UKC

Many issues were raised at last night's debate at Staveley, but one which interested me was the resistance to regulation.

A number of those who spoke said that the freedom involved in climbing was of utmost importance to them, and I guess that most climbers see themselves to some extent as "free spirits". In the annals of climbing there are many people who were described as "larger than life" or rebels, and most of these were looked up to and admired. We enjoy being regaled with stories of the antics of such people. What this often meant was "thoroughly irresponsible".


Now I know I shall be likened to Melanie Phillips writing in the Daily Mail on a bad day, but there are plenty of examples. Dougal Haston was widely admired but he was so free with spirit that he was able to get in his car after drinking huge amounts of it and then mow down and kill pedestrians walking from the Clachaig. Others drove high-powered cars using the roads as a race track and tried to set records for Marble Arch to Pen-y-Gywryd. Such larger than lifers are great fun till you get in their way. Now we see other examples, less a matter of life and death, with people ignoring arrangements painstakingly made with landowners by Access Officers resulting in access being withdrawn.

In my own area there has been blatant abuse at Witches Quarry where people have ignored agreed rules. You only have to look at this country today, from bankers to rioter-looters to see where irresponsibility gets you. It is undoubtedly now the era of me first and b0llocks to the rest of you.
Now, dear reader, if you're still with me, you may ask "What's this all about?" Well, it's this. The freedom of the hills and crags is not unqualified. There are many bird bans, and these are, I believe, largely respected if not liked. This may be due to the knowledge that ultimately these things are backed by the criminal law. Last night the representative from English Nature (Simon ?) spoke eloquently of the rare plants struggling to survive on crags frequented by winter climbers.

Now it is probable that the Alpine Catchfly has fewer friends than a nesting peregrine, but I think I'm right in saying that deliberate or reckless damage to an SSSI can land you in the dock, and the "free spirit" who ignores such petty rules and regulations in an extreme case could find their freedom limited to gazing through the bars at Strangeways.
So anyone claiming that some nebulous freedom from rules and regulations is an essential part of the climbing experience is going to be disappointed. When some shows-of-hands occurred last night it became apparent that, somehow, you aren't a bona fide climber if you are prepared to countenance any limitation on that freedom.

So I for one am going to charge (or more likely stumble in my case) over the top into a hail of machine gun fire and say that yes, I am in favour of the FRCC following the example set by the new North Wales guidebook to dare to label areas of crags as off-limits to winter climbers. I know, as Max Biden pointed out last night, that there is no force of law behind such a thing, but that it can still be done and it will influence a lot of people. Peer group pressure is a powerful thing. Judging by the feeling of last night's meeting Steve Ashworth is in a small minority and he will probably ignore such "regulation" but I think we should stand up and be counted, we the great unwashed of ordinary climbers.

Just a couple of short codas:

1. I'd love to see Max's introductory remarks, calm and considered as they were, published somewhere on this website.

2. I'd be really interested to know if the largely hostile response to Steve Ashworth's remarks last night would possibly cause him to change his position by a millimetre. Only in politics is changing your position seen as weakness.

In reply to Rog Wilko: More to the point, what is the record for Marble Arch to Pen-y-Gywryd?

I've got a 1hr57 for Highgate to Stanage which I'm proud of.

In reply to Tobias at Home:
>.

Two hours fifty-seven minutes. Before the M1 and M6 were built.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Is there any way of minutes/a summary from the meeting being published on this website? Living where I do I couldn't come to Staveley for the evening sadly.

In reply to MattG: Well, the whole thing was recorded on video camera, but I don't know how that will be accessed. Written notes were taken, too, so whether they will appear somewhere or not, who knows. Wait a bit, someone may respond.

In reply to Rog Wilko:
see comment from simondgee here
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=480960

In reply to Rog Wilko: Thanks

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Keen to watch that.

In reply to Rog Wilko:
The edited version of the film will be on the BMC website, and I am planning to put an article of the main points including audience responses on ukc. The article is likely to be written next week, the film may take a little longer - watch out for Simon's posts ....
Steve

In reply to Steve Scott:

Hi Steve, Give yourself a large pat on the back for having organised it all!

There is a short clip of the meeting here: youtube.com/watch?v=YG7IiUh7PiE& which gives a good idea of the big turnout.

By the way, I feel that it was clear that the feeling of the meeting was that:

People were largely in favour of the FRCC taking a stance.

There was considerable concern about the potential damage to rare plants casued by climbing in poor conditions.

The large majority did not care whether routes were done in one day or two.

There was no clear mandate for "banning" winter climbing on certain crags, or buttresses.

But there was strong feeling that mixed winter climbing of harder grade climbs might cause damage to crucial holds or nut placements which would substantially alter the grade and/or nature of the summer climb.

I would be inteested to hear from anyone who has anything to add to that or disagrees.

In reply to Stephen Reid:

There seems to be a bit of a u-turn going on here. Yesterday the 'anti-winter climbing lobby' on here were proposing that the ecological issues should not play a part in the debate (most likely because it would make summer climbing look a lot worse than winter climbing), but it seems to have played a major roll in the debate last night.

From that short clip of Birkett passionately explaining the dangers of winter climbing to rock routes (which I agree exist), I get the impression that the problems of summer climbing on winter routes was ignored. When will people stop laughing at winter climbing and realise it has just as much right to be on the hills as summer routes. Stop glossing over the fact that summer climbing not only creates massive ecological damage, but does BY DEFINITION destroy winter climbs.

The potential for winter climbing to destroy summer routes is there. The potential for summer routes to destroy winter routes is also there. Where does that leave us? Both are evil and both should be either banned or both should be aloud to wreck each others routes. To ban just one is idle favouritism.

A compromise I have thought of recently is to limit winter climbing on 'classic summer lines' to harder routes. This is completely the opposite of Dave's proposal I take it, but I think it would be the best outcome for the following reasons. People often sight winter climbing on classic routes as unnecessary as there are 'other places winter climbers can go'. I agree that this is true up to a point- around VI. (I will ignore the discriminatory concept this is based on- that summer climbers are more entitled to climb the best lines than winter climbers- but I suppose that's why it's a compromise) After the grade of V/VI/VII two things happen- 1. there are far less people climbing at this grade to cause damage; 2. there is no where else to climb but on rock, as turf doesn't support tech 9 moves generally.

So my proposal would mean a compromise on both sides. Summer climbers would have to agree that their routes may (and probably will) get damaged above HVSish, but the easier routes will be left unscratched. The numbers of people climbing above HVS on high mountain crags aren't small, but it is a small proportion of the overall number of climbers, who can then enjoy their polished and devegitated classics away from winter climbers . Winter climbers would have to compromise that in the lower grades they would be limited to gullies and turf routes, which from these threads seems to be what the majority of lower grade climbers want to do anyway. This would mean that some of the best winter climbing in the lakes would be missed out on, but that's compromise. The up side of the compromise for winter climbers would be a sustainable future for their sport, which if they scratch up classic Severes, probably isn't going to be there.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

I'm sorry you missed the meeting Franco.

In reply to Franco Cookson: Brilliant!

In reply to Franco Cookson:



There's a major flaw here Frank. We aren't split into summer climbers and winter climbers, some do both.

This polarisation you keep stating; winter climbers vs summer climbers is decisive, it doesn't help.

A bit like labeling people sport climbers, trad climbers or boulderers; the majority of people I know do all three; they are climbers.

In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:

Obviously Mick. But that doesn't change anything does it?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Framing the debate changes everything, from one of 'us versus them' to one of 'we' have a problem, how are 'we' going to solve it.

By the way; What is the problem?

In reply to Rog Wilko:
I thought Wednesday's meeting was an opportunity missed to be honest. It was interesting and entertaining but was so badly chaired that it just became a shouting match between a few personalities. Simon Webb from Natural England did give a very eloquent talk on arctic alpine plant communities and the threats they face from winter climbers, among other things. His final remarks that in this day and age of good mountain weather forecasting, blogs, forums, webcams etc. there is absolutely no excuse to climb at venues like Helvellyn, Fairfield and Great End if the conditions aren't right and turf isn't frozen were spot on. People do though, probably because they've travelled a long way and don't want to go away without a climb.

To my mind this is the biggest issue for winter climbing in the lakes, not whether a few of the lakeland mafia get pi88ed off that their E9 route gets a few scratches on it. The multitude of climbers coming to the Lakes will go to those venues mentioned above as they are reliable and well known - why didn't the BMC and others on Wednesday night try and come up with some co-ordinated action that might mean Simon's message is more widely read and understood. Here is an idea - the fell top assessors that go up Helvellyn every day for four months record temperatures, wind speed etc. Those reports could be collated into a weekly summary of wind speed, direction, summit temps, snow cover and frozen ground which would give a bloody good indication whether it is OK to climb. An advisory statement at the end, backed by the BMC, Natural England, some notable bloggers, guides or shops in the Lakes like Needle Sports, Epicentre, Climbers Shop, could then be made, which people can choose to follow, or ignore if they wish. It would give the weather facts and could be followed by 'in our opinion, based on the weeks weather, and the forecast for the next two days, climbing on XX and XX is not recommended'. The weather conditions for Helvellyn can certainly be extended to Fairfield and with some certainty to Great End too.

Contrary to what Stephen Reid says, I don't think people were largely in favour of the FRCC taking a stance. Many people shouting to be heard over the din said it depends what that stance is. Better info on plant communities definitely but a holier than thou attitude about scratching rock I'm not so sure.

I don't agree entirely with what Steve Ashworth does and I've chewed my lip and shouted that's not winter climbing from some photos I've seen but I'd defend his right to do it to the end. I think the gist of his overlong presentation was right - that if you are going to have a go at winter climbing then every facet of climbing should come under the microscope. I also think it takes a hell of a brass neck for someone who admitted to abbing down a summer line with an ice axe clearing out vegetation to support some sort of limitation on mixed winter climbing in the Lakes.

Where does that kind of limitation end? Summer scramblers on Pinnacle Ridge saying enough is enough, no more winter ascents please 'cos there's too many scratches. The Ramblers getting militant because they're fed up following 'poon marks on Striding Edge. Lets try and do something about the real problem and have a bit of live and let live on this one.

Aye,
Davie

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Franco, you must be paranoid if you think there is such a thing as an anti winter climbing lobby. "If youi're not with us you're against us" is a ludicrous simplification of the debate. Or are you just trying to create a division where none exists, for some reason I don't understand?

In reply to DR:
away without a climb.

>
It's not just about scratching rock. Bowfell Buttess is a classic winter and summer route which I think has stood up quite well to the depredations of crampons and ice axes. But many routes would be seriously damaged if similar traffic passed over them. In my ignorance I believe that many harder routes would be damaged more, because holds are smaller and more tenuous and narrow finger cracks would be seriously damaged by torquing. I know that pegging hairline cracks at Millstone Edge created a lot of good routes vbut surely we can agree that that was simply good luck rather than good planning, and we should learn from that experience.

In reply to DR:
>>
>I'm sorry but I think this is grossly out of order. Attitudes to cleaning new summer lines have changed greatly in recent times. As Dave Birkett said, we can most of us look back at things we did in the past and say "Well, I wouldn't do that again". It's what people are prepared to do now and tomorrow that counts.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Obviously I don't think of it like that, but it is the easiest way to talk about it. Please don't get caught up in typical UKC debates on semantics. I've offered what I think a good compromise would be, I'm interested to know what people think about it.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Do you not think that the routes at HVS and above will suffer more from winter climbing than routes at VS and below? Your compromise is to "allow" climbing on routes that will suffer more, while not "allowing," climbing on routes that will suffer less, though will get more traffic.

My compromise is to suggest that people look at a guidebook, if it has a winter grade, it's a winter climb. If it doesn't, then don't climb it in winter, because someone that could've would've but hasn't.

What may turn out to be the case is that the last two cold winters will turn out to be exceptions and the Lakes will revert to being a winter dream because conditions don't come!

In reply to jonnie3430:


I guess we should also say the same thing about summer routes. Any potential route that isn't in the guidebook should be off-limits for evermore?

In reply to timjones:

Hah! I took it as given that anything not in guidebooks is fair game! (As long as the bird, beastie and bog people don't mind.)

In reply to jonnie3430:

I thought you were saying that if it wasn't in the guide you shouldn't climb it in case someone else had previously decided to give it miss based on their own personal ethics

In reply to DR:

No one was suggesting the adoption of a holier than thou attitude at all. I simply was trying to gauge the majority view and the majority (of those who voted) seemed to support the notion that the FRCC should have some involvement. Those who shouted that "it depended what the view was" (and I heard only one) wanted to have their cake and eat it I suspect - ie they wanted the FRCC to have a view but only if it agreed with their own. Actually, if you look at the intro to the current winter guide, then we already do hold a view on conditions and rare vegetation.

I didn't support any limitations - I simply asked people to raise their hands if they did and then raise them if they didn't. The result was inconclusive, numbers were about 50/50 of those that bothered to vote. On that basis, there is no way that the FRCC would be supporting any "bans", even if such things were possible, which I doubt.

Instead of brass neck, try honesty. Yes, I've cleaned up new routes using an old ice axe in the past. I've also used a nut key. The blade is about the same length in each case but you don't tend to bash your knuckles with an ice axe. The room was full of keen new routers and without doubt virtually all of them, if not 100%, will have used similar methods to create their masterpieces. What are now classic clean Lakeland routes once had vegetation all over them and this has been removed either by the first ascentionist or by those making repeat ascents. To pretend otherwise is at best naive and at worst self-deluding. Were the end results worth it? Who can say? If you take routes like the Crack on Gimmer or Grooved Wall on Pillar, both of which had loads of vegetation removed from them, I would say yes in terms of their popularity as climbs. If you look at routes like those on Grange Crags in Borrowdale which no-one climbs on now, then the answer would have to be no. When I started doing new routes in Galloway twenty years ago, I didn't know as much about crag vegetation as I do now and my enthusiasm may have got the better of me at times. But, as I said to Steve Ashworth, sometimes one does things when you are young that you regret having done when you are older.

I suspect that even if chaired differently the debate would not have reached a firm conclusion. Nevertheless, I am glad it went ahead. As editor of the FRCC guides, I find issues like this difficult to resolve and yet everyone expects you to do something (as long as it's what they want). I now know that the stance we are taking on the especially rare plants of the Helvellyn Escarpment is correct, that routes done over two days rather than one are perfectly valid in most folks' eyes (the guidebook writer by the way is strongly opposed to this), that drytooling is a no-no on established routes, and that there is a fair amount of concern about damage to rock climbs but not enough for people to feel various areas should be banned so perhaps a general appeal for people to be sensible about where and what they climb is what is called for. These views will hopefully gel over time to produce a few guidelines, which, at the end of the day, pleople can choose to heed or ignore as they wish.

In reply to timjones:

No, just saying that it is a way of establishing whether something is a summer climb, winter climb or both.

THE RECORD
Well I'm sat looking at 6.5 hours of footage and audio from the meeting which breaks down to approximately
1 hour of presentations
-Max Biden(8 mins)-historical perspective to current conditions
-Simon Web (11 mins) - Natural England Essentially Impact on Upland Mountain Ecology
-Dave Birkett-(8 min)-a climbers view 1
-Stephen Ashworth (33 min)-a climber view 2
and
1 hour of Q & A.
As I was filming (with Justin and Pete, to whom we are indebted for their time and skill), it wasn't easy to take all things in at the time or be a participant but my observations (now i'm sat with a cuppa and couple of long nights ahead) are:
1. about 100-120 people took part and fairly representative of climbing community though not surprisingly quite a who' who of past and present activists.
2. Stephen Reid's concise summary of some key points is pretty fair and accurate
3. Despite there being contentious issues and disagreement
a.) There was a lot of passion in the room (including some man cuddles!) for the issues, our sport and the environment. I would imagine there wasn't anybody there that wouldn't have bought a pint for anybody else in the room...the hero's and villains in the room weren't as bad as those outside the brewery that night.
b.) Nobody gets up in the morning and thinks i'll go and trash the crags. One persons trashing is another persons acceptable presence. Its down to perspective and consideration.
c.) Many of the older generation were the first to put their hands up and say in the past i've done something that i now regret or have changed my view of.
4. I thought Simon Webbs narrative on rare (and as you will see from the final edit shortly)... unbelievably rare plants, was compelling and enough reasons not to climb in some places. I think we need a way to get those messages over in a way that affects decisions rather then being the 'flick past in the front of a guide'.

EDIT
My aim is to do a short edit with the highlights in an as objective way as a possible maybe 15min.
AND
A full edit with all 2 hours viewable in units e.g. each presenters talk as separate Video and Q & A as a separate video(s).
Does anybody object to this approach?

In reply to jonnie3430:

That is the most bonkers argument I've ever heard. So you're advocating a cap on winter routes. "Sorry passionate lakes winter climber, you're not aloud to climb any more routes, even though your facet of climbing is the fastest evolving one".

In reply to Franco Cookson:

I think you misunderstand. I suggest no more climbing summer routes that aren't established as winter climbs already (i.e, by having a winter and summer grade.) If Shepherds gets plastered can I do Little Cham or the Bludgeon? If Sherherds did get plastered there are some chossy vegitated messes that would be great for climbing that should be where the winter climbers looking for 1st ascents go.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Franco. That's the third time I've seen you type 'aloud' when you mean 'allowed'. And also, 'breed' is different from 'bread'. Just thought you might like to know for next time you criticise Bjorn's use of the English language.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

A cynical summary of the meeting:

Max, don't climb the rock

Simon, don't climb the dirt

Dave, climb/don't climb but take responsibility

Steve, I will talk forever trying to justify myself to a hostile audience by pointing out their misdemeanors.

Others, I will interrupt before the speaker is finished because I do not understand the meaning of debate.

The debate was largely opinion and speculation, backed by little hard evidence. Evidence is what is needed to take discussions any further.

I was left with one nagging doubt after the meeting:

Do route only become damaged once they have been completed?

Folks rant on and on about this route and that which have been ruined by a winter ascent.

Many classic hard lines have been attempted and lie incomplete (and so unreported). Where are the rants and complaints about the damage to these? They will obviously have had summer ascents.

In reply to Pete_Robinson: Yeh, sorry. I do that often when typing fast between climbing seshes. There's a difference between making a spelling mistake and deliberately choosing to use derogatory language though.

In reply to Franco Cookson: Out of curiosity how many hill days winter climbing in the lakes do you actually have Franco in the last 5 years ?

5
10
50
100

I would be interested to see if it is in proportion to the number of days you have now spent on this topic on the internet.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

I forgot to add, the debate actually achieved its original aim, the AGM was quorate!

In reply to jonnie3430:

Harder routes will suffer more yes, but there will be far less traffic and climbers operating at those grades are likely to have a better understanding of the issues. It's a tricky one, but as long as people sight aesthetics as a primary concern, limiting the destruction of well traveled moderate routes has to be the main aim.

In reply to jonnie3430:

Technical winter climbing is a very new activity in the lakes. To limit winter climbers to only routes that have already been climbed would mean limiting them to a tiny fraction of what was possible. Also, as the fastest improving sport, with new grades being climbed every year, it would mean the stagnation of difficulty. Imagine if rock climbing had been limited to what was climber 30 years ago- the hardest routes would be E7 and there would be loads of strong climbers not able to put up new routes. So for those reasons it is an absurd suggestion.

Come on Franco... Out of curiosity how many hill days winter climbing in the lakes do you actually have Franco in the last 5 years ?

In reply to Franco Cookson:

> [...]
>

Harder routes have smaller holds, winter climbing damages holds, so the harder routes take much more damage. Not sustainable, harder summer routes should have no winter climbing to allow them to stay in the same condition.


Citing beauty and attraction as a primary concern doesn't carry much weight in this debate, in my opinion.


Limiting damage to any routes should be the main aim. Grade has no part in this. We cannot judge what grade those in the future will find moderate so we cannot decide for them.


The concept I outlined is that if a route is in a guidebook as a climb it'll have a grade next to it. If is a summer grade, that is the style of the route, if it has a winter grade, that is the style of the route. if it is a summer climb without a winter grade, leave it be as a summer route. Go find a line that hasn't been climbed because in summer it is not attractive.

Discussing is not calling the other idea silly, but pointing out the flaws in their argument and suggesting alternatives.

You quote overhanging turf as a hard line, how many overhanging turf lines are there? Most hard climbs that I have stared at seem steep but not overhanging and there are many dirty steep lines in the Lakes.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

You misread.

In reply to jonnie3430:


I understand your argument perfectly, but it rests on the ridiculous notion that winter climbers should be restricted to crap routes.

There are VERY FEW good routes that support technical winter climbing that do not include substantial sections of established summer routes. The emphasis needs to be on quality here. A 50 metre slightly shitty line is no more appealing to a winter climber than a summer climber. The ultimate for both sports is a climb like 'The Jabberwock' on Gable. The question is, why do you think the summer climbing is more entitled to such fine lines than winter climbing.

The idea that winter climbers are deliberately choosing to destroy the best summer routes because they can't be arsed to look around is just ridiculous and is what leads me to the conclusion that the majority of people don't understand what they're talking about.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Maybe every time a new route is published in a guidebook the publishers should plant some rare alpines in another nearby spot with perhaps a nesting box suitable for a peregrine or whatever bird the RSPB are currently getting hysterical about.The net effect on the ecology of the Lake District would then be close to zero.

I suspect that if every winter line in the Lakes was climbed the impact it would have on the flora and fauna of the area as a whole would be entirely insignificant. Further I suspect Franco and Stephen are right in saying or implying that a lot more damage has been done to said flora and fauna by cleaning of summer crags than will be ever be done by folk climbing turf.

Of course the issues of damage and erosion are still real issues.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

In your opinion. There is a great deal of difference between what makes a summer climb great and a winter climb great. You speak of turf, how much turf can there be on a summer route before it becomes horribe to climb? The same route can be excellent in winter because the turf gives snow and ice purchase.

In the UK we have the ethic that the first person sets the style, others try to better it. It's not summer climbing, it's just the first person in most cases climbed it in summer. Exceptions are winter crags, where there are consistent winter conditions and winter routes.

?? I don't follow, I don't think anyone is trying to destroy routes. I think people are trying to limit damage to existing routes that have been brought into winter nick because of two exceptionally cold winters.

In reply to jonnie3430: troll

In reply to Franco Cookson:

I've been trying to give you a fair response each time. If this is your final reply, then I throw your comment that people are not willing to discuss your proposal back in your face and suggest that you want on some hard trad line that you have tried already in summer and feel that it would make a good winter ascent which is where your suggestion comes from.

In reply to jonnie3430: to be fair I think Franco came up with his "rule of thumb" as a response to my utilitarian musings about numbers and pleasure, and the importance that I (and I beleive many others) place on the Aesthetic quality of rock that has not been scratched to hell.

In reply to thegoatstroker: For simple aesthetics, chalk use is far worse.

In reply to Stephen Reid:


It's difficult in a crowded room to ascertain numbers however I can quantify the response from review of the main audience camera:
Those in favour of Limitations = 11 votes
Those opposed to Limitations= 21 votes (22 hands as somebody who gave a presentation had 2 hands up!)
The majority abstained circa 40.

I've posted this in the interim as edited video with presentations should be up by Tuesday.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Because torque damaged cracks, and crampon scratches wash off whilst chalk permanently stains the rock? Given what happened at Millstone (and the anger still in the climbing community about this), I'd have thought you'd have had enough sense to keep your head down on the subject of what constitutes the boundary of ethics.

In reply to Rog Wilko:
Not had a chance to read all the posts on all 3 threads but is the general consensus as follows?

If you want to hack and scrape your way up a 3* classic rock route then please do it Scotland.

Botterils Slab - OUT
Punsters, Magic Crack, Agags, Centurion etc etc etc - IN

In reply to hexcentric:

The winter line of Botteril's is different from the summer one.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Goodness, this is even more complicated than I thought. So is it okay to climb bits of 3* classics? Do the rare alpine flowers *just* off-line not count??

In reply to Removed User:


Well, the presentation by Simon Webb (Natural England) last Weds. opened my eyes somewhat. I hope you'll be able to see it yourself soon.
Briefly, some of the routes on Red Tarn crags (one of the most frequented winter venues in the Lakes) are home to specimens of plants so rare that their known numbers of individual plants in the Lakes are in single figures. I think we could find ourselves losing access to some winter crags altogether if they are (or become) SSSIs if people continue to climb these routes in non-frozen consditions.

In reply to hexcentric:

This is Lakes, not Scotland. Scratching your way up three star classics is not in in Scotland!!

Agags is not in as it isn't in winter nick for most of the winter season (the way tower ridge is). There is a lot of other dirty rock on the Buachaille that would do well as a route in winter (I tried some of it this summer!)

In reply to hexcentric:

Are you concerned about damage to a "3* classics" or the rare alpine flowers?

If Botterils Slab is home to rare alpine plants then maybe it shouldn't be climbed in summer or winter?

In reply to jonnie3430:
>Scratching your way up three star classics is not in in Scotland!!
Yes it is - hoared up rock and white ledges do not protect the rock one wee bit. Thats fine with me but lets not kid ourselves on.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

Only on the second of three pitches.

In reply to hexcentric:

That doesn't mean you can tip up to any three star route and climb it if it looks white. There are crags that are accepted for summer climbs and there are crags that are accepted for summer and winter climbs. To climb a three start summer route on a crag where there is no other winter climbs is not OK.

In reply to jonnie3430:

That is you opinion and you are entitled to it but do you have the right to expect others to toe this rather arbitrary line?

In reply to timjones:

As it's the established ethic, then yes. I don't think anyone would expect someone to be winter climbing on the summer routes in Glen Nevis, no matter how "in nick," they are. Whereas on the North face, as long as accepted conditions are there it's game on.

In reply to jonnie3430:
Obviously.
Thats like citing Shepherds or Castle Rock when we're on about mountain routes.
3* mountain rock routes get tooled up every week of the season - why the knicker-knotting about the Lakes equivalents? *shrugs*

In reply to jonnie3430:

I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been climbing for as long as you claim on your profile can really be naive enough to believe this is such a clear-cut black and white issue.

We need a responsible approach to the continued development of winter climbing, establishing unrealistic rules that can never be policed is not the way foprward

In reply to timjones:

As I sit in the punter grade it is very easy for me to see it as black and white! It's in a guidebook, or it isn't. I'd have loved to have got on some routes around Glasgow in the cold last winter and would have some first ascents (I did most of the icefalls going to the A82 above Loch Lomond one day when short a partner,) from doing so. They would not be worth doing as the weather that allowed it was freak and their inclusion in a guidebook would be a waste of space, not justifying the scars left on the rock.

Follow this over winter: http://www.scottishwinter.com/ and you can see the development of winter climbing in Scotland this winter.