gone back to nature - big style!

In reply to GrahamD:
>.... If it was just a discussion point I'd agree. As it is its platform for slagging off the crag clean up volunteers.

Being critical of the actions of a group of people who chopped tree's that they clearly stated they wouldn't is in no way "slagging them off".

In reference to the "if you care then get off your backside and help" type comments - I seem to recall that the organisers of this particular crag cleanup were quite vocal in their lack of interest in any further help.
Just because you are willing to do a certain thing, doesn't mean that it's right to do it.

Lastly, the old "if you cared then you'd turn up to the BMC local area meeting". I'm a bit tired of reading this (on this and other threads).
For my sins, I live in the southeast. Whilst this clearly makes me a southern softy, I really don't understand how this in some way makes my opinion less valid than the 35 people that do turn up to their local meeting?
I attend the London and Southeast BMC meetings when I can, and have been along to the Tremadog cleanup weekends to help - does that mean I can go and chop trees in N Wales with impunity, or that all other opinions relating to Soutern Sandstone should be ignored and unilateral action taken by the 40 odd people that attended the BMC meeting in central London?

Of course it bloody doesn't and it's difference to what has been sugested above.

Right, back to work.

Si

In reply to David Riley:

Have you climbed things like Kordite Crack recently ? just about everything right of Gingerbread was becoming unclimbable most of the time.

In reply to SCC:


Apart from various posters calling the volunteers "morons" and "idiots" you mean ?

In reply to GrahamD:


Yes. You're right. There was lots of gardening to do there.
But that's not what I was meaning.
There are many places that are completely overgrown. Which Lawrencefield certainly wasn't.
I used the word moron. It was aimed only at the person that cut down the particular tree and nobody else. I stick by it. You seem to be in the minority thinking that is not reasonable.

In reply to David Riley:

not necessarily ? - presumably it was a tree surgeon who was probably unaware of the adoration the climbing world held for this particlar tree.

Although I wondered from an aesethtic point of view, why leave a 1 m stump rather than removing it closer to the ground, or alternatively just doing some bonsei-like pruning.

In reply to Jim Hamilton: The technical term is pollarding, this will mean in a year or two there will be a vigorous leafy growth close to the stump, infact proving much more of an obstacle to climbs than the original healthy mature trees.

In reply to colinscotchford:

I remember in my teens, in the sixties, I was with pals at Lawrencefield, and Don Morrison offered to lead me up Snail Crack. At the top, he proceeded to show me how to rig the abseil off the tree. He said "Never, wrap the rope round the tree, retrieving it will damage the tree".
He, and other climbers throughout my 40 odd years climbing, have all emphasised the almost sacred nature of the tree. The climbers were all aware that they had a responsibility to protect all the vegetation. That philosophy has stayed with me all my life. Climbing is nowhere near as important as trees, or even a tree.

In reply to Fredt:

Not all climbers share your viewpoint of course. Plenty of climbers DO wrap ropes straight round trees and the trees on top of Gingerbread slab were suffering.

In reply to GrahamD:

They were put out of their misery ?

In reply to colinscotchford:

Nice picture. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9b7gXKOAbAw/S-2E3PkIMfI/AAAAAAAAAa0/LvK2-PoJ3ko/s...