This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just a heads up- please don't use lamps to night climb at Almscliff:
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/ViewCrag.aspx?id=465
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/ViewCrag.aspx?id=465
18
In reply to lummox:
Might not be open access but the two rights of way across it would make closing it very difficult.
Anyone know what his objection is? If there's a genuine concern then id me more sympathetic.
Might not be open access but the two rights of way across it would make closing it very difficult.
Anyone know what his objection is? If there's a genuine concern then id me more sympathetic.
7
76
In reply to joem:
I simply can't get my head around this sort of attitude.
It's his land that he chooses to give the climbing community free access to. It doesn't matter whether you think his concerns are "genuine" or not - they're his concerns and they're genuine to him.
If people choose to ignore him then why the hell should he carry on granting access?
> Might not be open access but the two rights of way across it would make closing it very difficult.
> Anyone know what his objection is? If there's a genuine concern then id me more sympathetic.
I simply can't get my head around this sort of attitude.
It's his land that he chooses to give the climbing community free access to. It doesn't matter whether you think his concerns are "genuine" or not - they're his concerns and they're genuine to him.
If people choose to ignore him then why the hell should he carry on granting access?
133
7
In reply to joem:
He could easily choose to put his cows in the main climbing areas rather than round the back. Would make for soft landings I suppose...
He could easily choose to put his cows in the main climbing areas rather than round the back. Would make for soft landings I suppose...
13
In reply to joem:
I believe (not first hand) that there have been a couple of injuries at Almscliff and he's nervous about the increased risk at night.
Regardless of his reasons, it's his land, he's been very reasonable, why would we (the climbing community) not respect his wishes?
I believe (not first hand) that there have been a couple of injuries at Almscliff and he's nervous about the increased risk at night.
Regardless of his reasons, it's his land, he's been very reasonable, why would we (the climbing community) not respect his wishes?
Post edited at 16:24
69
2
In reply to galpinos:
Because if people had always taken this attitude there would be no access to anywhere.
If it was in Scotland he would have no argument.
Because if people had always taken this attitude there would be no access to anywhere.
If it was in Scotland he would have no argument.
15
76
In reply to joem:
But we do have access, every day during daylight hours. He's not exactly unreasonable (he's actually very friendly to climbers). He also, as Simon pointed out above, could make life more difficult for climbers with his cattle, but he doesn't. The least we can do is listen to his requests and, if reasonable as this one is, abide by them.
But it's not, it's in Yorkshire. You appear to be in Swansea so imagine it's not actually a pressing issue for you?
> Because if people had always taken this attitude there would be no access to anywhere.
But we do have access, every day during daylight hours. He's not exactly unreasonable (he's actually very friendly to climbers). He also, as Simon pointed out above, could make life more difficult for climbers with his cattle, but he doesn't. The least we can do is listen to his requests and, if reasonable as this one is, abide by them.
> If it was in Scotland he would have no argument.
But it's not, it's in Yorkshire. You appear to be in Swansea so imagine it's not actually a pressing issue for you?
91
2
In reply to joem:
The more people who adopt your selfish attitude the more likely we are to see consent to climb at other private venues being withdrawn. As has been said it's his land, he doesn't have to allow climbing at any time, but fortunately he does give consent for daytime climbing. Your attitude is both unreasonable and arrogant, and does nothing to maintain good relations between climbers and private land owners.
The more people who adopt your selfish attitude the more likely we are to see consent to climb at other private venues being withdrawn. As has been said it's his land, he doesn't have to allow climbing at any time, but fortunately he does give consent for daytime climbing. Your attitude is both unreasonable and arrogant, and does nothing to maintain good relations between climbers and private land owners.
44
2
In reply to galpinos:
My profile isn't up to date, however its the principle of the matter why should we just doff our caps and say yes sir no sir to any landowner how wants to restrict access. If there's a genuine reason then fair enough but if it's just that he doesn't want common folk on his land after dark then its not.
My profile isn't up to date, however its the principle of the matter why should we just doff our caps and say yes sir no sir to any landowner how wants to restrict access. If there's a genuine reason then fair enough but if it's just that he doesn't want common folk on his land after dark then its not.
8
97
In reply to joem:
You do realise this a local farmer, not Lord Snooty Pants poncing around in his red cords and mustard cravat releasing the hounds on poor defenseless boulderers?? There's no cap doffing, more people being considerate to each other.
Do you play music on your tinny phone speakers whilst on public transport per chance?
You do realise this a local farmer, not Lord Snooty Pants poncing around in his red cords and mustard cravat releasing the hounds on poor defenseless boulderers?? There's no cap doffing, more people being considerate to each other.
Do you play music on your tinny phone speakers whilst on public transport per chance?
92
2
In reply to Trangia:
I have a problem with the very concept of private land when we are talking about access for recreation.
There is an argument for compromise in some situations but if we accept restrictions in every case we will see access to any crags outside of CROW land gradually eroded to nothing.
Anyhow this has jumped massively into an argument about access agreements where I was more interested in the reasoning for objecting to night climbing.
I have a problem with the very concept of private land when we are talking about access for recreation.
There is an argument for compromise in some situations but if we accept restrictions in every case we will see access to any crags outside of CROW land gradually eroded to nothing.
Anyhow this has jumped massively into an argument about access agreements where I was more interested in the reasoning for objecting to night climbing.
11
49
In reply to joem:
You are incorrect if you think you can go anywhere, and climb anywhere in Scotland. Try having a climb on, for example, Salisbury Crags one day ...
> If it was in Scotland he would have no argument.
You are incorrect if you think you can go anywhere, and climb anywhere in Scotland. Try having a climb on, for example, Salisbury Crags one day ...
23
1
In reply to joem:
Well given the power of the lights available these days I'm not sure I'd want people out lamping 50 yards from my front door either.
Well given the power of the lights available these days I'm not sure I'd want people out lamping 50 yards from my front door either.
26
1
In reply to lummox:
This whole discussion has clearly go completely out of hand due to my arsey initial reply followed my getting to passionately into my opinions on access if I perhaps rephrased my initial post as "shame night climbing seems fairly harmless anyone know why?" would that have avoided such heated debate?
This whole discussion has clearly go completely out of hand due to my arsey initial reply followed my getting to passionately into my opinions on access if I perhaps rephrased my initial post as "shame night climbing seems fairly harmless anyone know why?" would that have avoided such heated debate?
27
2
In reply to joem:
I did try to answer!
I think there was a recent broken leg and an MR call out. There have been more than one group up there at times (4 or 5 groups) and it's pretty close to his house? As those rechargable LED work lights get better and more popular (a couple with each group, that's 10 of them at once), it's a bit of a different scenario than punting about with a headtorch.
> "shame night climbing seems fairly harmless anyone know why?"
I did try to answer!
> I believe (not first hand) that there have been a couple of injuries at Almscliff and he's nervous about the increased risk at night.
I think there was a recent broken leg and an MR call out. There have been more than one group up there at times (4 or 5 groups) and it's pretty close to his house? As those rechargable LED work lights get better and more popular (a couple with each group, that's 10 of them at once), it's a bit of a different scenario than punting about with a headtorch.
12
1
In reply to joem:
You're going to step in some of those previously hinted at cowpats with your backtracking, if you're not careful
> This whole discussion has clearly go completely out of hand due to my arsey initial reply followed my getting to passionately into my opinions on access if I perhaps rephrased my initial post as "shame night climbing seems fairly harmless anyone know why?" would that have avoided such heated debate?
You're going to step in some of those previously hinted at cowpats with your backtracking, if you're not careful
6
6
In reply to Trangia:
Be gentle with him. I think he's a student, and appears to have chosen Rick from The Young One's as his role model
> The more people who adopt your selfish attitude the more likely we are to see consent to climb at other private venues being withdrawn. As has been said it's his land, he doesn't have to allow climbing at any time, but fortunately he does give consent for daytime climbing. Your attitude is both unreasonable and arrogant, and does nothing to maintain good relations between climbers and private land owners.
Be gentle with him. I think he's a student, and appears to have chosen Rick from The Young One's as his role model
47
In reply to Goucho:
If only i was still a student.
I always found Rick to be a touch too right wing for my tastes
If only i was still a student.
I always found Rick to be a touch too right wing for my tastes
6
In reply to joem:
Access issues are sensitive. Please tone down your language. This is a public forum.
Please do not climb at Almscliff at night. We must work with landowners to preserve access.
Thanks.
Access issues are sensitive. Please tone down your language. This is a public forum.
Please do not climb at Almscliff at night. We must work with landowners to preserve access.
Thanks.
26
6
In reply to joem:
It might just be that, in rural areas, people like farmers are uncomfortable with the whole idea of gangs of people wandering about at night near their houses, not to mention their outbuildings containing valuable equipment and stock.
I've heard similar concerns about night bouldering from people living under the Five Clouds at the Roaches.
Normal people can just about understand rock climbing, they usually struggle with the concept of bouldering and they are not surprisingly utterly bemused by the concept of bouldering at night. Folk wandering about at night with bright lights are associated with more nefarious activities, the least of which is lamping for shooting.
> If there's a genuine reason then fair enough but if it's just that he doesn't want common folk on his land after dark then its not.
It might just be that, in rural areas, people like farmers are uncomfortable with the whole idea of gangs of people wandering about at night near their houses, not to mention their outbuildings containing valuable equipment and stock.
I've heard similar concerns about night bouldering from people living under the Five Clouds at the Roaches.
Normal people can just about understand rock climbing, they usually struggle with the concept of bouldering and they are not surprisingly utterly bemused by the concept of bouldering at night. Folk wandering about at night with bright lights are associated with more nefarious activities, the least of which is lamping for shooting.
40
9
3
26
10
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Spot on. You've noticed the term 'lamping' in the original statement, which as you say suggests the farmer has problems with people with guns, lurchers and terriers creeping around at night. Also, as you say, maybe even legitimate activities like night climbing are becoming intrusive and unsettling for the farmer and his family.
Spot on. You've noticed the term 'lamping' in the original statement, which as you say suggests the farmer has problems with people with guns, lurchers and terriers creeping around at night. Also, as you say, maybe even legitimate activities like night climbing are becoming intrusive and unsettling for the farmer and his family.
16
In reply to Ridge:
I suspect this is the crux of the issue. Sound carries at night and I can imagine the clanking of gear and calls of safe etc could be very intrusive at night when trying to relax after a hard day's graft.
> Also, as you say, maybe even legitimate activities like night climbing are becoming intrusive and unsettling for the farmer and his family.
I suspect this is the crux of the issue. Sound carries at night and I can imagine the clanking of gear and calls of safe etc could be very intrusive at night when trying to relax after a hard day's graft.
17
In reply to Phil Anderson:
I can completely understand his attitude. If you were a coue of feet from his back window i could understand.
Who gave the farmer that land his father his forefathers was it stolen claimed by what ever means it is not his and his alone. He has a right to moan or share his anxiety, but we also have a right to use. recreational land belongs to us all! as long as we dont damage it or as i said really offend people by climbing in there back garden eg crag y longridge.
I still think a mass trespass of climbers ( though its not trespass) should happen at foredale quarry now that farmer really is a wa.ker!
I can completely understand his attitude. If you were a coue of feet from his back window i could understand.
Who gave the farmer that land his father his forefathers was it stolen claimed by what ever means it is not his and his alone. He has a right to moan or share his anxiety, but we also have a right to use. recreational land belongs to us all! as long as we dont damage it or as i said really offend people by climbing in there back garden eg crag y longridge.
I still think a mass trespass of climbers ( though its not trespass) should happen at foredale quarry now that farmer really is a wa.ker!
4
64
In reply to sammy5000:
There was a comment earlier on about access being a sensitive issue, this being a public forum and the need for comments to be toned down. Did you miss it? Because...
...should that happen and damage result, you've just put your name at the top of the list of potential suspects to be interviewed. Good luck with that.
T.
There was a comment earlier on about access being a sensitive issue, this being a public forum and the need for comments to be toned down. Did you miss it? Because...
> I still think a mass trespass of climbers ( though its not trespass) should happen at foredale quarry now that farmer really is a wa.ker!
...should that happen and damage result, you've just put your name at the top of the list of potential suspects to be interviewed. Good luck with that.
T.
7
2
In reply to Ridge:
I rather doubt many farmers are concerned about lamping, they want it.
Farmers (not all of them) are generally careless when it comes to what happens to wildlife or the environment, locally, and globally. Especially if they are nfu associated farmers.
Farming livestock is the biggest cause for pollution on the planet, and far exceeds the contribution made towards global warming of all land, air, and sea transportation.
People out lamping are often pals with the farmer, or paid by him, but some lampers would be up at 2am to shoot rabbits or fox just for sick kicks too.
I rather doubt many farmers are concerned about lamping, they want it.
Farmers (not all of them) are generally careless when it comes to what happens to wildlife or the environment, locally, and globally. Especially if they are nfu associated farmers.
Farming livestock is the biggest cause for pollution on the planet, and far exceeds the contribution made towards global warming of all land, air, and sea transportation.
People out lamping are often pals with the farmer, or paid by him, but some lampers would be up at 2am to shoot rabbits or fox just for sick kicks too.
Post edited at 21:53
6
27
In reply to sammy5000:
You don't know that he hasn't worked and paid for his land. Much as I'd like recreational land to belong to us all, this is a working farm not a wild mountain. If he was stopping access altogether I'd see your point, but as he is making a reasonable request not to climb in the dark and makes efforts to make it possible and easier for climbers in the day I'd suggest leaving him alone.
You don't know that he hasn't worked and paid for his land. Much as I'd like recreational land to belong to us all, this is a working farm not a wild mountain. If he was stopping access altogether I'd see your point, but as he is making a reasonable request not to climb in the dark and makes efforts to make it possible and easier for climbers in the day I'd suggest leaving him alone.
24
In reply to lummox:
This is a Sad state of affairs, I've enjoyed night climbing up there at this time of year for many years. Its usually only for a couple of months between clock change and climbing wall time and rarely are people there later than 9pm.
In Hundreds of sessions, I've never seen any problems, heard anyone making loud noises or had any issues with the farmer up there. The crag is some distance form the farm and struggle to see that any light or noise pollution would be a real problem.
I was there on Tuesday night when the farmer was driving around the field at the bottom making his feelings quite clear, he raised the issue of an accident and that he was concerned about liability.
For me this is a very sad turn of events, I will respect the current ban but lament the loss of one of my favorite autumn activities at such a special venue.
Phil
This is a Sad state of affairs, I've enjoyed night climbing up there at this time of year for many years. Its usually only for a couple of months between clock change and climbing wall time and rarely are people there later than 9pm.
In Hundreds of sessions, I've never seen any problems, heard anyone making loud noises or had any issues with the farmer up there. The crag is some distance form the farm and struggle to see that any light or noise pollution would be a real problem.
I was there on Tuesday night when the farmer was driving around the field at the bottom making his feelings quite clear, he raised the issue of an accident and that he was concerned about liability.
For me this is a very sad turn of events, I will respect the current ban but lament the loss of one of my favorite autumn activities at such a special venue.
Phil
22
2
In reply to richrox:
+1
I'm staggered and saddened by some of the responses here
The land issues in this country are utterly depressing
+1
I'm staggered and saddened by some of the responses here
The land issues in this country are utterly depressing
3
8
In reply to lummox:
How long, judging by some of the replies on here, before we can add this to the list of banned crags?
How long, judging by some of the replies on here, before we can add this to the list of banned crags?
6
4
In reply to Lusk:
Oh god... in extremely brief terms (can expend tomorrow if interested).
I can't really write in detail now but a few things to think about...
This country is in a difficult place due to our shortage of land (keeping land prices high and space limited)
I personally believe you can't own these places, a county council will own city parks but national parks in the UK seem staggeringly different. Why?
I think it's due to the value of the land and the power of those on it. For example, if someone lived in national parks of the usa, they would be bought out (native American jokes aside).
When our government decided the m1 was vital to improve our and economic base, they bought everyone out. Is our wild land not as important as the economic stance?
I have no issue with farming in our lands, but i really struggle (example being bbc year in the wild snowdonia), with farmers just letting their animals onto the uplands destroy everything (and proven to destroy everything. Why can't this be kept to valley bottoms at very least?
We are similar to NZ in regards to sheep, in NZ sheep aren't allowed in national parks!
Whilst our national parks are being cut drastically, resources are tight and we are being asked to pay (stand up for stanage, bmc mountains). This weekend I saw a sheep stuck on a ledge. I then saw national park rangers spend all day trying to rescue an animal which belongs to a farmer who is receiving thousands of pounds in Eu grants to support this? It baffles me.
I guess my relation to this topic is, how can he stop access anytime?
Imo if he purchased the land then he should expect it, living near a popular recreational spot.
And if he inherited it, then lucky boy! But tough.
Oh god... in extremely brief terms (can expend tomorrow if interested).
I can't really write in detail now but a few things to think about...
This country is in a difficult place due to our shortage of land (keeping land prices high and space limited)
I personally believe you can't own these places, a county council will own city parks but national parks in the UK seem staggeringly different. Why?
I think it's due to the value of the land and the power of those on it. For example, if someone lived in national parks of the usa, they would be bought out (native American jokes aside).
When our government decided the m1 was vital to improve our and economic base, they bought everyone out. Is our wild land not as important as the economic stance?
I have no issue with farming in our lands, but i really struggle (example being bbc year in the wild snowdonia), with farmers just letting their animals onto the uplands destroy everything (and proven to destroy everything. Why can't this be kept to valley bottoms at very least?
We are similar to NZ in regards to sheep, in NZ sheep aren't allowed in national parks!
Whilst our national parks are being cut drastically, resources are tight and we are being asked to pay (stand up for stanage, bmc mountains). This weekend I saw a sheep stuck on a ledge. I then saw national park rangers spend all day trying to rescue an animal which belongs to a farmer who is receiving thousands of pounds in Eu grants to support this? It baffles me.
I guess my relation to this topic is, how can he stop access anytime?
Imo if he purchased the land then he should expect it, living near a popular recreational spot.
And if he inherited it, then lucky boy! But tough.
8
20
In reply to joem:
Wonderful! We'll be round at your place on Sunday for a freshers' meet, there'll be 25 of us, we'll be using the kitchen and bathroom too and sleeping over for 3-4 nights.
It's really very kind of you! Thanks!
> I have a problem with the very concept of private land when we are talking about access for recreation....
Wonderful! We'll be round at your place on Sunday for a freshers' meet, there'll be 25 of us, we'll be using the kitchen and bathroom too and sleeping over for 3-4 nights.
It's really very kind of you! Thanks!
50
5
In reply to ashtond6:
Almscliff isn't in remote wilderness though. It's a big lump of grit stone incongruously sitting in the middle of hundreds of square miles of farmland. Next to the farmers house.
There is a debate to be had over land ownership and access to be sure; but not sure that Almscliff is a glaring example of everything that's wrong with the system. ..
Almscliff isn't in remote wilderness though. It's a big lump of grit stone incongruously sitting in the middle of hundreds of square miles of farmland. Next to the farmers house.
There is a debate to be had over land ownership and access to be sure; but not sure that Almscliff is a glaring example of everything that's wrong with the system. ..
19
1
In reply to joem:
I'm thinking because it affects his quality of life (I don't know about his animals) is probably reason enough, now that some lamps are 'f*cking hell that's powerful' strength of brightness now.
It might 'only' be psychologically affecting him in that it does his head in seeing brightness out of his windows until he's thinking about going to bed, but when there's farm land which climbers and the public aren't legally allowed to access, and he's been agreeable enough to allow access to his, there might be an argument for trying to gain stronger rights to access via 'the agreed channels' as it were so that access still continues in the meantime at this cool crag?
I sometimes think there's right and wrong and there's workable solutions, if the current situation feels wrong to some, sticking with the workable solution while trying to get something better is the way to go (should one feel the need).
> I have a problem with the very concept of private land when we are talking about access for recreation.
> There is an argument for compromise in some situations but if we accept restrictions in every case we will see access to any crags outside of CROW land gradually eroded to nothing.
> Anyhow this has jumped massively into an argument about access agreements where I was more interested in the reasoning for objecting to night climbing.
I'm thinking because it affects his quality of life (I don't know about his animals) is probably reason enough, now that some lamps are 'f*cking hell that's powerful' strength of brightness now.
It might 'only' be psychologically affecting him in that it does his head in seeing brightness out of his windows until he's thinking about going to bed, but when there's farm land which climbers and the public aren't legally allowed to access, and he's been agreeable enough to allow access to his, there might be an argument for trying to gain stronger rights to access via 'the agreed channels' as it were so that access still continues in the meantime at this cool crag?
I sometimes think there's right and wrong and there's workable solutions, if the current situation feels wrong to some, sticking with the workable solution while trying to get something better is the way to go (should one feel the need).
Post edited at 01:02
14
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I agree, however if you apply that to the whole of England, none of it would apply as none of it is wilderness.
I definately have sympathy with the farmer, I probably wouldn't want it.
However, imo it's part and parcel of where he lives. He is making a livelihood from our (UK/World citizens) land, so why should he be able to put rules on it
> Almscliff isn't in remote wilderness though. It's a big lump of grit stone incongruously sitting in the middle of hundreds of square miles of farmland. Next to the farmers house.
> There is a debate to be had over land ownership and access to be sure; but not sure that Almscliff is a glaring example of everything that's wrong with the system. ..
I agree, however if you apply that to the whole of England, none of it would apply as none of it is wilderness.
I definately have sympathy with the farmer, I probably wouldn't want it.
However, imo it's part and parcel of where he lives. He is making a livelihood from our (UK/World citizens) land, so why should he be able to put rules on it
3
17
In reply to ashtond6:
I think, in relation to this thread, most of that is irrelevant.
The whole point of this thread now seems to be, if a piece of land has a lump of rock on it, climbers seem to think they have a divine right to climb all over it anytime they like. By the grace of the landlords they do, but considering how a lot of the ever increasing people treat the outdoors, it's lucky they do.
If something has spooked the Almscliffe guy, we'll just have to respect his decision.
All I can say is in the 50 years I've been going out in the UK countryside, I can't recall a single incident of grief. We're not living in the Kinder Scout Mass trespass days anymore.
I think, in relation to this thread, most of that is irrelevant.
The whole point of this thread now seems to be, if a piece of land has a lump of rock on it, climbers seem to think they have a divine right to climb all over it anytime they like. By the grace of the landlords they do, but considering how a lot of the ever increasing people treat the outdoors, it's lucky they do.
If something has spooked the Almscliffe guy, we'll just have to respect his decision.
All I can say is in the 50 years I've been going out in the UK countryside, I can't recall a single incident of grief. We're not living in the Kinder Scout Mass trespass days anymore.
16
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Because we have anarchy if we don't have rules, or if people don't follow them generally.
It's his land and we can climb there if we don't spoil his evenings with brightness by night bouldering, to me that's good enough, I'd really like to climb there one day and I hope that people don't spoil things for me, by annoying him by lamp bouldering after he's requested that people don't.
Anybody who wants to lamp boulder after his request needs to consider the access there for all the other climbers in the UK too.
> However, imo it's part and parcel of where he lives. He is making a livelihood from our (UK/World citizens) land, so why should he be able to put rules on it
Because we have anarchy if we don't have rules, or if people don't follow them generally.
It's his land and we can climb there if we don't spoil his evenings with brightness by night bouldering, to me that's good enough, I'd really like to climb there one day and I hope that people don't spoil things for me, by annoying him by lamp bouldering after he's requested that people don't.
Anybody who wants to lamp boulder after his request needs to consider the access there for all the other climbers in the UK too.
Post edited at 01:23
14
1
In reply to lummox:
Surprised by some of the responses to this thread. How many folk responding have actually gone climbing at night here? (we've had one so far) Since most of us do our rock climbing by day, it's really not much to ask. I'm sure those keen enough could get themselves up to another venue, e.g. Brimham?
The farmer's concern about accident/liability is more worrying (logically this is no more likely during night than day) so it may be worth some reassurance coming from the BMC that (a) they've asked people to stop going up there after dark and (b) liability would not be an issue for him.
Surprised by some of the responses to this thread. How many folk responding have actually gone climbing at night here? (we've had one so far) Since most of us do our rock climbing by day, it's really not much to ask. I'm sure those keen enough could get themselves up to another venue, e.g. Brimham?
The farmer's concern about accident/liability is more worrying (logically this is no more likely during night than day) so it may be worth some reassurance coming from the BMC that (a) they've asked people to stop going up there after dark and (b) liability would not be an issue for him.
5
Oddly, if he's asking for no night climbing on safety grounds he may well be increasing his legal liability rather than reducing it. He's making safety judgements rather than leaving that to individual climbers. But then he is in some sense acting as an arbiter of climbing safety and by not doing likewise for daytime climbing he's open to charges of partial responsibility for injuries caused.
I'm not a lawyer but I do have enough experience of climbing cases to recognise this as the kind of unhelpful logic that gets used successfully in some claims.
Perhaps a BMC rep could take legal advice and then perhaps have a word with the farmer.
I'm not a lawyer but I do have enough experience of climbing cases to recognise this as the kind of unhelpful logic that gets used successfully in some claims.
Perhaps a BMC rep could take legal advice and then perhaps have a word with the farmer.
8
1
In reply to lummox:
I wonder if he's referring to headtorch ascents of routes or people setting up big arc lights to work problems (while shouting lots). I can see how the latter would probably be the greater pain in arse.
I wonder if he's referring to headtorch ascents of routes or people setting up big arc lights to work problems (while shouting lots). I can see how the latter would probably be the greater pain in arse.
9
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I have been thinking the same.... The Five Clouds issue is one that I am anticipating, plus a few others (Wright's springs to mind)
I can see both sides of the arguments above. But, it's not just "farmers" it could just as easily be local residents who have the complaints, it doesn't need to be the landowner. It's just a bit of give and take, it's when things like this affect the status quo that problems arise.
Although we've all been doing a bit of headtorch climbing as long as we can remember, it's definitely only been the last couple of years that work-lamps have become part of the boulderers' essential equipment, non-climbers are definitely going to notice this change in trend.
I have been thinking the same.... The Five Clouds issue is one that I am anticipating, plus a few others (Wright's springs to mind)
I can see both sides of the arguments above. But, it's not just "farmers" it could just as easily be local residents who have the complaints, it doesn't need to be the landowner. It's just a bit of give and take, it's when things like this affect the status quo that problems arise.
Although we've all been doing a bit of headtorch climbing as long as we can remember, it's definitely only been the last couple of years that work-lamps have become part of the boulderers' essential equipment, non-climbers are definitely going to notice this change in trend.
In reply to Phil Ev:
Agreed Phil- Matt and I were going to join you up there on Tuesday- the Depot was warmer ; ) Where next ??
Agreed Phil- Matt and I were going to join you up there on Tuesday- the Depot was warmer ; ) Where next ??
In reply to ashtond6:
"I think it's due to the value of the land and the power of those on it. For example, if someone lived in national parks of the usa, they would be bought out (native American jokes aside)."
Interestingly this brings other potential problems; I was fined a not insignificant sum for climbing in Red Rocks after a certain time in the evening, and had no idea I was breaking a National Park law.......whoever the owner is can potentially impose regulation of use.
"I think it's due to the value of the land and the power of those on it. For example, if someone lived in national parks of the usa, they would be bought out (native American jokes aside)."
Interestingly this brings other potential problems; I was fined a not insignificant sum for climbing in Red Rocks after a certain time in the evening, and had no idea I was breaking a National Park law.......whoever the owner is can potentially impose regulation of use.
In reply to Jamie B:
I'm not sure Jamie but the combination of head torches and " builders lights " up there is still less obtrusive than the " rottweiler lights " the farm and surrounding houses have... as Phil said, this is a real shame.
I'm not sure Jamie but the combination of head torches and " builders lights " up there is still less obtrusive than the " rottweiler lights " the farm and surrounding houses have... as Phil said, this is a real shame.
In reply to andi turner:
What I've heard is more like a bemused 'what the hell are they up to?' rather than hostility but I think people need to understand that, especially in rural areas, what might be perfectly acceptable in daylight arouses disquiet and suspicion after dark.
We have a public footpath running through our garden, right past our barn and out across the field to a neighbouring farm. People have a right to walk it whenever they like but that doesn't mean I'd be happy with groups of people regularly on the property after dark without a very good reason that they'd explained to me.
> I have been thinking the same.... The Five Clouds issue is one that I am anticipating, plus a few others (Wright's springs to mind)
What I've heard is more like a bemused 'what the hell are they up to?' rather than hostility but I think people need to understand that, especially in rural areas, what might be perfectly acceptable in daylight arouses disquiet and suspicion after dark.
We have a public footpath running through our garden, right past our barn and out across the field to a neighbouring farm. People have a right to walk it whenever they like but that doesn't mean I'd be happy with groups of people regularly on the property after dark without a very good reason that they'd explained to me.
Post edited at 09:30
13
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
so would it be groups of people you had an issue with ? What about a single jogger going past, headtorch gently bobbing up and down ?
so would it be groups of people you had an issue with ? What about a single jogger going past, headtorch gently bobbing up and down ?
1
In reply to lummox:
Did you mean jogger or dogger?
> What about a single jogger going past, headtorch gently bobbing up and down ?
Did you mean jogger or dogger?
8
In reply to richrox:
Do you mean this? Or do you mean the biggest contributor to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), which it isn't either?
Transportation contributes about 15% of the GHGs in the atmosphere, "Agriculture, Livestock and Land Use" about 25%. Livestock farming does produce more methane than CO2 which has a greater warming effect, granted
What's your actual point though, apart from an intelligible rant?
> Farming livestock is the biggest cause for pollution on the planet,
Do you mean this? Or do you mean the biggest contributor to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), which it isn't either?
> and far exceeds the contribution made towards global warming of all land, air, and sea transportation.
Transportation contributes about 15% of the GHGs in the atmosphere, "Agriculture, Livestock and Land Use" about 25%. Livestock farming does produce more methane than CO2 which has a greater warming effect, granted
What's your actual point though, apart from an intelligible rant?
3
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Surely doing as he has asked so as not to piss him off whilst the BMC gets in touch to find out his issues is a sensible way forward?
Surely doing as he has asked so as not to piss him off whilst the BMC gets in touch to find out his issues is a sensible way forward?
7
In reply to Timmd:
I've climbed there many times over a 40 odd year period, and there has never been any problems with the farmer - he even grazes his cows predominantly round the back of the crag too.
Almscliffe, like Caley, is an important little crag, which has nurtured generations of Yorkshire climbers from Dolphin to Gray to Fawcett etc.
It would be a crying shame if access became an issue, which it certainly could do, because people decide to ignore the farmers request to not climb at night.
Whether you agree with his decision or not, respect the farmers wishes in the short-term, and let an established body like the BMC, who are well versed and experienced in the politics and logistics of access negotiations, take charge of the matter, rather than individuals donning their 'Offended of Otley' beanies and continuing to climb at night anyway.
The way to extinguish a fire, is with water, not petrol.
> Because we have anarchy if we don't have rules, or if people don't follow them generally.
> It's his land and we can climb there if we don't spoil his evenings with brightness by night bouldering, to me that's good enough, I'd really like to climb there one day and I hope that people don't spoil things for me, by annoying him by lamp bouldering after he's requested that people don't.
> Anybody who wants to lamp boulder after his request needs to consider the access there for all the other climbers in the UK too.
I've climbed there many times over a 40 odd year period, and there has never been any problems with the farmer - he even grazes his cows predominantly round the back of the crag too.
Almscliffe, like Caley, is an important little crag, which has nurtured generations of Yorkshire climbers from Dolphin to Gray to Fawcett etc.
It would be a crying shame if access became an issue, which it certainly could do, because people decide to ignore the farmers request to not climb at night.
Whether you agree with his decision or not, respect the farmers wishes in the short-term, and let an established body like the BMC, who are well versed and experienced in the politics and logistics of access negotiations, take charge of the matter, rather than individuals donning their 'Offended of Otley' beanies and continuing to climb at night anyway.
The way to extinguish a fire, is with water, not petrol.
Post edited at 09:41
25
In reply to Goucho:
and he has had other annoyances to put up with - like people who thoughtlessly park in front of his field gates, or even park partly obstructing the lane - heres a hint guys, the last time he couldnt get his tractor past, the offending car (which any idiot could see was creating an obstruction) found itself moved with the aid of a landie
and he has had other annoyances to put up with - like people who thoughtlessly park in front of his field gates, or even park partly obstructing the lane - heres a hint guys, the last time he couldnt get his tractor past, the offending car (which any idiot could see was creating an obstruction) found itself moved with the aid of a landie
6
In reply to pebbles:
I've seen that too.
Climbers are at times their own worst enemy when it comes to access, and often behave in an arrogantly selfish way, seeing everything purely from a climbing perspective.
If the farmer who owns Almscliffe decides to stop access altogether, who's it going to piss off most, him and his family, or climbers?
It would be stupid if the actions of a tiny percentage of climbers who like to climb at night - and I'll bet it is only a tiny percentage - ruin it for everyone else.
Having access during the day, is better than no access at all!
> and he has had other annoyances to put up with - like people who thoughtlessly park in front of his field gates, or even park partly obstructing the lane - heres a hint guys, the last time he couldnt get his tractor past, the offending car (which any idiot could see was creating an obstruction) found itself moved with the aid of a landie
I've seen that too.
Climbers are at times their own worst enemy when it comes to access, and often behave in an arrogantly selfish way, seeing everything purely from a climbing perspective.
If the farmer who owns Almscliffe decides to stop access altogether, who's it going to piss off most, him and his family, or climbers?
It would be stupid if the actions of a tiny percentage of climbers who like to climb at night - and I'll bet it is only a tiny percentage - ruin it for everyone else.
Having access during the day, is better than no access at all!
Post edited at 10:17
13
In reply to lummox:
If it was clear that an individual or a group was out for a run and they just passed through I'd be surprised (given how few people use it during daylight) but I'd be fine about it because it would be obvious what they were up to. If they used the path to access the property and then were hanging about and it wasn't clear what they were doing, then I'd be less happy about it. It's common sense and courtesy really.
A lot of expensive stuff and even stock goes missing from farms you know, animals are injured, gates and fences get damaged.
> so would it be groups of people you had an issue with ? What about a single jogger going past, headtorch gently bobbing up and down ?
If it was clear that an individual or a group was out for a run and they just passed through I'd be surprised (given how few people use it during daylight) but I'd be fine about it because it would be obvious what they were up to. If they used the path to access the property and then were hanging about and it wasn't clear what they were doing, then I'd be less happy about it. It's common sense and courtesy really.
A lot of expensive stuff and even stock goes missing from farms you know, animals are injured, gates and fences get damaged.
11
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I appreciate that rural theft is a big issue Dave. However, I would say that the bouldering mats and beenie hats would also be a dead give away to the farmer below Almscliffe at night, given how many of them he sees during daylight hours.
I appreciate that rural theft is a big issue Dave. However, I would say that the bouldering mats and beenie hats would also be a dead give away to the farmer below Almscliffe at night, given how many of them he sees during daylight hours.
1
In reply to lummox:
Sure. I'm not commenting on the specifics of what's happening at Almscliffe, but there may be a more general issue developing at other places, as Andi has said.
Sure. I'm not commenting on the specifics of what's happening at Almscliffe, but there may be a more general issue developing at other places, as Andi has said.
In reply to joem:
Before anybody bites my head off, I totally agree that it's his land and his to decide what happens to it, he doesn't have to give a reason for any change in access , it's his to do with as he pleases and his wishes should be respected. I think it's amazing how access to many places is maintained in the face of the inconsiderate behaviour of a few (and that's what it will be) thoughtless people.
However , I also despair at the negativity you have generated by asking why ,having a bolshy attitude and generally trying to understand the issue. Ffs when you try accept that you were perhaps a bit bolshy you get harangued as well . Fwiw ( not a great deal I suppose ) I think you replies show a lot more maturity and reason than it seems you ve been give credit for. In this case I reckon it's quite probably just a normal bloke wanting to be left in peace at night . but it doesn't take a goggle genius to see that the majority of land in this country isn't owned by normal reasonable blokes just wanting to live and let live and many ( not all ) of the large land owners in this country would happily see access to their land restricted until there is no access whatsoever . And just in case I haven't made myself clear ...not in this case ......but I find it heartening that not all young people talk like old people . And then there's bloody brexit... ( and on and on and on...)
Edit : I used the term reactionary old fogeys but have removed it as Ill considered , smiley face .
Before anybody bites my head off, I totally agree that it's his land and his to decide what happens to it, he doesn't have to give a reason for any change in access , it's his to do with as he pleases and his wishes should be respected. I think it's amazing how access to many places is maintained in the face of the inconsiderate behaviour of a few (and that's what it will be) thoughtless people.
However , I also despair at the negativity you have generated by asking why ,having a bolshy attitude and generally trying to understand the issue. Ffs when you try accept that you were perhaps a bit bolshy you get harangued as well . Fwiw ( not a great deal I suppose ) I think you replies show a lot more maturity and reason than it seems you ve been give credit for. In this case I reckon it's quite probably just a normal bloke wanting to be left in peace at night . but it doesn't take a goggle genius to see that the majority of land in this country isn't owned by normal reasonable blokes just wanting to live and let live and many ( not all ) of the large land owners in this country would happily see access to their land restricted until there is no access whatsoever . And just in case I haven't made myself clear ...not in this case ......but I find it heartening that not all young people talk like old people . And then there's bloody brexit... ( and on and on and on...)
Edit : I used the term reactionary old fogeys but have removed it as Ill considered , smiley face .
Post edited at 11:05
4
In reply to lummox:
To all those saying they should be able to night climb when the land owner has said he doesn't want that - if you think a tree is in your way at Rivelin, are you just going to cut it down?
To all those saying they should be able to night climb when the land owner has said he doesn't want that - if you think a tree is in your way at Rivelin, are you just going to cut it down?
In reply to Phil Ev:
If that's the case then I'm sure the BMC will be trying to put his mind at rest. But in the meantime we should as you say respect his wishes. After all he could use the same worries to stop climbing there full stop - we've already lost other similar venues for this reason.
> he raised the issue of an accident and that he was concerned about liability.
If that's the case then I'm sure the BMC will be trying to put his mind at rest. But in the meantime we should as you say respect his wishes. After all he could use the same worries to stop climbing there full stop - we've already lost other similar venues for this reason.
3
In reply to lummox:
That's fine in principle but how many times do you expect somebody will happily trot out in the dark to check that lingering lights are being carried by beanie wearing, boulder mat toting boulderers before patience starts to wear thin?
> I appreciate that rural theft is a big issue Dave. However, I would say that the bouldering mats and beenie hats would also be a dead give away to the farmer below Almscliffe at night, given how many of them he sees during daylight hours.
That's fine in principle but how many times do you expect somebody will happily trot out in the dark to check that lingering lights are being carried by beanie wearing, boulder mat toting boulderers before patience starts to wear thin?
6
In reply to lummox:
How will he tell, as it will be dark?
Chris
> I appreciate that rural theft is a big issue Dave. However, I would say that the bouldering mats and beenie hats would also be a dead give away to the farmer below Almscliffe at night, given how many of them he sees during daylight hours.
How will he tell, as it will be dark?
Chris
7
In reply to Chris Craggs:
The outline of the bouldering mats might give it away. As I'm sure you are aware, it's never truly black at Almscliffe.
The outline of the bouldering mats might give it away. As I'm sure you are aware, it's never truly black at Almscliffe.
3
In reply to timjones:
Well Tim- its c. 100 metres in a straight line from the nearest boulders to his farmhouse. The parking is c. 300 metres away at the very least. If the lights aren't in his farmyard , I reckon he could breathe easy that they aren't robbing from the farmyard.
As for sheep/cattle rustling, not sure how our happy boulderers are causing a problem. In fact, their presence might deter the neer do wells..
Well Tim- its c. 100 metres in a straight line from the nearest boulders to his farmhouse. The parking is c. 300 metres away at the very least. If the lights aren't in his farmyard , I reckon he could breathe easy that they aren't robbing from the farmyard.
As for sheep/cattle rustling, not sure how our happy boulderers are causing a problem. In fact, their presence might deter the neer do wells..
1
In reply to mike123:
Yes. I was going to post a long rant as to how, via the Acts of Enclosure and other factors going back generations,, the peoples' land had been seized from them in favour of landowners who inherited, not earned, their land. But I'll stop here...
Yes. I was going to post a long rant as to how, via the Acts of Enclosure and other factors going back generations,, the peoples' land had been seized from them in favour of landowners who inherited, not earned, their land. But I'll stop here...
5
In reply to lummox:
The problem is that the average human can't see in the dark, so you can't see who is carrying a light or what they are doing.
As for the sort of things that get stolen, it's not just stuff in the yard or livestock. Last year we had every single roadside gate stolen releasing all of our livestock onto the road. Guess who is liable if escaped stock cause an accident?
Sadly you quite simply can't afford to draw the curtains and assume that anyones motives are innocent if you spot their lights at night.
I haven't got a clue what the answer is but it isn't too hard to understand the problem.
> Well Tim- its c. 100 metres in a straight line from the nearest boulders to his farmhouse. The parking is c. 300 metres away at the very least. If the lights aren't in his farmyard , I reckon he could breathe easy that they aren't robbing from the farmyard.
> As for sheep/cattle rustling, not sure how our happy boulderers are causing a problem. In fact, their presence might deter the neer do wells..
The problem is that the average human can't see in the dark, so you can't see who is carrying a light or what they are doing.
As for the sort of things that get stolen, it's not just stuff in the yard or livestock. Last year we had every single roadside gate stolen releasing all of our livestock onto the road. Guess who is liable if escaped stock cause an accident?
Sadly you quite simply can't afford to draw the curtains and assume that anyones motives are innocent if you spot their lights at night.
I haven't got a clue what the answer is but it isn't too hard to understand the problem.
19
1
In reply to galpinos:
There was no rant. There was an explanation that it's highly unlikely farmers would be worried about people lamping, in response to someone suggesting this could be the issue.
You also suggested my comnent was intelligible, but but i suspect you spelt that incorrectly and meant something else, and presumably didn't read previous posts to be able to figure what i had responded to.
It is correct that farming, mostly livestock farming, is, and has been for a long time, the biggest contributer towards GHG and global warming.
Livestock farming, not just in uk, causes massive pollution to waterways and oceans from slurry, uses huge amounts of water, and causes massive destruction of ecosystems to grow food to feed cattle to convert to meat.
Again this was mentioned with reference to the fact that most farmers don't care about wildlife, or the environment, in response to someone's suggestion that they might be worried about lamping.
Polluting all the time, pesticides, herbicide's, fertilizers, slurry, bees, birds, and wildlife massively in decline. Plastic from animal and game feeds littering everywhere... all kinds of hollow excuses they use to conserve! / manage / cull wildlife.
Can't think for themselves, just go along with nfu's crazy advice.
To be clear, i said most farmers, not all.
The only farmer's worth any respect are the organic arable ones.
Here's a good film for you at...
Cowspiracy.com
There was no rant. There was an explanation that it's highly unlikely farmers would be worried about people lamping, in response to someone suggesting this could be the issue.
You also suggested my comnent was intelligible, but but i suspect you spelt that incorrectly and meant something else, and presumably didn't read previous posts to be able to figure what i had responded to.
It is correct that farming, mostly livestock farming, is, and has been for a long time, the biggest contributer towards GHG and global warming.
Livestock farming, not just in uk, causes massive pollution to waterways and oceans from slurry, uses huge amounts of water, and causes massive destruction of ecosystems to grow food to feed cattle to convert to meat.
Again this was mentioned with reference to the fact that most farmers don't care about wildlife, or the environment, in response to someone's suggestion that they might be worried about lamping.
Polluting all the time, pesticides, herbicide's, fertilizers, slurry, bees, birds, and wildlife massively in decline. Plastic from animal and game feeds littering everywhere... all kinds of hollow excuses they use to conserve! / manage / cull wildlife.
Can't think for themselves, just go along with nfu's crazy advice.
To be clear, i said most farmers, not all.
The only farmer's worth any respect are the organic arable ones.
Here's a good film for you at...
Cowspiracy.com
1
20
In reply to Lusk:
You have to bear in mind that all land, if you think about it, is ultimately theft from the general community. The first owner had no one to buy it off because before that it was simply there for common use. It's then been handed down through families, sometimes bought and sold but ultimately no one has any real claim to it over anyone else. Much of Britain's land is owned by Britain's aristocracy. Land is not like a private dwelling or property that was created using time and energy from other people. No one has created land. It just exists.
If someone claimed that they now owned all the air in the country and everyone else had to pay them to use it everyone would see how ludicrous that would be. But because the concept of land ownership has been around for centuries we tend not to see that really it's a complete fraud.
Climbers are not claiming ownership of the places we climb in. But that doesn't imply we have to blindly accept the ownership claims of others either. I think that's a healthy and empowering way to think about it.
> if a piece of land has a lump of rock on it, climbers seem to think they have a divine right to climb all over it anytime they like. By the grace of the landlords they do
You have to bear in mind that all land, if you think about it, is ultimately theft from the general community. The first owner had no one to buy it off because before that it was simply there for common use. It's then been handed down through families, sometimes bought and sold but ultimately no one has any real claim to it over anyone else. Much of Britain's land is owned by Britain's aristocracy. Land is not like a private dwelling or property that was created using time and energy from other people. No one has created land. It just exists.
If someone claimed that they now owned all the air in the country and everyone else had to pay them to use it everyone would see how ludicrous that would be. But because the concept of land ownership has been around for centuries we tend not to see that really it's a complete fraud.
Climbers are not claiming ownership of the places we climb in. But that doesn't imply we have to blindly accept the ownership claims of others either. I think that's a healthy and empowering way to think about it.
12
13
In reply to stp:
No, we accepted the concept of property ownership because the alternative was constantly fighting over it and the strongest and most ruthless taking what they wanted. Would you prefer that?
> But because the concept of land ownership has been around for centuries we tend not to see that really it's a complete fraud.
No, we accepted the concept of property ownership because the alternative was constantly fighting over it and the strongest and most ruthless taking what they wanted. Would you prefer that?
Post edited at 23:22
26
1
In reply to stp:
Philosophically I agree, that land is a resource or 'gift to humanity' (and the animals?) which should belong to everybody - in a harmonious way one would hope, but human nature and the need to have places to do different things in, probably means we need some kind of system - which has turned out to be land ownership.
I get where you're coming from though, probably rights of access for spiritual renewal by going to and taking exercise in beautiful places is the closest we'll get to it?
Philosophically I agree, that land is a resource or 'gift to humanity' (and the animals?) which should belong to everybody - in a harmonious way one would hope, but human nature and the need to have places to do different things in, probably means we need some kind of system - which has turned out to be land ownership.
I get where you're coming from though, probably rights of access for spiritual renewal by going to and taking exercise in beautiful places is the closest we'll get to it?
Post edited at 02:21
1
3
6
In reply to stp:
Just wondering - do you own land, or a house or flat including land? If yes, do you let anyone use it? And the same for the future, if you own land in future, will you let anyone use it? Am I right - presumably you won't expect other people "to blindly accept the ownership claims" you have, if you own land?
I read your arguments with interest and respect. Can I suggest, though, that when people own land they tend to look after it?
> ....because the concept of land ownership has been around for centuries we tend not to see that really it's a complete fraud.... that doesn't imply we have to blindly accept the ownership claims of others either. I think that's a healthy and empowering way to think about it.
Just wondering - do you own land, or a house or flat including land? If yes, do you let anyone use it? And the same for the future, if you own land in future, will you let anyone use it? Am I right - presumably you won't expect other people "to blindly accept the ownership claims" you have, if you own land?
I read your arguments with interest and respect. Can I suggest, though, that when people own land they tend to look after it?
8
Hi lummuox,
Thanks for that.
As for below,I've never read so much uninformed or misplaced //it on UKC.
His land,probably for a very long time.
Flashing lights or activity where there has been none for years,many years..............
Leave the farmer alone and respect where he lives.
16
2
11
In reply to richrox:
I presume you'll continue to go lamping after the crag has been banned?
As much as we can waffle on about "ownership" - and don't get me wrong, I agree on a philosophical level - when a crag gets banned, I've noticed that climbers tend to stop going, no mass tresspass, no heroic defiance, just memories of when it was good.
I presume you'll continue to go lamping after the crag has been banned?
As much as we can waffle on about "ownership" - and don't get me wrong, I agree on a philosophical level - when a crag gets banned, I've noticed that climbers tend to stop going, no mass tresspass, no heroic defiance, just memories of when it was good.
6
In reply to andi turner:
They're going to establish the People's Bouldering Front of Judea - or possibly the Judean People's Bouldering Front!
> I presume you'll continue to go lamping after the crag has been banned?
> As much as we can waffle on about "ownership" - and don't get me wrong, I agree on a philosophical level - when a crag gets banned, I've noticed that climbers tend to stop going, no mass tresspass, no heroic defiance, just memories of when it was good.
They're going to establish the People's Bouldering Front of Judea - or possibly the Judean People's Bouldering Front!
7
In reply to stp:
True, but it's also pointless philosophical waffling, because in the real world, you do have to accept the legality of land ownership.
And in this case in question, the legal landowner has always been one of the good guys regarding access and climbing.
If you want to climb at night, I hear there are now things called indoor climbing walls, and apparantly, you don't need to provide your own lighting either.
> Climbers are not claiming ownership of the places we climb in. But that doesn't imply we have to blindly accept the ownership claims of others either. I think that's a healthy and empowering way to think about it.
True, but it's also pointless philosophical waffling, because in the real world, you do have to accept the legality of land ownership.
And in this case in question, the legal landowner has always been one of the good guys regarding access and climbing.
If you want to climb at night, I hear there are now things called indoor climbing walls, and apparantly, you don't need to provide your own lighting either.
13
In reply to lummox:
maybe he fears people with lamps will be the council estate dwellers with lurchers and guns
maybe he fears people with lamps will be the council estate dwellers with lurchers and guns
1
1
In reply to anyone:
Can someone please explain to me the fascination of bouldering at night with lamps? Thanks.
Can someone please explain to me the fascination of bouldering at night with lamps? Thanks.
3
1
7
In reply to jon:
*lots of fun (honestly)
*can get up really really late for a climbing session - about 4 PM
*no need to comb hair (no-one can see you)
*you enter an exclusive group, the 0.00000001% who climb there at night
*you can make informed, wise, and witty comments on this thread
*can see asteroids coming (from the sparks)
*no freshers toproping
*can pull on gear - no-one will see
*can stack 15 or more mats without getting sneered at
> Can someone please explain to me the fascination of bouldering at night with lamps? Thanks.
*lots of fun (honestly)
*can get up really really late for a climbing session - about 4 PM
*no need to comb hair (no-one can see you)
*you enter an exclusive group, the 0.00000001% who climb there at night
*you can make informed, wise, and witty comments on this thread
*can see asteroids coming (from the sparks)
*no freshers toproping
*can pull on gear - no-one will see
*can stack 15 or more mats without getting sneered at
11
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
We'll done for addressing any points in his post!
I've greed with basically everyone - I understand why the farmer has an issue, I agree we should stay away...
However I think the fundamental issue is disguistingly wrong.
We'll done for addressing any points in his post!
I've greed with basically everyone - I understand why the farmer has an issue, I agree we should stay away...
However I think the fundamental issue is disguistingly wrong.
1
3
In reply to ashtond6:
Could you enlighten us as to why?
Or do you approach this from the 'I'm a climber, therefore I have an inalienable right to climb on any piece of rock I like, irrespective of any other considerations?'.
> However I think the fundamental issue is disguistingly wrong.
Could you enlighten us as to why?
Or do you approach this from the 'I'm a climber, therefore I have an inalienable right to climb on any piece of rock I like, irrespective of any other considerations?'.
5
2
In reply to Goucho:
That's a great argument Goucho, shutting down anyone who you disagree with by assuming they are some odd lefty with no opinions. Therefore giving their opinion for them.
My opinion is posted in limited detail higher in the thread, where I was having a productive discussion with someone. If there isn't enough detail, I'd be happy to elaborate
That's a great argument Goucho, shutting down anyone who you disagree with by assuming they are some odd lefty with no opinions. Therefore giving their opinion for them.
My opinion is posted in limited detail higher in the thread, where I was having a productive discussion with someone. If there isn't enough detail, I'd be happy to elaborate
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Magnificent misinterpretation combined with spectacularly incorrect presumption.
> That's a great argument Goucho, shutting down anyone who you disagree with by assuming they are some odd lefty with no opinions. Therefore giving their opinion for them.
Magnificent misinterpretation combined with spectacularly incorrect presumption.
2
3
In reply to Goucho:
Did you not ask me why? Then provide a quote implying that was my opinion?
Must be a bug in my phone then
Did you not ask me why? Then provide a quote implying that was my opinion?
Must be a bug in my phone then
1
In reply to ashtond6: I had a look at your opinion higher up (the one where you talk about what happens in NZ). It's an opinion for sure, but it's short on facts and any coherent argument in favour of why we should ignore the farmer's wishes. To say the fundamental issue (which you don't explain) is "disgustingly wrong" is a meaningless Daily Mail headline. "Disgustingly wrong" would be paedophilia or honour killings, not some farmer in Yorkshire asking people not to climb on his land at night.
Here's a fact - if people ignore his wishes he may ban access to the crag and then it's game over. I suspect that those who insisted on lamp climbing would then go somewhere else instead of clearing up the mess they created.
Here's a fact - if people ignore his wishes he may ban access to the crag and then it's game over. I suspect that those who insisted on lamp climbing would then go somewhere else instead of clearing up the mess they created.
16
1
In reply to ashtond6:
I did read your comments further up this thread, but came to the conclusion that the ghost of Stanley Unwin had hacked your account, considering the incoherent nonsense it contained.
> Did you not ask me why? Then provide a quote implying that was my opinion?
I did read your comments further up this thread, but came to the conclusion that the ghost of Stanley Unwin had hacked your account, considering the incoherent nonsense it contained.
7
4
In reply to john arran:
Good point, his apparent rationale doesn't seem logical as liability doesn't know the difference between night and day.
I would hazard a guess this ban stems from a general misunderstanding of what night climbing is or a personal annoyance of the lamps a few hundred meters from his house.
I hope the BMC access people can open up some dialogue to resolve this or at least shed a bit more light on it (ironically).
Good point, his apparent rationale doesn't seem logical as liability doesn't know the difference between night and day.
I would hazard a guess this ban stems from a general misunderstanding of what night climbing is or a personal annoyance of the lamps a few hundred meters from his house.
I hope the BMC access people can open up some dialogue to resolve this or at least shed a bit more light on it (ironically).
1
In reply to Jamie B:
Having climbed at here at night for a good few months recently I can honestly say I have never heard anyone shouting.
Having climbed at here at night for a good few months recently I can honestly say I have never heard anyone shouting.
1
1
In reply to abseil:
While I can appreciate most of your above points, frankly this one is bollocks. You wwould surely be wearing some sort of knitted woollen head covering, no?
> *no need to comb hair (no-one can see you)
While I can appreciate most of your above points, frankly this one is bollocks. You wwould surely be wearing some sort of knitted woollen head covering, no?
9
In reply to jon:
One still has to comb one's hair, in any case!! Honestly......
> While I can appreciate most of your above points, frankly this one is bollocks. You wwould surely be wearing some sort of knitted woollen head covering, no?
One still has to comb one's hair, in any case!! Honestly......
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
So you are criticising me because I have no coherent argument against the farmer? Haha clearly said I respect his wishes?
My issue is how situations like this can happen especially due to land ownership.
Many people consider total land ownership, farming and hunting in national parks pretty disguisting.
Yes I know Almscliff ISN'T a national park but it should belong to the country - with similar rules to a 'proper' (therefore non UK) national park
> Here's a fact - if people ignore his wishes he may ban access to the crag and then it's game over. I suspect that those who insisted on lamp climbing would then go somewhere else instead of clearing up the mess they created.
So you are criticising me because I have no coherent argument against the farmer? Haha clearly said I respect his wishes?
My issue is how situations like this can happen especially due to land ownership.
Many people consider total land ownership, farming and hunting in national parks pretty disguisting.
Yes I know Almscliff ISN'T a national park but it should belong to the country - with similar rules to a 'proper' (therefore non UK) national park
Post edited at 12:25
1
In reply to ashtond6:
Shall i come round to your house and indulge in my favourite passtime? ..... Thought not, a grown man in a Womble Costume can be unsettling.
What we do in this situation is say "ok mate, lets go to Caley"
What then happens is the farmer then thinks us climbers are a reasonable respectful lot, we have a chat and possibly next year he may be more amenable to night boulderers using his land .
Shall i come round to your house and indulge in my favourite passtime? ..... Thought not, a grown man in a Womble Costume can be unsettling.
What we do in this situation is say "ok mate, lets go to Caley"
What then happens is the farmer then thinks us climbers are a reasonable respectful lot, we have a chat and possibly next year he may be more amenable to night boulderers using his land .
Post edited at 18:23
10
In reply to muppetfilter:
As I've said above, my issue isn't with the farmer. So I don't know what you are talking about.
As I've said above, my issue isn't with the farmer. So I don't know what you are talking about.
1
In reply to muppetfilter:
Perhaps go back to Almscliffe and do your bouldering dressed as wombles, he might be ok with that. Just don't make off with too much stuff that u might find.
Perhaps go back to Almscliffe and do your bouldering dressed as wombles, he might be ok with that. Just don't make off with too much stuff that u might find.
3
1
In reply to lummox:
I can't believe this has reached so many replies on a matter that simply isn't up for debate.
In case it isn't clear
THE MESSAGE IS:
DONT CLIMB AT ALMSCLIFF AT NIGHT
IF YOU DO, YOU'RE A BELL ***
I can't believe this has reached so many replies on a matter that simply isn't up for debate.
In case it isn't clear
THE MESSAGE IS:
DONT CLIMB AT ALMSCLIFF AT NIGHT
IF YOU DO, YOU'RE A BELL ***
28
1
In reply to ashtond6:
No - because
a) your attempts to justify the actions of those who refuse to abide by a perfectly reasonable request are frankly pitiful, and
b) because you can't spell "disgusting".
JW
> So you are criticising me because I have no coherent argument against the farmer?
> Many people consider total land ownership, farming and hunting in national parks pretty disguisting .
No - because
a) your attempts to justify the actions of those who refuse to abide by a perfectly reasonable request are frankly pitiful, and
b) because you can't spell "disgusting".
JW
5
2
In reply to ashtond6:
National parks in the are different from those in some other countries, including the USA, where national parks are nationally owned and kept as wilderness areas. However those countries were usually starting from a clean slate, and the areas designated were usually true wilderness with little or no resident population.
In the UK the areas now designated as National Parks have been lived and worked in for thousands of years. Very little can be considered true wilderness, untouched by man. The Yorkshire Dales NP has a resident population of over 36,000, the Peak District more than 37,000. A National Park in the UK is really a planning control measure, with stricter criteria for getting planning permission.
If you want to argue for US-style national parks then by all means do so, but it is unrealistic to imagine these areas could be depopulated, not only because of the cost of compensating the residents but where would they be re-housed and re-employed?
Until the revolution, it doesn't really matter whether the farmer's reasons are justified or not, it is his land and he can control access to it. You may find that objectionable, but unless climbers co-operate with his wishes we could end up losing all access. This isn't the Kinder Trespass, and those who ignore his wishes are just acting selfishly and against the interests of the climbing community.
> I personally believe you can't own these places, a county council will own city parks but national parks in the UK seem staggeringly different. Why?
National parks in the are different from those in some other countries, including the USA, where national parks are nationally owned and kept as wilderness areas. However those countries were usually starting from a clean slate, and the areas designated were usually true wilderness with little or no resident population.
In the UK the areas now designated as National Parks have been lived and worked in for thousands of years. Very little can be considered true wilderness, untouched by man. The Yorkshire Dales NP has a resident population of over 36,000, the Peak District more than 37,000. A National Park in the UK is really a planning control measure, with stricter criteria for getting planning permission.
If you want to argue for US-style national parks then by all means do so, but it is unrealistic to imagine these areas could be depopulated, not only because of the cost of compensating the residents but where would they be re-housed and re-employed?
Until the revolution, it doesn't really matter whether the farmer's reasons are justified or not, it is his land and he can control access to it. You may find that objectionable, but unless climbers co-operate with his wishes we could end up losing all access. This isn't the Kinder Trespass, and those who ignore his wishes are just acting selfishly and against the interests of the climbing community.
10
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...