In reply to Frank the Husky:
> "Democracy prevails": Really? What about all the people who wanted it to remain and those not on UKC who had no say?
On this thread I make it about 12 for vs 28 against.
On UKB about 3 for vs 15 against.
On Twitter, I got about ten messages against, and one vaguely for from a guy who admitted up front he had never climbed outdoors.
(Hard to get exact figures as not everyone states so simply, but I've erred in favour of the fors if anything. E.g. where Dan suggested 8:17 higher up I made it 9:15. Yes I am bored, the baby has me under house-arrest.)
>What about taking it to the BMC meeting!
As a proposal, it was discussed at the BMC 4 years ago. As an in-situ existant lower-off, it was discussed at the BMC meet on Wednesday. At both meetings there was a vote. No one at either meeting was prepared to vote in its favour, and a large majority voted against.
If that is clearly unsatisfactory, how else do you suggest we canvas opinion? Un-named E7 climbers in BMC corridors? Who was it who wrote "I’m sorry folks, but just because you climb E8, you’re not the boss of me"? Well me neither, but I'll take a vote from those who can be arsed to voice an opinion anyday.
> It's also interesting that you're happy even though they did a "pretty bad job" of it. As long as there's no bolt, it doesn't matter how trashed the rock gets.
I went up and had a look tonight. The rock is incredibly soft. A big dish was made when the original stake went in. A bigger dish was made when the staple went in, along with two holes full of unsightly resin and metal (mild steel too - which would have rusted). The dish was was further enlarged when it was chopped, but the most unsightly bit is the glue.
>I knew I was missing something somewhere. Who's the "persons unknown" who did this - shouldn't they be proud of what they did? Who is the someone who's going to tidy it up?
Who are the 'persons unknown' who placed it? Are they not proud either? Personally I have no problem with these things being anonymous to be honest - it keeps the discussion on the principles not the personalities.
> To answer the question I posed to Adam Long, and who never answered it, the Peak Area is evidently rather a backward child.
I'm afraid you'll have to repeat it as I'm not sure what you're referring to. If you mean in terms of fixed gear policy, the Peak policy is near identical to these lines you posted above:
"-if a peg that was rotten couldn't be effectively replaced, a bolt might be considered if modern gear hadn't opened up any other possibilities and if the area meeting agreed in that particular case.
-it was also agreed that if modern equipment meant the fixed gear was no longer needed the bolt/peg would be removed and not replaced."
What has happened followed the above process exactly. It's seems strange for you to promote such a process whilst refusing to accept it's outcome.
Where we are left is that we have a short stake that is slightly wobbly but can be tied off for those who feel a need for it. In fact pretty much an exact like-for-like replacement of the old stake that you removed, only much stronger. Given that, and presuming it's in quite deep, I'd suggest accepting a bit of a compromise and leaving the stub in - another little bit of history, and hopefully stopping a repeat bolting.
However if you insist someone should 'tidy it up' the softness of the rock here is unique in that the stubs could be removed entirely and the rock would look pretty much the same given a few weeks wind and rain. I'd be happy to oblige if that's the consensus.
Post edited at 22:24