This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
There is a certain crag in my area I am v keen to do. Unfortunately the land owner isn't quite as keen.
I've checked the BMC website and discussions / negotiations are not ongoing, or at least not advertised. I fancy heading over to do some routes on the sly but don't want to bugger up a sensitive situation. I was planning on climbing outside bird nesting season (not that this is an issue) and would obviously be as discreet as possible.
Any advice on other precautions to take / way to go about it?
Yarbles
I've checked the BMC website and discussions / negotiations are not ongoing, or at least not advertised. I fancy heading over to do some routes on the sly but don't want to bugger up a sensitive situation. I was planning on climbing outside bird nesting season (not that this is an issue) and would obviously be as discreet as possible.
Any advice on other precautions to take / way to go about it?
Yarbles
In reply to Offwidth:
+1
Do no damage and be polite.
> Go. If caught apologise and leave when asked.
+1
Do no damage and be polite.
In reply to The Pylon King:
I'm no expert on land access and trespass, but if the landowner has banned climbing on their land, wouldn't it be better to respect their wishes?
I'm no expert on land access and trespass, but if the landowner has banned climbing on their land, wouldn't it be better to respect their wishes?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I think within reason, yes. However this crag is not near their house or garden and had a history of climbing before the new landowners bought it.
I think within reason, yes. However this crag is not near their house or garden and had a history of climbing before the new landowners bought it.
In reply to yarbles:
Is that anybody's call to make though, except the landowner? Maybe they believe the ban to be totally reasonable.
Is that anybody's call to make though, except the landowner? Maybe they believe the ban to be totally reasonable.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I've been to many banned crags with Moff and had very few problems. On a couple of occasions we had a nice chat with the landowner when they came to throw us off and in both cases decided we could stay that day, with one after a rant about other rude climbers. This includes one of the reportedly most awkward landowners in the UK (the rant) after we messed up by muddling two crags and went where we wouldnt have gone if we'd known. Your view about a reasonable ban is an assumtion worth testing at times. If regular reported problems exisited I'd recommend staying away or if the crag intrudes on privacy.
I've been to many banned crags with Moff and had very few problems. On a couple of occasions we had a nice chat with the landowner when they came to throw us off and in both cases decided we could stay that day, with one after a rant about other rude climbers. This includes one of the reportedly most awkward landowners in the UK (the rant) after we messed up by muddling two crags and went where we wouldnt have gone if we'd known. Your view about a reasonable ban is an assumtion worth testing at times. If regular reported problems exisited I'd recommend staying away or if the crag intrudes on privacy.
In reply to Offwidth:
I'd personally just stay away from somebody's land if they wanted me off it, and had a legal right to exclude me. I would hope others would do me the same courtesy if I owned some land.
I'd personally just stay away from somebody's land if they wanted me off it, and had a legal right to exclude me. I would hope others would do me the same courtesy if I owned some land.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I can think of at least one crag where the ban is totally unreasonable. It is really a case of someone thinking that they are better than "the common herd" simply because they happen to be rich enough to "own" the land.
> Is that anybody's call to make though, except the landowner? Maybe they believe the ban to be totally reasonable.
I can think of at least one crag where the ban is totally unreasonable. It is really a case of someone thinking that they are better than "the common herd" simply because they happen to be rich enough to "own" the land.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
If everybody had always taken your approach we wouldn't now have access to many of the crags we enjoy, notably much of the Peak District upland.
If there are reasonable reasons for denying access to climbers (such as nearby residence, rare wildlife or sensitive livestock) then fair enough, but nobody should be allowed to exclude others from open land in Britain without good reason, and simple ownership of the land does not constitute good reason.
If everybody had always taken your approach we wouldn't now have access to many of the crags we enjoy, notably much of the Peak District upland.
If there are reasonable reasons for denying access to climbers (such as nearby residence, rare wildlife or sensitive livestock) then fair enough, but nobody should be allowed to exclude others from open land in Britain without good reason, and simple ownership of the land does not constitute good reason.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
I might not agree with their point of view, but I'm happy to respect their right to ban climbing.
I might not agree with their point of view, but I'm happy to respect their right to ban climbing.
In reply to john arran:
When did I suggest everybody should have always taken my approach? I am talking about the here and now, where we have access to many crags.
Do you legally need good reason, or is that just your opinion?
When did I suggest everybody should have always taken my approach? I am talking about the here and now, where we have access to many crags.
Do you legally need good reason, or is that just your opinion?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
"I might not agree with their point of view, but I'm happy to respect their right to ban climbing".
Why????
This sort of thing really makes my blood boil. Brings out the "property is theft" attitude.
"I might not agree with their point of view, but I'm happy to respect their right to ban climbing".
Why????
This sort of thing really makes my blood boil. Brings out the "property is theft" attitude.
Post edited at 20:11
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Tell me when you've calmed down, eh. Grrr!!!
To give you a straight answer, I don't think the world revolves around me and my silly hobby.
Tell me when you've calmed down, eh. Grrr!!!
To give you a straight answer, I don't think the world revolves around me and my silly hobby.
Post edited at 20:18
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Nobody actually really has a right to own land IMHO unless they live on it, protect it or make a (non destructive) living from it.
The only authority is yourself.
> I'm no expert on land access and trespass, but if the landowner has banned climbing on their land, wouldn't it be better to respect their wishes?
Nobody actually really has a right to own land IMHO unless they live on it, protect it or make a (non destructive) living from it.
The only authority is yourself.
In reply to The Pylon King:
I think you meant to say, "I don't own any land that I don't live on or make a living from, and I have no plans to buy any, so I don't want to extend that right to anybody else".
I think you meant to say, "I don't own any land that I don't live on or make a living from, and I have no plans to buy any, so I don't want to extend that right to anybody else".
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Yes but i think it should revolve around freedom and the right to roam and not be hindered by those rich enough to buy land.
> Tell me when you've calmed down, eh. Grrr!!!
> To give you a straight answer, I don't think the world revolves around me and my silly hobby.
Yes but i think it should revolve around freedom and the right to roam and not be hindered by those rich enough to buy land.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I haven't any plans to buy any land because i would never be able to afford to.
Nobody should be able to buy large areas of land and stop others going on it unless there is a very good reason.
The only authority is yourself.
I haven't any plans to buy any land because i would never be able to afford to.
Nobody should be able to buy large areas of land and stop others going on it unless there is a very good reason.
The only authority is yourself.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I didn't say you did suggest that. I merely pointed out that such a compliance-without-justification attitude would in the past have been far less successful for climbers' access than the one we have seen in the past, which has been to actively challenge unreasonable restrictions.
That depends on what the law says at any one time, and whether the law is an ass and needs changing. The CRoW act has been a positive step in many ways in this regard as it recognises that - for a certain class of land at least - ownership itself is not sufficient justification for public exclusion.
> When did I suggest everybody should have always taken my approach? I am talking about the here and now, where we have access to many crags.
I didn't say you did suggest that. I merely pointed out that such a compliance-without-justification attitude would in the past have been far less successful for climbers' access than the one we have seen in the past, which has been to actively challenge unreasonable restrictions.
> Do you legally need good reason, or is that just your opinion?
That depends on what the law says at any one time, and whether the law is an ass and needs changing. The CRoW act has been a positive step in many ways in this regard as it recognises that - for a certain class of land at least - ownership itself is not sufficient justification for public exclusion.
In reply to john arran:
Actively challenge, by sneaking onto the land, keeping your head down, doing a few routes and apologising if caught. If we need to challenge these powerful landowners, lets build a case and do it properly. This just sounds like a case of, I want to climb and I won't be stopped. Nothing to do with principle.
Actively challenge, by sneaking onto the land, keeping your head down, doing a few routes and apologising if caught. If we need to challenge these powerful landowners, lets build a case and do it properly. This just sounds like a case of, I want to climb and I won't be stopped. Nothing to do with principle.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
How it is challenged may be debatable. That it should be challenged, if genuinely unreasonable, is not.
I sense your position changing - for the better!
How it is challenged may be debatable. That it should be challenged, if genuinely unreasonable, is not.
I sense your position changing - for the better!
In reply to yarbles:
ill apply to this the same logic as I do to fishing in wild lakes (i.e. nobody maintains or stocks them) sod it and go for it, just leave no trace and park discreetly.
ill apply to this the same logic as I do to fishing in wild lakes (i.e. nobody maintains or stocks them) sod it and go for it, just leave no trace and park discreetly.
In reply to yarbles:
Having had a similar things with fishing when I was younger I kept asking at intervals and eventually got there! If the landowner is reasonable they might be won over by a bit of pestering!!
Having had a similar things with fishing when I was younger I kept asking at intervals and eventually got there! If the landowner is reasonable they might be won over by a bit of pestering!!
In reply to yarbles:
Keep your head down and go for it.
Crag being dirty might be an issue though if it's been banned for a while.
Keep your head down and go for it.
Crag being dirty might be an issue though if it's been banned for a while.
In reply to yarbles:
Really easy.
Its not yours so you can't use it.
Many/most crags could be in that situation but the owners choose not to do so. Why not go else where and not ne so selfish?
Really easy.
Its not yours so you can't use it.
Many/most crags could be in that situation but the owners choose not to do so. Why not go else where and not ne so selfish?
In reply to mattsccm:
This means you are accepting that someone has the right to own a crag on open land and prevent other peoples access to it. While that may be the case legally, I don't accept that it is morally. What gives them that right? Were they born luckier than you and inherited wealth, or the land? In which case I think their moral duty is to act as a guardian to preserve the land and environment for the future - it is only if public access conflicts with this (e.g. rare plants, fragile habitat) that there is an acceptable reason to exclude the public.
If they have not inherited the wealth, have they worked so much harder than you? Or have they simply been much better paid?
I was lucky enough to hear Benny Rothman speak once, don't betray the Kinder Trespassers' legacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENYMwuCG2Y&feature=kp
> Really easy.
> Its not yours so you can't use it.
This means you are accepting that someone has the right to own a crag on open land and prevent other peoples access to it. While that may be the case legally, I don't accept that it is morally. What gives them that right? Were they born luckier than you and inherited wealth, or the land? In which case I think their moral duty is to act as a guardian to preserve the land and environment for the future - it is only if public access conflicts with this (e.g. rare plants, fragile habitat) that there is an acceptable reason to exclude the public.
If they have not inherited the wealth, have they worked so much harder than you? Or have they simply been much better paid?
I was lucky enough to hear Benny Rothman speak once, don't betray the Kinder Trespassers' legacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENYMwuCG2Y&feature=kp
In reply to The Pylon King:
Plus 1
The most important thing is to be polite, you are an ambassador for the whole climbing community. Leave the owner with a good impression of our community, and you never know they might relent on the ban.
> +1
> Do no damage and be polite.
Plus 1
The most important thing is to be polite, you are an ambassador for the whole climbing community. Leave the owner with a good impression of our community, and you never know they might relent on the ban.
In reply to mattsccm:
So in the absence of any of the aforementioned good reasons why access might be problematic, the landowner can say: "I own this crag, so nobody else can visit it" and it's the climber who wants to climb there who's being selfish.
Yeah, right.
So in the absence of any of the aforementioned good reasons why access might be problematic, the landowner can say: "I own this crag, so nobody else can visit it" and it's the climber who wants to climb there who's being selfish.
Yeah, right.
In reply to Trangia:
Why are we being polite to these evil landowners? What happened to the spirit of the Kinder Trespass?
Why are we being polite to these evil landowners? What happened to the spirit of the Kinder Trespass?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
It's funny that your profile picture shows you climbing on the bit of Stanage that is part of the Moscar estate. If everyone shared your point of view you wouldn't be allowed to climb there.
It's funny that your profile picture shows you climbing on the bit of Stanage that is part of the Moscar estate. If everyone shared your point of view you wouldn't be allowed to climb there.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
In what way am I being funny? The points I made are, I believe, valid. If you disagree with my arguments , that is fair enough, but please be polite enough to reply explaining why rather than simply dismissing them with a poor attempt at a joke.
Anyway, who is Wolfie?
Or, have I completely misunderstood your post?
> That's so funny. Wolfie would be proud.
In what way am I being funny? The points I made are, I believe, valid. If you disagree with my arguments , that is fair enough, but please be polite enough to reply explaining why rather than simply dismissing them with a poor attempt at a joke.
Anyway, who is Wolfie?
Or, have I completely misunderstood your post?
Post edited at 22:41
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
There's a difference between a private garden round a house and open land in the countryside. Many big landowners would probably like to prevent climbing, or hiking, but that doesn't mean they are morally right.
There's a difference between a private garden round a house and open land in the countryside. Many big landowners would probably like to prevent climbing, or hiking, but that doesn't mean they are morally right.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Because the rights that previous generations fought for will last only as long as the present generation are prepared, at least in principle, to fight to defend them.
Because the rights that previous generations fought for will last only as long as the present generation are prepared, at least in principle, to fight to defend them.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Don't betray the Kinder Trespass? By sneaking onto the land, doing a few routes, being polite, and leaving if asked. That'll show 'em.
You ask me to be polite, but you insult my excellent jokes. Shame on you.
Don't betray the Kinder Trespass? By sneaking onto the land, doing a few routes, being polite, and leaving if asked. That'll show 'em.
You ask me to be polite, but you insult my excellent jokes. Shame on you.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
A delusional wannabe marxist revolutionary played by Robert Lindsay in a '70s tv comedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Smith
Hear hear to your earlier comments, btw, and well said.
> Anyway, who is Wolfie?
A delusional wannabe marxist revolutionary played by Robert Lindsay in a '70s tv comedy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Smith
Hear hear to your earlier comments, btw, and well said.
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
I'm not saying they are morally right, but I'm not saying they're morally wrong. I am questioning the motives people climbing on banned crags. It seems the only motive is to climb, not to challenge the landowners.
I'm not saying they are morally right, but I'm not saying they're morally wrong. I am questioning the motives people climbing on banned crags. It seems the only motive is to climb, not to challenge the landowners.
Post edited at 22:48
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
What's wrong with that?
> It seems the only motive is to climb, not to challenge the landowners.
What's wrong with that?
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Spot on Mark. Reference to woolfie is citizen smith from the tooting popular front - you must remember this? But it's not a crazy commie thing to want access to crags! Polite, responsible trespass is a moral duty!!
Spot on Mark. Reference to woolfie is citizen smith from the tooting popular front - you must remember this? But it's not a crazy commie thing to want access to crags! Polite, responsible trespass is a moral duty!!
In reply to gavinj:
One that some would prefer to shirk, while enjoying the fruits of the efforts of previous generations.
> Polite, responsible trespass is a moral duty!!
One that some would prefer to shirk, while enjoying the fruits of the efforts of previous generations.
If the landowner doesn't want climbing there and there is no right of way, you shouldn't climb there.
As for morals why is somebody's selfish desire to go climbing more moral than the land owners selfish desire for privacy? Or concerns about liability or being sued if there is an accident?
As for morals why is somebody's selfish desire to go climbing more moral than the land owners selfish desire for privacy? Or concerns about liability or being sued if there is an accident?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
Well, if there is a reasonable chance of negotiating a reasonable access agreement with the landowner, then by all means, Offwidth's suggestion of politeness and leaving is the sensible and pragmatic approach. If, however, you have an intransigent landowner, as is the case with one of our local crags, then why be polite or leave? Well, it's probably better to be polite when you tell them that you are not going to leave, but...
Well, if there is a reasonable chance of negotiating a reasonable access agreement with the landowner, then by all means, Offwidth's suggestion of politeness and leaving is the sensible and pragmatic approach. If, however, you have an intransigent landowner, as is the case with one of our local crags, then why be polite or leave? Well, it's probably better to be polite when you tell them that you are not going to leave, but...
In reply to Mark Kemball:
So if you get your way, you're happy. If you don't get your way...
Are you a land owner?
So if you get your way, you're happy. If you don't get your way...
Are you a land owner?
In reply to Mark Warnett:
So you obviously don't go climbing then?
Many of the crags we climb on are privately owned and acts like the Kinder Trespass enabled us to climb on them.
> If the landowner doesn't want climbing there and there is no right of way, you shouldn't climb there.
So you obviously don't go climbing then?
Many of the crags we climb on are privately owned and acts like the Kinder Trespass enabled us to climb on them.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
I own a house and a small garden, why is that relevant? Don't start talking about privacy etc. - I accept that people have a right to a reasonable amount of privacy I would not consider bouldering in someone's garden without their permission, for example. It is access to relatively remote crags that I feel should be a right, rather than at the say-so of some rich person. Fortunately, that is now the case for many crags under the "right to roam" legislation. There are however some anomalies which need to be sorted out, where negotiation fails, trespass may be the only solution.
I own a house and a small garden, why is that relevant? Don't start talking about privacy etc. - I accept that people have a right to a reasonable amount of privacy I would not consider bouldering in someone's garden without their permission, for example. It is access to relatively remote crags that I feel should be a right, rather than at the say-so of some rich person. Fortunately, that is now the case for many crags under the "right to roam" legislation. There are however some anomalies which need to be sorted out, where negotiation fails, trespass may be the only solution.
In reply to Mark Warnett:
Nobody is arguing in favour of climbing in someone's garden.
Such concerns are misplaced.
> As for morals why is somebody's selfish desire to go climbing more moral than the land owners selfish desire for privacy?
Nobody is arguing in favour of climbing in someone's garden.
> Or concerns about liability or being sued if there is an accident?
Such concerns are misplaced.
In reply to The Pylon King:
Well put! So just to summarise. No-one has the right to exclude others from open land without good reason ie, nearby residence, rare wildlife, sensitive livestock, damage/littering. Agreed?
Well put! So just to summarise. No-one has the right to exclude others from open land without good reason ie, nearby residence, rare wildlife, sensitive livestock, damage/littering. Agreed?
In reply to deepsoup:
But I don't agree with land ownership full stop, I believe I have the right to climb in your garden. Hopefully we can negotiate an access agreement?
I need to go to bed anyway, I'm off to climb in the bird ban area at Malham tomorrow.
But I don't agree with land ownership full stop, I believe I have the right to climb in your garden. Hopefully we can negotiate an access agreement?
I need to go to bed anyway, I'm off to climb in the bird ban area at Malham tomorrow.
Post edited at 23:27
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:
There's nothing to climb in my garden, perhaps you can bring your big stupid strawman with you and climb that.
There's nothing to climb in my garden, perhaps you can bring your big stupid strawman with you and climb that.
In reply to yarbles:
There is very little that the landowner can do other then ask you to leave so I see no reason why you shouldn't.
If you do get caught, Id disagree with the majority of opinion here. While leaving (perhaps slowly) I'd maintain a calm, determined and non-aggressive attitude I would ask the landowner what makes him feel he has a right to deny you access? Personally I think it's a disgrace and is something people should 'fight for', whatever that means.
There is very little that the landowner can do other then ask you to leave so I see no reason why you shouldn't.
If you do get caught, Id disagree with the majority of opinion here. While leaving (perhaps slowly) I'd maintain a calm, determined and non-aggressive attitude I would ask the landowner what makes him feel he has a right to deny you access? Personally I think it's a disgrace and is something people should 'fight for', whatever that means.
In reply to Nic DW:
It's the same with people with big gardens. Who needs a garden bigger than a tennis court?
Anything above that is obviously excessive and the owner shouldn't be put out too much if he owns a half acre plot and people decide to walk all over it and treat it as common land.
Or have I set the "acceptable amount of ownership" bar a bit too low?
Fess up now, you UKC landowning tyrants?
It's the same with people with big gardens. Who needs a garden bigger than a tennis court?
Anything above that is obviously excessive and the owner shouldn't be put out too much if he owns a half acre plot and people decide to walk all over it and treat it as common land.
Or have I set the "acceptable amount of ownership" bar a bit too low?
Fess up now, you UKC landowning tyrants?
Ref the constant sanctimonious reference to the kinder trespass, individuals climbing at a banned crag is not the same.
For people arguing for a general right to roam that is a perfectly valid point of view but nobody has put any logical reasons why on here apart from the usual moan about stereo type nasty landowners and arbitrary definitions of what should be accessible so their garden is out! Presumably those people on this forum referring to kinder are regularly campaigning and writing to MPs to further the Right to Roam cause?
I believe in the principle of private property which underpins our workable but imperfect system . I would like all privately owned crags to be available to climb but respect the right of landowners to refuse access.
To the original poster, why don't you ask the landowner if you can climb! Showing a copy of your bmc insurance and hopefully they will say yes
For people arguing for a general right to roam that is a perfectly valid point of view but nobody has put any logical reasons why on here apart from the usual moan about stereo type nasty landowners and arbitrary definitions of what should be accessible so their garden is out! Presumably those people on this forum referring to kinder are regularly campaigning and writing to MPs to further the Right to Roam cause?
I believe in the principle of private property which underpins our workable but imperfect system . I would like all privately owned crags to be available to climb but respect the right of landowners to refuse access.
To the original poster, why don't you ask the landowner if you can climb! Showing a copy of your bmc insurance and hopefully they will say yes
In reply to Mark Warnett:
Again, no one is talking about anyone's garden.
This would certainly be one approach, but if you do please *don't* reinforce any misconceptions the landowner may have about liability by banging on about insurance. If you hurt yourself climbing on a crag on private land you have no chance of bringing a claim against the landowner, and if that's what they're afraid of some kind of insurance they've never heard of probably isn't going to be very reassuring.
> the usual moan about stereo type nasty landowners and arbitrary definitions of what should be accessible so their garden is out!
Again, no one is talking about anyone's garden.
> To the original poster, why don't you ask the landowner if you can climb! Showing a copy of your bmc insurance and hopefully they will say yes
This would certainly be one approach, but if you do please *don't* reinforce any misconceptions the landowner may have about liability by banging on about insurance. If you hurt yourself climbing on a crag on private land you have no chance of bringing a claim against the landowner, and if that's what they're afraid of some kind of insurance they've never heard of probably isn't going to be very reassuring.
In reply to Mark Warnett:
Yes it is. Direct action.
What happens if they haven't got BMC insurance?
> Ref the constant sanctimonious reference to the kinder trespass, individuals climbing at a banned crag is not the same.
Yes it is. Direct action.
> To the original poster, why don't you ask the landowner if you can climb! Showing a copy of your bmc insurance and hopefully they will say yes
What happens if they haven't got BMC insurance?
I'm not from the UK, but bans on crags in mainland Europe are usually not due to climbing it self. It's due to people dumping trash in the owners trash cans, making them pay more for collection the trash. It's due to blocking roads or blocked parking places they made for there quests or there equipment. It's the littering at the crag it self. It's the random stickers that show up.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
That's all true, but politics is "l'art du possible", and the law is what it is. The reality is that the BMC's efforts to open up crags are not helped by people who ignore landowners wishes.
> If they have not inherited the wealth, have they worked so much harder than you? Or have they simply been much better paid?
That's all true, but politics is "l'art du possible", and the law is what it is. The reality is that the BMC's efforts to open up crags are not helped by people who ignore landowners wishes.
In reply to The Pylon King:
> (In reply to Mark Warnett)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes it is. Direct action.
>
I'm not sure. I've used that argument myself before, but never really been happy with it. The Kinder Trespass was a very public attempt by people willing to put their well-being at risk in order to get the law changed for the greater good. Individuals nipping out to climb on 'banned' crags, hoping not to get noticed by the landowner (or anyone else) is just self-gratification (OK, a bit strong, but you get the gist) with no social value. I've done the latter myself, but I don't pretend that it's the same as the Kinder Trespass.>
> [...]
>
> Yes it is. Direct action.
>
In reply to BarrySW19:
This simply isn't true in many cases, the majority I would say in fact. Access rights are granted largely on precedence - if you can show a path has been used continually for so many years it may be given right-of-way status, for example.
Where crags are concerned, if a banned crag is never visited, then all that demonstrates is that nobody wants to go there and the ban is not affecting anyone. If the BMC can demonstrate that, despite a ban, folk have been visiting for many years in a low key manner, then it suggests access is both desirable and unlikely to cause problems.
I've never quite understood the logic that suggests if we all kowtow to a landowners wish to avoid his land, he will suddenly grant access in return for our good behaviour. Why?
> The reality is that the BMC's efforts to open up crags are not helped by people who ignore landowners wishes.
This simply isn't true in many cases, the majority I would say in fact. Access rights are granted largely on precedence - if you can show a path has been used continually for so many years it may be given right-of-way status, for example.
Where crags are concerned, if a banned crag is never visited, then all that demonstrates is that nobody wants to go there and the ban is not affecting anyone. If the BMC can demonstrate that, despite a ban, folk have been visiting for many years in a low key manner, then it suggests access is both desirable and unlikely to cause problems.
I've never quite understood the logic that suggests if we all kowtow to a landowners wish to avoid his land, he will suddenly grant access in return for our good behaviour. Why?
In reply to Marek:
In reality I suspect its the critics mainly placing a halo to knock it off again. I dont feel like a kinder tresspasser but I do help out with access work and guidebooks. I agree with Adam's line and most times I go to see what is what and if I like what I see I sometimes go back again and again and indulge myself in that orgy of self gratification some call climbing. I think my record for visits would be Eastwood where I have lost count and have even facilitated others' trespass by cutting back the gorse exits. Why do I suggest being polite if asked to leave? Because I think a shouting match acheives nothing; of course I will discuss access calmly if they will. I'm not so stupid as to think access is all one sided either. I'm disgusted that climbers lost us formal access to Eagle Tor by leaving shit and litter in the owners kids' back garden play area.
In reality I suspect its the critics mainly placing a halo to knock it off again. I dont feel like a kinder tresspasser but I do help out with access work and guidebooks. I agree with Adam's line and most times I go to see what is what and if I like what I see I sometimes go back again and again and indulge myself in that orgy of self gratification some call climbing. I think my record for visits would be Eastwood where I have lost count and have even facilitated others' trespass by cutting back the gorse exits. Why do I suggest being polite if asked to leave? Because I think a shouting match acheives nothing; of course I will discuss access calmly if they will. I'm not so stupid as to think access is all one sided either. I'm disgusted that climbers lost us formal access to Eagle Tor by leaving shit and litter in the owners kids' back garden play area.
In reply to deepsoup:
Lots of people on this thread have referred to people's gardens as being excluded from their idea of what should be open access. Thats my point.
Landowner's have a Duty of Care to visitors who have consent to go on land (Occupiers Liability Act 1957) and trspassers if they know it is happening (84 Act). There is therefore a risk to the landowner - it is a small one. If a non-climbing 3rd party gets hurt by a climber's activity e.g. falling rock he/she may look to someone to sue, if the climber hasn't got insurance then the landowner could become a target. So climbers should all be insured with the BMC and this would be helpful to promote access.
Lots of people on this thread have referred to people's gardens as being excluded from their idea of what should be open access. Thats my point.
Landowner's have a Duty of Care to visitors who have consent to go on land (Occupiers Liability Act 1957) and trspassers if they know it is happening (84 Act). There is therefore a risk to the landowner - it is a small one. If a non-climbing 3rd party gets hurt by a climber's activity e.g. falling rock he/she may look to someone to sue, if the climber hasn't got insurance then the landowner could become a target. So climbers should all be insured with the BMC and this would be helpful to promote access.
In reply to Mark Kemball:
I agree in principle but at some point 'open' land becomes someones 'private' in the sense that you might reasonably expect to have it to yourself. A distinction perhaps between garden and a field you might own
I agree in principle but at some point 'open' land becomes someones 'private' in the sense that you might reasonably expect to have it to yourself. A distinction perhaps between garden and a field you might own
In reply to yarbles:
I find it really hard to generalise about this debate as have had various experiences, which sit differently with me.
Woodcroft quarry and Fly Wall at Wintours Leap do not have climbing permitted. Loads of people climb here regardless. Quarry owners often seem concerned about liability in the effent of an accident. I would personally never lay blame to the landowner were an accident to happen and therefore feel comfortable to climb regardless.
Also, I've climbed at Huntsham Crags, which is also technically off-limits to climbing but open land. Why can I take a mountain bike or a horse through the area but not climb? I think if there is no reason to disciminate against climbing then why should there be discimination? We live is a free society after all. Would it be fair if the landowner said walking is ok but picnics are not allowed? Keeping a low profile seems best to me though given the sentivity.
When I first started climbing at Dover it was technically off-limits. I contacted the BMC who arranged a meeting with the National Trust. The access was subsequently adjusted to allow climbing but with bird bans. This shows that sometimes banned areas sometimes just need some negociation on whatever level to change things. It's good to check the situation with the BMC to see if it is up-to-date.
I have to say I feel a lot less comfortable with climbing where land is closed to the public. I also don't think it helps with improving future access.
I find it really hard to generalise about this debate as have had various experiences, which sit differently with me.
Woodcroft quarry and Fly Wall at Wintours Leap do not have climbing permitted. Loads of people climb here regardless. Quarry owners often seem concerned about liability in the effent of an accident. I would personally never lay blame to the landowner were an accident to happen and therefore feel comfortable to climb regardless.
Also, I've climbed at Huntsham Crags, which is also technically off-limits to climbing but open land. Why can I take a mountain bike or a horse through the area but not climb? I think if there is no reason to disciminate against climbing then why should there be discimination? We live is a free society after all. Would it be fair if the landowner said walking is ok but picnics are not allowed? Keeping a low profile seems best to me though given the sentivity.
When I first started climbing at Dover it was technically off-limits. I contacted the BMC who arranged a meeting with the National Trust. The access was subsequently adjusted to allow climbing but with bird bans. This shows that sometimes banned areas sometimes just need some negociation on whatever level to change things. It's good to check the situation with the BMC to see if it is up-to-date.
I have to say I feel a lot less comfortable with climbing where land is closed to the public. I also don't think it helps with improving future access.
Thanks for the responses, I'll do a bit more homework first I think, make sure there are no fancy plants etc and scope out a good parking spot.
Better double check with the BMC too!
Better double check with the BMC too!
In reply to Adam Long:
It's a little harder than you make it sound. It requires 20 years of 'regular' use and during that time the landowner must have done nothing to prevent the repeated trespass. If during that time the landowner has asked someone to leave or has block access, then the clock resets. I beleieve it's quite rare for new right of way to be established this way - I had a scan through the Cheshire archives a while back and only found one example. Perhaps it's more common in other areas?
> (In reply to BarrySW19)
>
> [...]
>
> This simply isn't true in many cases, the majority I would say in fact. Access rights are granted largely on precedence - if you can show a path has been used continually for so many years it may be given right-of-way status, for example.
>
> [...]
>
> This simply isn't true in many cases, the majority I would say in fact. Access rights are granted largely on precedence - if you can show a path has been used continually for so many years it may be given right-of-way status, for example.
It's a little harder than you make it sound. It requires 20 years of 'regular' use and during that time the landowner must have done nothing to prevent the repeated trespass. If during that time the landowner has asked someone to leave or has block access, then the clock resets. I beleieve it's quite rare for new right of way to be established this way - I had a scan through the Cheshire archives a while back and only found one example. Perhaps it's more common in other areas?
In reply to Mark Kemball:
I can think of a few smaller crags that have climbing banned. One o fhtese I have special permission to climb on, but is still closed to the general climbing community. This was a crag with a good history of climbing(and bouldering), and this continued into the new ownership until, despite plenty of warning, people kept pooing every where, leaving toilet roll around etc, and strangely the owner didn't want their kids exposed to this on what is effectively their garden (although it's a bit bigger than a Garden). I can fully respect their right and decision to ban people. It is now a partly overgrown crag, which is beautifully clean. Sadly with no access, but I would say it's more the climbing communities' fault than the Landowner in this case
I can think of a few smaller crags that have climbing banned. One o fhtese I have special permission to climb on, but is still closed to the general climbing community. This was a crag with a good history of climbing(and bouldering), and this continued into the new ownership until, despite plenty of warning, people kept pooing every where, leaving toilet roll around etc, and strangely the owner didn't want their kids exposed to this on what is effectively their garden (although it's a bit bigger than a Garden). I can fully respect their right and decision to ban people. It is now a partly overgrown crag, which is beautifully clean. Sadly with no access, but I would say it's more the climbing communities' fault than the Landowner in this case
In reply to BarrySW19:
Indeed. As the OP made clear, it would certainly be better if climbers stayed away from 'banned' crags where negotiations are underway.
> The reality is that the BMC's efforts to open up crags are not helped by people who ignore landowners wishes.
Indeed. As the OP made clear, it would certainly be better if climbers stayed away from 'banned' crags where negotiations are underway.
In reply to Mark Warnett:
My understanding is that landowners could indeed be sued by a climber who injures themselves on their land. Equally the climber could sue Queen (royal or band), Mick Jagger or Putin. All of these cases would have about the same chance of success though...
If you engage in a sport, you consent to reasonable injuries (volenti non fit injuria); in a climbing context this would be any any climbing injury? Obviously if the landowner booby-trap the cliff so the whole thing falls down when you get to the belay ledge, they will be responsible, but otherwise it is widely understood that rock is natural, unpredictable and inherently risky.
It is true, as you say, that you have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect trespassers, but this has been overridden by volenti non fit injuria where the trespassers have willingly exposed themselves to risks. Wikipedia gives three examples, all decided in favour of the landowner. First, a girl who broke through 'adequate' fencing onto a railway and was then hit by a train; secondly, a student who dived into the shallow end of a closed swimming pool and was injured; and finally a man who dived into a shallow lake despite 'no swimming' signage.
The other case which I always find interesting is 'TRUSTEES OF THE PORTSMOUTH YOUTH ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE (A CHARITY) vs POPPLETON' - where an inexperienced climber, attending a bouldering wall with his more experienced friends, did something stupid copying those friends (jumping from the wall onto a girder), fell badly and became tetraplegic. The wall was (eventually) not held responsible - despite less-than-perfect signage.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/646.html
The first line from the report:
"Adults who choose to engage in physical activities which obviously give rise to a degree of unavoidable risk may find that they have no means of recompense if the risk materialises so that they are injured."
<end armchair law>
My understanding is that landowners could indeed be sued by a climber who injures themselves on their land. Equally the climber could sue Queen (royal or band), Mick Jagger or Putin. All of these cases would have about the same chance of success though...
If you engage in a sport, you consent to reasonable injuries (volenti non fit injuria); in a climbing context this would be any any climbing injury? Obviously if the landowner booby-trap the cliff so the whole thing falls down when you get to the belay ledge, they will be responsible, but otherwise it is widely understood that rock is natural, unpredictable and inherently risky.
It is true, as you say, that you have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect trespassers, but this has been overridden by volenti non fit injuria where the trespassers have willingly exposed themselves to risks. Wikipedia gives three examples, all decided in favour of the landowner. First, a girl who broke through 'adequate' fencing onto a railway and was then hit by a train; secondly, a student who dived into the shallow end of a closed swimming pool and was injured; and finally a man who dived into a shallow lake despite 'no swimming' signage.
The other case which I always find interesting is 'TRUSTEES OF THE PORTSMOUTH YOUTH ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE (A CHARITY) vs POPPLETON' - where an inexperienced climber, attending a bouldering wall with his more experienced friends, did something stupid copying those friends (jumping from the wall onto a girder), fell badly and became tetraplegic. The wall was (eventually) not held responsible - despite less-than-perfect signage.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/646.html
The first line from the report:
"Adults who choose to engage in physical activities which obviously give rise to a degree of unavoidable risk may find that they have no means of recompense if the risk materialises so that they are injured."
<end armchair law>
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Indeed. If you're not talking about Eagle Tor, you could be. Sad, sordid business, and quite disgusting. "We" climbers have no-one to blame but ourselves for that one.
> ... until, despite plenty of warning, people kept pooing every where, leaving toilet roll around etc, and strangely the owner didn't want their kids exposed to this on what is effectively their garden (although it's a bit bigger than a Garden)...
Indeed. If you're not talking about Eagle Tor, you could be. Sad, sordid business, and quite disgusting. "We" climbers have no-one to blame but ourselves for that one.
In reply to Mr. Lee:
In an active quarry (even if it's not 'active' for actual quarrying), I believe the owners have a clear legal duty to prevent climbing. Therefore they can't actually consent to climbing as such, and the best they can do is a kind of unofficial "don't ask don't tell" policy: if the climbers give the landowners plausible deniability by being discreet, the owners don't enforce their official climbing ban too rigorously and it all rubs along quite nicely as long as nobody takes the piss.
(eg: Dinorwic, and the whole business of Dali's Hole.)
> Quarry owners often seem concerned about liability in the effent of an accident. I would personally never lay blame to the landowner were an accident to happen and therefore feel comfortable to climb regardless.
In an active quarry (even if it's not 'active' for actual quarrying), I believe the owners have a clear legal duty to prevent climbing. Therefore they can't actually consent to climbing as such, and the best they can do is a kind of unofficial "don't ask don't tell" policy: if the climbers give the landowners plausible deniability by being discreet, the owners don't enforce their official climbing ban too rigorously and it all rubs along quite nicely as long as nobody takes the piss.
(eg: Dinorwic, and the whole business of Dali's Hole.)
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Not so simple if climbers pull off rocks and kill passers-by, for instance (see Cheddar). Anyway, it’s not what the law is, it’s what insurers fear it may become and the associated premiums they charge.
This (occupiers’ liability) is not a problem with an easy solution, I fear.
jcm
Not so simple if climbers pull off rocks and kill passers-by, for instance (see Cheddar). Anyway, it’s not what the law is, it’s what insurers fear it may become and the associated premiums they charge.
This (occupiers’ liability) is not a problem with an easy solution, I fear.
jcm
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I don't disagree but as said it is a small risk and there is case law which is comparable (but not climbing specific) where landowners have been held liable where common sense would suggest the injured party took a decision to risk themselves.
Even if the landowner would be likely to win in cour it would be a highly stressful and frightening process.
My point is really that access at sensitive crags would be easier if all climbers took out insurance. Then if their activites injured somebody else the insurance underwriter would be the first port of call for the injured partt, or indeed the estate of a deceased climber. I think thats a fairly reasonable proposition?
I don't disagree but as said it is a small risk and there is case law which is comparable (but not climbing specific) where landowners have been held liable where common sense would suggest the injured party took a decision to risk themselves.
Even if the landowner would be likely to win in cour it would be a highly stressful and frightening process.
My point is really that access at sensitive crags would be easier if all climbers took out insurance. Then if their activites injured somebody else the insurance underwriter would be the first port of call for the injured partt, or indeed the estate of a deceased climber. I think thats a fairly reasonable proposition?
In reply to Mark Warnett:
Getting every climber in the UK to join the BMC or otherwise get third-party cover is unlikely enough, but even that would only address part of the problem - they'd also all need to pay for another policy in order to insure themselves against personal injury. It may sound a reasonable proposition, but in the real world it's not going to happen, is it?
> My point is really that access at sensitive crags would be easier if all climbers took out insurance. Then if their activites injured somebody else the insurance underwriter would be the first port of call for the injured partt, or indeed the estate of a deceased climber. I think thats a fairly reasonable proposition?
Getting every climber in the UK to join the BMC or otherwise get third-party cover is unlikely enough, but even that would only address part of the problem - they'd also all need to pay for another policy in order to insure themselves against personal injury. It may sound a reasonable proposition, but in the real world it's not going to happen, is it?
Insurance, blame, compensation, blame, premiums, blame, not taking responsibility, Insurance, blame, compensation, blame, premiums, blame, not taking responsibility,Insurance, blame, compensation, blame, premiums, blame, not taking responsibility.......argh........we are fcuked.
In reply to bpmclimb:
Well that's what. BMC insurance does. But you're right it's probably not going to happen
Well that's what. BMC insurance does. But you're right it's probably not going to happen
In reply to yarbles:
I had a similar issue with a crag very near to me, not the best of crags (not even listed here) and I'd heard from a climber I'd bumped in to that the land owner didn't like climbers there.
I emailed a BMC rep, this was their advice (though obviously specific to the situation there):
"I suggest keep going and if you are approached by a land-owner respond politely, tell him you were not aware you were doing any harm and ask him if he would accept further representations from the BMC who you believe may be able to allay his fears over liability issues. However your trump card would probably to plead that you are a near neighbour and find it difficult to travel to other climbing venues.
If, at the end of the day, you get no joy but find out his name and address I'll give him a visit and see if a formal approach might help"
I had a similar issue with a crag very near to me, not the best of crags (not even listed here) and I'd heard from a climber I'd bumped in to that the land owner didn't like climbers there.
I emailed a BMC rep, this was their advice (though obviously specific to the situation there):
"I suggest keep going and if you are approached by a land-owner respond politely, tell him you were not aware you were doing any harm and ask him if he would accept further representations from the BMC who you believe may be able to allay his fears over liability issues. However your trump card would probably to plead that you are a near neighbour and find it difficult to travel to other climbing venues.
If, at the end of the day, you get no joy but find out his name and address I'll give him a visit and see if a formal approach might help"
In reply to yarbles:
The landowner may have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting climbing. He may be concerned about the effect on livestock or crops, or that birds or plants could be disturbed. He might not be unreasonable in objecting to climbing for its own sake - he might not want people swearing, shitting in the bushes or (reference another recent thread) playing music. We don't always do ourselves any favours, and to assume that our moral right to climb is greater than his moral right to manage his land the way he wishes (let alone his legal right) is misguided.
The advice quoted by Kieran John seems to be a sensible approach, act politely and without insistence on your "rights" and there is a possibility that he will be willing to discuss his objections and that solutions may be found.
The landowner may have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting climbing. He may be concerned about the effect on livestock or crops, or that birds or plants could be disturbed. He might not be unreasonable in objecting to climbing for its own sake - he might not want people swearing, shitting in the bushes or (reference another recent thread) playing music. We don't always do ourselves any favours, and to assume that our moral right to climb is greater than his moral right to manage his land the way he wishes (let alone his legal right) is misguided.
The advice quoted by Kieran John seems to be a sensible approach, act politely and without insistence on your "rights" and there is a possibility that he will be willing to discuss his objections and that solutions may be found.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
True, but Cheddar is obviously a special case and is dealt with by a reasonable and fair access agreement. This case is also slightly different because the risk/liability is to visitors of the gorge, not the climbers - Cheddar Gorge have a duty to protect its visitors from climbers by making these reasonable restrictions.
> Not so simple if climbers pull off rocks and kill passers-by, for instance (see Cheddar).
True, but Cheddar is obviously a special case and is dealt with by a reasonable and fair access agreement. This case is also slightly different because the risk/liability is to visitors of the gorge, not the climbers - Cheddar Gorge have a duty to protect its visitors from climbers by making these reasonable restrictions.
Post edited at 15:41
In reply to andrewmcleod:
How is Cheddar different? The landowner has a statutory responsibility to visitors just like any landowner does.
Make no mistake, if a passer-by is killed by a rock dislodged by a climber at any crag and his estate issues proceedings against the landowner saying that not enough was done to warn him of the danger, the result of that court case will not be a foregone conclusion.
jcm
How is Cheddar different? The landowner has a statutory responsibility to visitors just like any landowner does.
Make no mistake, if a passer-by is killed by a rock dislodged by a climber at any crag and his estate issues proceedings against the landowner saying that not enough was done to warn him of the danger, the result of that court case will not be a foregone conclusion.
jcm
Post edited at 15:57
In reply to Howard J:
Yet in nearly all cases where I trespass the local access reps will know the details and the real reasons the landowner doesn't want climbing are not morally clear or strong. It seems perfectly reasonable then that climbers can assert moral rights to climb where they have no legal rights providing they accept the risks and potential consequences. I have no interest in climbing that risks rare flora or fauna, genuine breach of privacy, damage to property, risk of upsetting a sensitive access agreement, risk to innocent third parties, etc. Insurance can be an issue but rarely as often or as much as its claimed to be.
Yet in nearly all cases where I trespass the local access reps will know the details and the real reasons the landowner doesn't want climbing are not morally clear or strong. It seems perfectly reasonable then that climbers can assert moral rights to climb where they have no legal rights providing they accept the risks and potential consequences. I have no interest in climbing that risks rare flora or fauna, genuine breach of privacy, damage to property, risk of upsetting a sensitive access agreement, risk to innocent third parties, etc. Insurance can be an issue but rarely as often or as much as its claimed to be.
Post edited at 16:41
In reply to Mark Warnett:
Why wow? The only moral considerations would relate to reasonable objections some of which I've listed but would not include bogus reasons given by an intransigent landowner.
Why wow? The only moral considerations would relate to reasonable objections some of which I've listed but would not include bogus reasons given by an intransigent landowner.
In reply to yarbles:
I really don't understand this thread. Given the massive expanses of rock in the UK where climbing is permitted, why bother with trying to climb where there is likely to be trouble?
The CRoW Act gave us non-landowers a huge amount of access to crags. What's so special about this crag you want to access?
If you wanted to be discrete, you'd just toddle off for a climb there rather than asking questions on an internet forum. I think Offwidth's first advice is the most pertinent.
Just go climb and if you get caught then politely leave if asked to do so.
I really don't understand this thread. Given the massive expanses of rock in the UK where climbing is permitted, why bother with trying to climb where there is likely to be trouble?
The CRoW Act gave us non-landowers a huge amount of access to crags. What's so special about this crag you want to access?
If you wanted to be discrete, you'd just toddle off for a climb there rather than asking questions on an internet forum. I think Offwidth's first advice is the most pertinent.
Just go climb and if you get caught then politely leave if asked to do so.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Plenty of reasons to many crags:
a) Non-climbing visitors, in large numbers. If you are a climber at a crag, you recognise and accept the risk of falling rock. If you have lots of non-climbers wandering around a crag, then there is an obvious potential for conflict - this is not the case at most crags.
b) The layout of Cheddar is quite unusual - high cliffs, a narrow gorge and a road at the base. Rockfall at most crags in the UK will just hit the bottom (or the sea) and stop, and there is unlikely to be anyone there except climbers. At Cheddar falling rock is likely to end up on the road at the very least - or rather it would if it were not for the extensive rockfall protection (of which banning summer climbing is only a part).
c) The open-top bus, also not commonplace on most UK crags...
The risks at Cheddar to _non-climbers_ don't realise exist at most UK crags. Non-climbers have not consented to climbers dropping rocks on their head. So I guess I mostly agree with you except in that non-climbing visitors to most UK crags are rare (I mean 'standing around in the rockfall zone' not just 'wandering past and having a look'). This will be even more true at crags where access is banned; the only people likely to be trespassing are climbers.
> How is Cheddar different? The landowner has a statutory responsibility to visitors just like any landowner does.
Plenty of reasons to many crags:
a) Non-climbing visitors, in large numbers. If you are a climber at a crag, you recognise and accept the risk of falling rock. If you have lots of non-climbers wandering around a crag, then there is an obvious potential for conflict - this is not the case at most crags.
b) The layout of Cheddar is quite unusual - high cliffs, a narrow gorge and a road at the base. Rockfall at most crags in the UK will just hit the bottom (or the sea) and stop, and there is unlikely to be anyone there except climbers. At Cheddar falling rock is likely to end up on the road at the very least - or rather it would if it were not for the extensive rockfall protection (of which banning summer climbing is only a part).
c) The open-top bus, also not commonplace on most UK crags...
The risks at Cheddar to _non-climbers_ don't realise exist at most UK crags. Non-climbers have not consented to climbers dropping rocks on their head. So I guess I mostly agree with you except in that non-climbing visitors to most UK crags are rare (I mean 'standing around in the rockfall zone' not just 'wandering past and having a look'). This will be even more true at crags where access is banned; the only people likely to be trespassing are climbers.
Post edited at 23:50
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Yes, agreed; obviously the danger is much greater at Cheddar. But the principle is the same everywhere.
jcm
Yes, agreed; obviously the danger is much greater at Cheddar. But the principle is the same everywhere.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I can't think of many crags that i go to where there are passers by, apart from the odd badger. In fact i reckon if i fell off and died i dont think i would be found for 50 or so years.
I can't think of many crags that i go to where there are passers by, apart from the odd badger. In fact i reckon if i fell off and died i dont think i would be found for 50 or so years.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...