UKC

Just recieved my latest edition of grovel from the MCofS.

It appears that our favourite person, Mr Muir was awarded an expedition grant to willy wave and party his way around the world climbing road-side pieces of rock with ice axes and crampons.

Does anyone else see this as a bit odd? Do you really class this as an expedition? and was this what the grants were originally intended for?

I doubt it and would like to see what the criteria is. Innovative perhaps? Yes, repeating others routes in order to make money out of sponsorship, very innovative.

I have to say i'm extremely pissed of with the MCofS for there hypocritical stance on everything to do with Scottish climbing. Dry Tooling? Bolts at Benny Beg?

Interesting to see that Mr Muir was once an employee of the MCofS and it would also be interesting to see how many times he has been awarded grants.

On one hand we have Mr Howett moaning about the funding and on other other we have Mr Muir partying around the world on MCofS grants. Get it sorted out Kevin!

I used to support the MCofS for all it did now to be honest, I think we are better of without it.

Yes Kevin you would be willing to pay more for subscription, but then again that is what pays your wages isn't it!

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:


Me, for one.


No, and it's not mountaineering either.


Don't know. If so, then they shouldn't have been, speaking as someone who contributes financially.

In reply to DougG: Yes I contribute as well and I wonder why i should.

Think they will pay for our next trip? To Chamonix perhaps, to climb Mont Blanc.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:
Do you think i can get funding for the petrol i put in my car yesterday?

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

Dear Monster

Young Scott is a Professional Climber, do you expect him to go climbing and not get paid. His sponsorship monies do not cover all the expence involved in the level of climbing he does.

If you do not like the Grants Policy of MCofS, do not pay your Club fees.

Norrie Muir(No relation)

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

budget for grants is only 2k p.a. and not v well known about - maybe not many others applied whereas SM, being in the know, obviously did??

In reply to GFoz: There's a difference between being in the know and downright favouritism.Ethics,whether winter or otherwise, are to do with moral principles and I see little evidence of this in the self-promoting activities of Scott Muir or his Sponsors.

In reply to Norrie Muir: Dear Norrie, pray tell how one can withhold payment of MCoS dues while staying an active member of a club which is affiliated to the MCoS (something I would love to do).
The cleft stick looks something like this ....
By continueing to associate with your club on club activities and by withholding payment (to MCoS) you effective invalidate insurance of said club. Now while I for one don't think the insurance is worth the paper it's written on, this is not necessarily the opinion shared by other club members.
what's your interpretation ?

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:


Dry tooling is simply sport climbing for those with weak fingers, f-ing pointless in my book.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

A touch of jealousy me thinks.
Good luck to the lad, the lucky so and so

In reply to Chaos: ::Having had it pointed out several times recently that MCoS was a four letter word, I was about to post asking if there was anybody in the whole world that had a good word to say about them.

OK, so that one then 'Chaos'. Any advance on one? Scott, OK, that's two. Any advance on two???

In reply to JimF:

I have. It's usually abbreviated to MCofS, which is actually five letters.

In reply to JimF: I demand a recount !!!!!!

In reply to Billy Burnside:

I wasn't supporting or justifying what he was doing - just pointing out what probably happened.

To make a real case against SM on this one you would really need to know a few more facts like: what is the grants policy, who actually approved the award, who else applied, why were they turned down. Maybe it was bad governance, maybe not - we don't really know enough to judge??

In reply to GFoz: Taken from their website.


"The MCofS will award grants to expeditions whose objective is one of excellence and adventure whether they be first ascents or first free ascents of routes in the greater ranges and little or unexplored mountain areas of the world, or similar pure rock or pure ice climbs in less remote settings but which are nonetheless worthy of international recognition. The minimum number of expedition members is two."

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

one question answered, 3 to go.

In reply to GFoz:

"or similar pure rock or pure ice climbs in less remote settings but which are nonetheless worthy of international recognition"

I suppose they may use this phrase to justify their selection however I would take it to mean either pure rock climbing or ice climbing, not dry tooling.

Still a joke to be considered an 'expedition'.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: For what its worth I am against the MCofS giving any expedition grants whatsoever. As an MCofS member why should I pay for other peoples holidays ? Cos thats all these expeditions are. There is no greater meaning, purpose or benefit whatever in them. Climbing is just a fantastic (and selfish) leisure pursuit for those who can afford it. If you can't afford your aspirations work harder, the opportunities are out there.
Having said that I am working my way through the 4000ers so if anyone wants to get exited about me doing this (which I doubt) send me loads of cash and have a ball.

In reply to Chaos:
pray tell how one can withhold payment of MCoS dues while staying an active member of a club which is affiliated to the MCoS (something I would love to do - what's your interpretation ?

Dear Chaos

It is very simple actually. When your club Secretary is sending the names and addresses with the affiliation fee to the MCofS, ask the Secretary to withhold your name from the list. In this way you do not pay a fee to the MCofS and those who want the insurance pay the fee.

You do have a minor problem, do you pay your full subscriptions to your club or do you get a discount as the club is not sending out the affiliation fee for yourself.

Norrie

In reply to SimonTem:I disagree, I see nothing wrong with the MCof S giving grants to, predominantly young,Scottish amateur Climbers who wish to pursue worthwhile climbing goals in the Greater Ranges.But for me the key word in all of this is amateur.Scott Muir is not an amateur. He has chosen to make his living from climbing and while I appreciate his right to do so I do feel that it is not fair of the MC of S to subsidise his self-promtional activities.

In reply to Billy Burnside:

so (if you're a member) put forward a motion for the next AGM to revise the existing policy. Or even to do away with grants alltogether.

In reply to GFoz:

the deadline for submitting motions to the MCofS AGM is 31 March...

Better get a move on!

In reply to Billy Burnside: I couldn't agree more on the MCofS not supporting Professionals etc. If they have to give grants to anyone then I suppose it should be young scottish amateurs.
I disagree that climbing goals are in any way worthwhile in the great scheme of things. How can we put all this effort and rescource into climbing when there is so much suffering around ? Hmmm - I have come to terms with this 90 per cent of the time so am having a great time climbing things. Lets just not claim that a new EDxx on the North Face of Verybigsnowyhill adds much benefit to anyone.

As to developing the youth, at risk of sounding like an old git (already ?) I think young climbers would benefit more from being taken out of the climbing walls and onto trad mountains by well meaning old gits. I try to do this when I can. Don't just bung 'em some cash and tick the "developing young talent" box.

"When I were a lad" (and short of cash) the MCofS subsidised winter skills courses at Glemnmore lodge, I did two and they were just what I needed. All that ice axe braking has saved my neck on more than one occasion, and probably the odd helicopter call out. However I would prefer to see this money came from a more central pot like Sport Scotland or whoever they call themselves nowadays and not a tax on scottish mountaineers.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

All club members are liable for the actions of the club (that is kind of what the legal definition of the club is). Therefore, in most clubs, third party liability insurance is not optional.

In reply to GrahamD:


Dear Graham

Of course you are right.

However as you rightly point out "in most clubs, third party liability insurance is not optional.", I was not talking about all clubs. The insurance taken out through the MCofS is for the individual named members of the club, so in some clubs it is an option for the individual.

Norrie

PS I do not know what you are right about.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: If you check the MC of S website you'll see that the funding for expeditions in fact comes from sport scotland, not your subscription fees. Traditionally these grants have been very poorly applied for so I imagine it is unlikely that Scott being funded denied any other expedition funding. I'm sure if there had been four Scottish expeditions this year aiming for the N face of Jannu, Latok 1, a new route on Great Trango and Jirishanca SE face direct then Scott wouldn't have got a penny. So if you lot are so keen to see the money go to so called "proper expeditions" why don't you organise one? While Scotts project may not be an expedition in the traditional sense, I for one thought it was a pretty inspiring idea.

In reply to Norrie Muir: Sober up Norrie!

I'm afraid the MCofS doesn't work like that. If you are a member of an MCofS affiliated club then you are obliged to pay your fees to them to be a member of that club.

A club, as rightly pointed out works in the same way as a partnership with all members jointly and severally liable.

It is for the same reason that if you are a member of the SMC and also a member of another MCofS affiliated club you still have to pay the MCofS fees regardless of the fact you already have indemnity insurance with the SMC.

Trust me i've enquired about it with the MCofS and thats the response they gave me.

In reply to EsT: I'd love to mount an expedition to the North Spur of Latok 1. Fancy trying?

We could ask Scott Muir to do the PR work, then we wouldn't require to apply for any grants.

But we would have to carry a red bull etc flag to the top and the route would have to be renamed the 'Red Bull Spur' of Latok 1. Think we'd maybe struggle getting those one of those little red bull cars along the Choktoi Glacier mind!

It's chaps like you that should be applying for the grants. Adventure, commitment, innovation and real challenge! Ring any bells?

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:
if you are a member of the SMC

Dear Dubh

I see you are not a member SMC yourself.

I do trust you, but not the MCofS.

Norrie

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: I am applying for a grant this year, don't worry, but they aint going to give all the money to me (shame), so more people need to apply! Who are you by the way Mr Monster? Do I know you? Choktoi glacier young jedi? That way lies much sitting in tents watching it snow. No thanks!

In reply to EsT: No I don't know you, but i'm a keen observer of things that go on in Scottish Climbing?

Incase you hadn't guessed I enjoy lurking about places like the Dubh Loch.

True about the snow but amazing when it clears up.

What is your next objective if you don't mind me asking, or will that be giving the game away?

In reply to Norrie Muir: Glad to hear it Norrie!

How do you know i'm not a member of the SMC? Dubh Loch monster isn't my real name, incase you hadn't guessed.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:
Dubh Loch monster isn't my real name, incase you hadn't guessed.

Dear Dubh

You are more naive than me to believe what the MCofS say.

Norrie

PS I hope they do not find out your real name or there will be no funding of your jolly.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: Going back to Kyzyl Asker this summer. You been to the Choktoi?

In reply to EsT: Went treking from Askole up the Biafo Glacier a few years back and investigated the choktoi and surrounding area. Never really climbed unfortunately.

The karakoram is awesome, definitely in my opinion the worlds premier mountain range. Just wish the political situation would calm down a bit and i'd be enticed to get back out there.

That ice line on Kyzyl Asker looks awesome. Good luck!

"imagine it is unlikely that Scott being funded denied any other expedition funding."

You are right Mr T, for Trev Woods and myself were awarded funding for our exploratory foray into the quatrzite walls around Tafraoute, souther Morrocco, last October.

There's hope for us 'bumblies' yet !

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: I think the fund should be for expeditions only and not for help in funding holidays like Scott Muir's global mixed climbing adventure.

perhaps I should have tried to get money from the MCofS for going to Lofoten or Rjukan? but they were hardly expeditions so dont warrant any help from an expedition fund.

saying that, if you dont ask you dont get, so who is at fault here? certainly not Scott.. and good on him for blagging the cash.

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

The comments on this and another thread have been brought to my attention as National Officer of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, and as they directly concern the MCofS and the validity of the grnat given to Scott Muir, it was felt that we should clear up many missunderstandings that seem to be flying around about the MCofS expedition grant.
The MCofS Expedition Grant amounts to only £2K per year. A committee of 5 active mountaineers (all volunteers) and a representative from sportscotland (from whom the money is dirceted) make decisions on who will be allocated money each year based on a set of criteria that has been used now for about 10 years and can be found on our website. We take applications direct as well as through the Mount Everest Foundation applications. The criteria we use are very wide ranging but amount to "...excellence and adventure, .. first ascents or first free ascents of routes in the greater ranges and little unexplored mountain areas of the world, or similar pure rock or pure ice climbs in less remote settings which are nonetheless worthy of international recognition."
We have given grants ranging from £200 to £1,500 to a wide range of trips from University Students doing easy first ascents in Peru, to a team of 2 doing first ascents of hard mixed winter in Northern Norway. This last year we awarded grants to an SMC trip and A Jacobite Club trip to Greenland, Scotts attempts to repeat the hardest mixed routes in the world and to a 2 man trip to Morroco to do hard on-sight first ascents of rock routes.
This was in fact the total number of applications we had which fulfilled the criteria, so there were no expeditions of this sort who did not recieve funding who did not apply for it.
The amount we award is based on a range of issues regarding the international standing of the intended objective, the costs per person, the difficulty, the adventurous nature or the difficulty of the objective.
The style/discipline of climbing or an individuals character is not the basis for the awards (that is too subjective and personal), the essence of the award is to foster excellence and/or adventure across the whole spectrum of climbing activity and we hope that is exactly what we do every year.
The money is there for everyone to access and perhaps now you understand that its not only 'Big' 'expeditions' that are eligible, if you have a good objective and it fits the criteria, then please make an application, rather than denigrating those who have.
Find out more at the MCofS website, including brief reports from all those who have recieved grants in the past. You can visit the office in Perth to get access to the full reports in our reference library.

PS: who is the monster - why do folk on a chat room remain anonymous? are they afraid to put their name to their messages?

In reply to Kevin Howett (MCofS): I suppose our trip to Lofoten did fit the criteria afterall, any chance of accepting a retrospective application?

In reply to Kevin Howett (MCofS):

Kevin,

I don't have any personal axe to grind on this one but I am interested in one seeming inconsistency. Dubh Loch Monster (his name, not mine) has posted a copy of 'the rules' - including that the minimum expedition party is 2.

Now, presumably someone belayed Scott but the fact that your describe it as "Scotts attempts to repeat the hardest mixed routes in the world " suggests it was, in substance, really a one man expedition.

Can you please clarify this. Ta much.

Graham Foster (individual MCofS member)

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:
Firstly please note that this is a PERSONAL response (NOT MCofS) becasue you refer to me in a very personal manner.

I came into the job of National Offcier 14 years ago as I thought it was about time I put something back into the scene that I had gained so much from and to help safeguard the wild areas and climbing I have come to love. It does not pay well for someone with a family, but I am still committed to it, because I believe in what the MCofS does. AND the MCofS is not me, its the loads of committed volunteers from clubs and individuals that put in an inordinate amount of time and effort on behalf of the rest of us.
Monster (whoever you are?) have you done anything to fight for access legislation? safeguarding Shieldaig? preventing payment for access? fighting 'Bans' on climbing and access? fighting the huge tourist development that was mooted for Glen Brittle? pushing for National Parks? lobbying government on conservation issues? etc etc? the list of things you could help with are endless. As I don't know who you are, I can't tell where you are coming from with your arguments - someone who cares enough to get involved or someone who simply likes to have a moan.
But I do get dismayed by the sort of comments that you have posted here and it does at times make me wonder why I bother. Luckily, I know that not every climber is like you and it is worth the effort for the hundreds of folk out there who do care.
For your information:
- £8K from sportscotland helps pay for my wage - the income from clubs would not cover all the costs involved in running the MCofS and my wage as well.
- £2K expedition grant was secured in 1989 from sports council as ring-fenced 'development grant' that was put aside to helping individual climbers go on expeditions.
- I have posted another message about the grants criteria, read that for why we considered Scotts trip as relevent - but essentially because it was cutting edge at hard mixed and if he completed all the routes planned would be internationally significant - one of the reasons for the awards.
- the criteria are, and always have been, on the MCofS website. They are also continually written in the Scottish Mountaineer when we advertise for applications. You really can't miss them. In any case you only really have to phone the office to get information.
- Scott has never been an employee of MCS. He has been a volunteer for years, doing what he could to help, when he could - he's away a lot. He helped with our youth realrock sessions one year (got paid expeneses only) and has helped at MCS other events (no payment).
- Scott has never been on the committee that decides on the grants - I can assure you there is never any favouritism shown as the Expeditions Screening Committee are their own independent people and would be anoyed at the insinuation.
- Dry-tooling, Well what can I say. Its not my bag, (although watching it is impressive)! but it is of interest to a growing number of Scottish climbers. The MCofS simply tries to reflect whats going on and inform climbers and let them make their own mind up - we ran Scotts article and asked for comments (did you comment?) we set up a debate at the Ice Factor (did you come along?) and we will continue to ask peoples views on the subject - we have posted a chat room on the website and printed letters for AND against in the magazine, and asked the SMC to get comment from its members as the main climbing club, about the current MCS guidance on winter climbing. We can hardly be accused of bias! - also its called democracy and hopefully will lead to some sort of compromise sitaution instead of climbers getting bitchy on chat rooms and in the pub (like yourself).
- Benny Beg, whats your problem here? What is your view of the bolting of Creag a'Bhancair by Rab and Cubby? The bolting of the sea cliffs ar Arbroath? or Steall Hut Crag in Glen Nevis or Glen Ogle? At none of these areas did the activists have local discussions with local people or landowners or MCofS before doing it. At least at Benny Beg Scott made a real effort to get the views of local people by having a meeting of landoweners (its a trust run 'park' on Drummond Estates), local businesses, MCofS, Perth & KInross Council (who manage the place) and local climbers (of which there is quite a few), groups and the army (who use the crag a lot for training). The whole thing was thrashed out and in the end everyone agreed that it was a suitable venue for bolts. My position regarding MCofS was that it was in fact acceptable in all but one point in our Bolts Policy (that of the grade of the climbs not being 'cutting edge'). The meeting decided that it was acceptable and as there had already been a precedent set in lower grade sport routes across the rest of Scotland - what grade is 'cutting edge' becomes subjective - then I put it back to our sports development committee and then it was considered further by more folk on our Executive Committee. They all agreed that if there was any suitable venue in Scotland, then this was it.
None of this process has ever happened before in Scotland. So the compromise was not to your likeing. I'm sorry, but its not allways possible to please everyone every time in a democracy.

Finally, You feel that you would be better off without the MCofS. Obviously that is your opinion, but being party to the massive amount of work that goes on by the volunteers in MCofS on a massive range of issues (all of which would affect you and I) I would have to disagree. Climbers and mountaineers need to have a strong voice in todays Scotland, a strong coordinating body to bring the disperate climbers views together, to prevent all sorts of restrictions on our activities and destruction of our countryside. Would you be prepared to put in hundreds of hours of unpaid work lobbying government, MSP's, Local Councils, conservation bodies, etc? Our past presidents for instance had direct influence on such issues as fighting the call for compulsory rescue insurance, in structuring the access legislation and access code, and sorting out the Foot and Mouth fiasco, they almost did a second job on top of their usual jobs. Are you prepared to put that commitment into helping your fellow climbers?

Please don't underestimate the streangth of the pressures from many quarters that could have a direct and damaging influence on our enjoyment of climbing.

If you feel disinfranchised, then why not get involved with our work (get elecetd at our AGM in June?) and have a say in what we do?

In reply to Kevin Howett (personal): i think i support you in all your points both in the personal post and the MCofS one. your Scottish montaineer is excellent much better than the BMC summit thing!

warm regards
Alasdair

In reply to Kevin Howett (personal):

Kev, thanks for coming on and explaining the situation with the MCoS Grants etc.
On the surface it appears as if Scott Muir has benefited from cronyism. How can one ignore him, these days?

Just a few points from myself as Secretary of the Creag Dhu M.C.
1. In the 1970's the MCoS sent four ENGLISH climbers on an exchange trip to the USSR. Some of our members were very aggrieved at this obvious folly.

2. Your close support of Scott Muir could be seen in the same light, in that there are others missing out on the opportunities, whilst Scott furthers his PROFESSIONAL career. Please do not make this mistake again, thank you.

3. Our Club Subscriptions have been set at £1.00 p/a, UNTIL the MCoS starting cranking up the affiliation fees. I know £8.00 is not much to pay, but... I personally do not want a Glossy Magazine every quarter, with or without Scott Muir's latest exploits splattered all over it. BTW, I find the year planner useful, once I have trimmed VFDT's images off! Can we have a discount if we forgo the Magazine?

4. Funnily enough quite a few of our members make a living out of exploiting the Scottish Wilderness; Ski Lift Operators, Civil Engineers, Mountain Guides, Ski Instructors etc. The MCoS has at times a slavish Anti-development/ Pro-conservation policy. This unbending attitude to development further alieniates a great number of our club members.

5. Why are you so much in support of commercialism in your magazine, yet larger businesses & corporations which are providing lasting and more sustainable benefits are given short shrift?

6. You rely on voluntary assistance in promoting MCoS acitivites. Just because the assistance provided is voluntary does not mean that:
a. It is beyond criticism
b. That volunteers can carry out activities that are unrepresentive or damaging to Scottish Mountaineering.

7. The Ice factor Debate cannot be seen as a representive forum for forming future policies. Is it not time you carried out a consultation with members, rather than letting "Well-meaning Volunteers" and "Professionals" run away with the agenda?

I wish you well

Davie Sanderson

In reply to Kevin Howett (MCofS):

Dear Kevin

I am glad that all the policies of the MCofS are now transparent.

I do recall the incident that Davie Sanderson refers to in Point 1 of his posting, I believe it was the forerunner of the MCofS before it’s trendy name change. We heard that climbers in the USSR had invited Scottish climbers over to their own country, but we were not amused that the climbers selected were from one club and did not represent Scottish climbers, we wrote in for an explanation. In return, we were offered 2 places which we had not asked for as we had objected on the behalf other excluded Scottish climbers. Also included with the letter was an invitation to a place on the Committee.

I do find on occasion the numerous guidelines given out by the MCofS a bit patronising to the many recreational climbers who can carry out their activities in the hill which are not detrimental to the environment. It is strange the damage a few butterflies can do.

I too am in a low paid job and have a wife and family, I could not take a day off work to attend the debate in the Ice Factor, this was the reason I was not there.

Norrie

In reply to Davie Sanderson:

Davie
I don't have a lot of time to keep up with chat rooms but you raise some good points and it seems unfair not to reply.

1. 1970's trip to USSR - I have no details on this in the office and its not included in the 'History' we had written for us a few yaers back (long before my time). But I would have to agree to your distaste of it. I hope we are a lot more open about things nowadays and would never repeat such a thing. The only thought I have is that MCofS was embyonic at the time and was more or less ran by a handfull of clubs, and perhaps they were unable to consult widely. Today, we have a good cross section of clubs and individuals eleceted to run the organisation every year, and the magazine means we can consult with members and we report regularly what has happened and so are very transparent.

2. I guess Scott may be considered a 'proffessional' by many, but we have grant aided other 'proffessionals' such as Mountain Instructors and Guides in the past. Its not really our place to make an assessment of the individuals means of personal support, but to look at what they intend to do and what their personal outlay will be toward the trip against the full cost. The UKsport grant that BMC give out (£50,000 per year) operates a similar system. Note that many proffessional climbers working in centres regularly get grants for trips. Also, very rich people get grants as well. We have purposfully kept away from making means-tested assessments of an application as it would embriol us in all sorts of personal issues. We adhere mainly to the criteria and the international standing of the objective. Unlike BMC, we also feel that trips such as Scotts and Guy Robertsons to Morroco (to on-sight new climbs up to E6) are just as worthy as a long high altitude slog up a himalayan peak. Its just one of many 'disciplines' that make climbing so diverse and enjoyable. We actually passed this change at an AGM many years ago.
On the point made by some others on this chat room that we should not be supporting someones holiday, consider Mick Fowler's comments a while ago about Himalayan trips being nothing more than a holiday - you can get to the big peaks very easily nowadays, the size of the hill should not determine the standing of the objective.

3. Magazine - we can stop your magazine if you like - let me know and I'll cancel it from the publishers distribution database. From the money you pay MCofS (currently £8.00), £2.25 is for insurance (as part of a whole membership that covers your club itself as well as its members). This year we will pay the publisher approx £0.67 for each member to get 4 copies of the mag. Thats not a lot. We are unable to disconnect the payments of all the individual fractions of the affiliation fee as the database does not make it possible, but more importantly, the complicated nature of actually trying to do this and time and effort in doing so by staff in the office would make it very inefective. I would image for the sake of 67p you would prefer that we spend that money on more worthwhile things than sorting administration arrangements?

4&5. Anti commercialisation - we have some well-thought out policies on what we should and should not support in development. They have been formed by elected memebrs, consulted on by memebrship and discussed and agreed at AGM's and we try to use them as sensible guidelines. We are not against development, but are against ones that detract from the reasons we enjoy the hills. The siting and the scale of developments are items we take account of.
I guess you are refering to the funicular? We supported the idea of an upgrade to facilities. When the chairlift company came forward with plans that then presented SNH with difficulty due to their legal requirement to protect the National Nature Reserve and SSSI (due to projected increase in visitors to the summit) we actually tried to act as mediators to find a way round the problems. Nick Kempe and myself invited the Chairlift Company and SNH to a meeting at the MCofS office to discuss the problems. We failed, but at least we tried. MCofS later supported an alternative proposal that was issued by Environment LINK, which seemed to better address both SNH and skiing aspirations. So we don't dismiss development for its own sake.

6. No, I would agree, that everything mCofS does cannot be beyond critiscism and we have to be answewrable to our members. If we can't defend our actions then we are failing in being representative.

7. Ice Factor - point taken.
You may like to know that we don't see the Ice Factor debate as the end in this, it was only ever meant to be a start. We are going to run an article about the issues in a later issue of the magazine, ask for more comment and even hold another debate in the central belt. So, we hope to be bale to get a really good cross section of opinions from as many members as possible. Who knows, we might actually get a consensus?
All the best and good climbing
Kevin

In reply to Kevin Howett (MCofS):
Kev,
thank you for your reply,
In response:
1. USSR Exchange
Yes the MCoS has moved on, but still has room for more inclusion of clubs, members and diverse interests. Keep up the good work.

2.Expedition Grants.
I agree that the criteria should be the worthiness /objectives of the expedition rather than some form of means testing or to fund a holiday.

However, if I am to understand it correctly you are saying it is ok to sponsor professional mountaineers through your grants scheme, because it has always happened and it would be too complicated to sort it out. And then support your arguement with the support of Mr. Fowler's self-effacing comments on Himalayan Expeditions being "just a holiday." I miss the point. To help me, please answer these two questions...

A. As you cannot be bothered to sort out professionals from amateurs, well-deserving individuals from the better-off, holidays from expeditions. Do you think this is responsible allocation of other peoples money?

B. If no worthy or appropriate applications are made in a year, can this money not be re-invested until such time as appropriate expeditions come along?

Finally on this point, I trust this debate at least raises the awareness that Expedition Grants are available and that it spurs on some young team to prove it can do better, given the support.

3. Magazine Costs
Costs are not only what you pay the publisher to produce the magazine. I would like to know the production cost balanced against any revenue from advertising etc..
Production costs would include:
1. Staff time involved in production
2. Payments to contributors
3. Distribution costs (postage & packaging)

I am the member of several professional associations that offer various levels of membership, including to forgo their quarterly publications at discount.

However, if it still works out at £0.67, then fine, it is a small price to pay.

On Civil Liability Insurance, (£2.25), if I am to understand it, it is an "all or nothing policy". If for instance one member of our club fails to pay or be affiliated, then the insurance is completely invalid for all those club members. I am sure, I am not the only club secretary with long overdue subscriptions. Why do we continue to subscribe to this Civil Liabilty Policy when it is not compulsory and in most cases is invalid?

4&5 Anti-Commercialism & Anti-Development.
This does not apply solely to the funicular. Amongst Scottish hillgoers is the hypocrisy (the MCoS openly promotes); That all developments in a rural location (esp. sking) are to be opposed. Yet, climbers are openly using the facilities at Anoach Mor, Glencoe and Cairngorm. If the MCoS had had its way early on, none of these developments would have never existed!

Kevin, you & Nick Kempe invited SNH & Chairlift Co. to a meeting at YOUR offices, and failed! No wonder? Now is that not a bit like asking the Mountain to come to Mohammed?

6&7 Consulation with members
You say, "If we cannot defend our actions we are failing in being representive"

Sorry, but defending your actions is not consultation with members, it is plainly SELF-REPRESENTATION, serving only your own interests. I still see room for more consultation, not only in the form of AGMs and debates, but through other means such as polling members as the BMC has recently done.

Finally the Ice-Factor debate. (Sorry for absence, I was climbing and skiing in the Alps at the time). I am personally horrified with Dave Macleod's comments, if as truely reported as on Scottish-climbs.com. He has openly stated as no one climbs as hard as him (no arguement at the moment) he will decide where and when to risk his neck and place bolts on a crag he deems fit. Now,is that not getting a wee bit ahead of yourself?

A good open debate is long overdue and I trust some good will come of it.

Kind regards

Davie Sanderson

In reply to Davie Sanderson:


Equally horified if this is accurate reportage; would seem at odds with Dave's character as I've encountered it. Do you have the actual link? I had a trawl through Scottishclimbs but couldn't find anything to this effect.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Jamie B.:

I suspect it the Bolts in Mountain thread http://www.scottishclimbs.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1186
but if it is, I think Dave McLeod's position is being misrepresented. Amongst other things, he says on that thread : "Im very unsure about the idea of accepting bolts on mountain crags. I'm also acknowledging that there are good arguments for it as well."

In reply to Davie Sanderson: NOt sure if my comments are of any interest to the protaginists of this debate but here goes
1. fine

2. A I'm reading your question to mean that expedition grants should be means tested although I may be misrepresenting your postion.

I believe it would be VERY hard to do this "fairly" perhaps you could suggest some criteria. Am I as a young uncommiteed poor soon to be graduate more deserving of support than a relatively well paid gentlemen in his forties with wife kids and mortgage?

I strongly suspect KEV does not make the decsision or even has much influence.

The cash involved is so small as a percentage of total cost that surely we shouldn't be too concerned. Last time I had a great adventure in the mountains all it took was a close friend and a little wilderness.

B I think not as we get the money from other beaucrats and the general rule is don't spend this year allocation no money next time.

young teams are indeed trying to do better...

warm regards
Alasdair

In reply to alasdair19:
Thank you for your response. Your input seems to rely on conjecture rather than any facts.

As for you attempting to represent my position, you will find I am able to do this pretty much myself.

The main point I am trying to make is that the MCoS as a representitive body could do a lot more to align itself to its members and spend less time and effort in self-justification. The last editorial in Scottish Mountaineer being a prime example of...
"Look what a good job we are doing. Look what value for money you are getting"

See now?

Davie

In reply to Davie:

Not sure that vast amounts of either time and effort (let alone money) are required to knock together a magazine editorial.

Also generally (as one of many many members) I can't really say I mind them reporting back to me on what they do all day with my/your/our money. Actually pretty good governence practice for a non profit making body.

In reply to Davie:


absolutely facts are so hard to come by ?!

certainly.

The MCofS's problem is trying to be a sufficiently broad church that it can represent "everybodies" interests and also when it comes down to it be decent at lobbying. Perhaps a customer satisfaction survey as recently done by the BMC would be a useful excersise?

all the best
Alasdair

In reply to SimonTem:

the 2 k p,a atchely comes from sport scotland so it is atchely tax payrs mony and if no one applays for it the money goes back in to the systme gone. Scot would not have got enything like £2000. there were 2 others applid for grants as well.
PS... you tw*t how come none of you little girls seame to bitch about bubu bole or stev haston when thay do the same thing but when a scotish boy puts in the time traning then goes and climbs a list of the hardist mixt routs in the world you hate it, blatint jeolsey!
if you dont think that is worth a cupple of hundred bucks from the mcofs ,then your 4000ers are defenetley not worth a flying f**K !

In reply to Jamie B.: I dont know what comments of mine Davie is referring to either? My comments on bolts can be seen on the link given above. You'll see I was just participating in a theoretical argument and never suggested that I would bolt as I see fit without taking in the views/conensus of others. Youll also see that ive never placed a bolt in my puff!

In reply to Kevin Howett (personal):
Just read this thread, and I can see both sides, but I must take issue with one of Kevin's points:
"At least at Benny Beg Scott made a real effort to get the views of ... local climbers"
As a member of the Ochils Mountaineering club, based in the Stirling area (about 25-30 minutes drive from Benny Beg), with about 150 members, MCofS affiliated, I have to say we were not consulted.

In reply to Iain Forrest: Ive heard both sides to the Benny Beg argument, and my mate who lives near the crag was not consulted either, however, interestingly, he is anti bolt but reckons the Benny Beg bolting has been a good thing.

Perhaps in this instance Scott did a good turn for the climbing community as it has provided a good safe environment for kids to experience outdoor cragging. Bolts should not be an elitist thing whereby only the very hardest crags are acceptable to bolt and I think Kevin Howett was correct in missing out the 'hard' criteria of the bolting guidelines during the consultation process with Scott.
The creation of a safe school environment on a small crap crag like Benny Beg makes sense to me. I think the consultation thing is key though and well done to Scott for doing what others before him havent done.

I think bolting for bolting's sake to enable the 'creation' of very hard lines is wrong however and bolting has no place in the mountains and definitely no place in winter climbing.

As a side point, for what reason should the Ochils MC have been consulted?
What would be more relevant in any future proposed bolting project is for the MCofS to poll its members through perhaps an e-mail shot. It shouldnt be too difficult for the MCofS to build a database of members with their e-mail addresses. Replies could then be sent to an address for FOR and one for AGAINST. This method of polling could be used for many other issues as well.

In reply to EB:

"As a side point, for what reason should the Ochils MC have been consulted?"

By the MCofS's own policy of consulting local climbers?

"What would be more relevant in any future proposed bolting project is for the MCofS to poll its members through perhaps an e-mail shot."

Good idea in principle, but I reckon quite a few members don't use email.

I'm not convinced either way about Benny Beg - yes, it was a crap crag which was rarely (but not never) used for trad, but it sets a dangerous precedent.
I just oject to the MCofS claiming they consulted local climbers when clearly they did not do so properly.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

"Good idea in principle, but I reckon quite a few members don't use email"

I think you would probably be surprised how many folk out there use e-mail now and anyway, even if you only get a 40%response its still a very good response.

"but it sets a dangerous precedent."

It only sets a dangerous precedence if the consultation process is not adhered to by individuals bolting crags or lines (this has happened in the past and is happening at the moment). To maintain a control over bolting the consultation process needs to be adhered to by individuals and groups. But the process itself needs to be improved and encompass the opinions of a much greater number of people.

In reply to EB:

"40% response its still a very good response."

40% response would be truly remarkable! But I still think it would be necessary to at least provide an opportunity for the non-computer-literate to participate in any debate.

"It only sets a dangerous precedence if the consultation process is not adhered to by individuals bolting crags or lines"

And so in this case it does set a dangerous precedence.

"To maintain a control over bolting the consultation process needs to be adhered to by individuals and groups. But the process itself needs to be improved and encompass the opinions of a much greater number of people."

Agree completely.

In reply to Iain Forrest:

"(this has happened in the past and is happening at the moment)."

did you not see this in brackets? bolting is happening now and has happened in the past but not by going through the consultation process. If anything, Scott has set a positive precedence.

RE allowing non-computer literate people to take part, I suggested the use of non-cutting edge technology ie e-mail as MOST people now use it, it is cheap to send 2000 people in a distribution list an e-mail, people will be more likely to take a few seconds to send a quick e-mail in reply rather than send a letter, and it would take very little MCofS resource to administer the surveys.

40% was a figure I grabbed in thin air, please dont get too pedantic about this.

In reply to EB:
Can't see what's positive about failing to consult, but fair enough on the rest. I'll leave it at that as we seem to have hijacked this thread.
BTW, I think the email consultation idea is pretty good, provided it would not be the entire process.

In reply to Dave MacLeod:

Is it true that in the debate at the Ice Factor you proposed or supported the bolting of the lower tier on Udlaidh?

Steve

In reply to Iain Forrest: I wouldnt worry about hijacking this thread, its all relevant what we've been discussing

I'll reiterate the point again, Scott did go through the consultation process,thats a positive thing, but the process needs to be improved to take into account the opinions of a larger number of people.

In reply to EB:

There was no consultation process to speak of over Benny Beg. No publicity was given by MCofS to the bolting until after it had been done.

Personally I thought the crag was fine before it was bolted.

Another example of MCofS "consultation". East Lothian Council set up a Traprain Law users group. MCofS nominated a representative from one Edinburgh climbing club to sit on this group without consulting any other interested club.

Also, remember all the fuss about the marker posts on Ben Nevis to help with navigation. The locals thought they had "consulted" on the issue. The MCofS didn't. The MCofS is therefore against the poles.

One rule for MCofS and one for everyone else...

In reply to NC:
"There was no consultation process to speak of over Benny Beg"

yes there was, but do I have to say this again? the process needs to be improved to take into account the opinions of a larger number of people.

Im not getting sucked into other MCofS issues, but perhaps my suggestions for surveying members opinions by e-mail would be relevant for other issues like the ones you mention.

In reply to EB:

Simple question.

Were you informed by MCofS (or anyone else) of the proposal to bolt Benny Beg before the decision was taken to do so?

Yes = consultation
No = no consultation

I (an MCofS member) was not informed. So I do not consider that consultation took place.

I'm not sure if your attitude to this issue indicates naivety or complicity.

In reply to NC: perhaps naivety, naivety in that I presume that other people can understand logical sentences

here we go again...

there WAS a consultation with MCofS reps and SOME other people who lived in and climbed in the Benny Beg area. As I keep saying, this process should be improved, worked on, added to, expanded, whatever you want to call it, in order that a larger number of people's opinion on a given issue can be taken into account.

In reply to EB:

OK let's try this logical sentence:

Don't you think there's a possibility that the "consultation" was deliberately restricted to a small, select group of people to minimise the chance of anyone objecting to the bolts at Benny Beg?

In reply to NC:

No, lets be logical. It was done for commercial reasons only.

Basically so that Scott Muir had a safe environment, close to his home, to take beginners out on his courses and teach them the basics of climbing/abseiling etc.

And if the MCofS didn't know this then Kevin Howett's not Scott Muir's best mate!

In reply to NC: a very leading logical sentence, there may well have been the possibility of a conspiracy, however, I have no idea if this is the case as I have had no complicity with the whole Benny Beg saga.

In reply to The Joker:

Since when were bolts at Benny Beag needed either for abseiling or teaching the basics of climbing? The trees at the top seem perfectly adequate for top-ropes and abseil ropes.

In reply to tony: Exactly

But they enable folks to lead in perfect safety. Goog training for the real thing eh Scott!?

In reply to EB:
grammmar aside,

what is the isssue here?

Most likely the MCoS fails to represent the very members that it claims to represents, namely...
1. McoS supports retro bolting (benny beg)
2. MCoS will fund any tosser on their self-promoted holiday.
3. MCoS will spend your money on supporting it's own agenda - regardless of members views.

eh?
kevin, where are you?

regards
Davie

In reply to EB:

I'm interested to read all the postings in this thread but don't feel I know enough or have anything worthwhile to say on it so I shalln't.

I think the issue of polling members could be easily remedied though. How about polling by printing something in the magazine? There could be FOR and AGAINST e-mail addresses to reply to as suggested, for those who can/wish to use internet, and a reply slip to cut out and send back for those who don't. That way everyone can have their say. I do believe strongly that any organisation you pay to be a member of should seek out the views of those members over important issues. I pay too much money to various professional bodies (which are not optional for me to join)that purport to be acting in the members best interests yet never actually ask us what we want!
Sue K x

In reply to Davie:

I wonder what percentage of mcofs members are climbers (as against hill walkers)? I should imagine there are far more walkers in the mcofs - wonder if they give a toss about all the above discussion?

Davie -

point 1 - if it's such a big deal to you just take the bloody bolts out - just make sure you get consult the local climbers first - mmm how do you define 'local climbers' and what makes them have special 'rights' to a bit of rock?

I find your point 2 most amusing. It does indeed appear that the mcofs funds any number of 'tossers' on their self-promoted holidays. they've been doing this for years - not sure why money gets handed out to such 'worthy' objectives as peoples holidays in foreign countries so they can climb a big hill (or even gain the top of a wee icicle hanging a few feet down a steep dry cliff with bolts in it). seems to me if you want to go on a climbing holiday save up your hard earned and do it all yourself.

point 3 - mcofs' own agenda - this is surely something members can influence? by getting involved?

of course your club could just not affiliate with mcofs - could join bmc instead so you get the insurance, hut etc. doubt if there's much cronyism in the bmc re expedition grants - mind you, might be worth checking which old boy in the network have all too often go money to go off on their climbing hols...

In reply to Anonymous:
Dear Anon, (you do get about!)
Re: Bolts
I do not really want to go to the effort of removing said bolts, seen I never put them in in the first place!
Anyway, have you tried hanging off one hand with a spanner and a bag of coloured resin and a pallette knife in your other?

Re: Expedition Grants
As said previously some good might come out of the discussion, in that MCoS might be a bit more careful about awarding such grants and more people will apply for (please note ) EXPEDITION GRANTS, not holiday or career development loans.

Re: Affiliating to the BMC rather than MCoS
I enquired with BMC about this and the the officer responded with a rather stuttering and coy excuse that it was not for him to decide. To be honest, my partner is BMC affiliated and I would say climbers and mountaineers interests are better represented by the BMC. I certainly will be putting it to my members that a move to the BMC may be an option.

regards

Davie

In reply to Davie:

I'd be interested to know how often you guys have applied for an MCofS grant and been knocked back ? My understanding is that hardly any folk apply, and therefore the MCofS are not exactly spoilt for choice when it comes to who they fund. As far as their Sport Scotland expedition fund goes, if they don't use it they'll lose it, and that'll be about as good for Scottish climbing as bolting Benny Beg.

In reply to tony:

>The trees at the top seem perfectly adequate for top-ropes and abseil ropes.

Tony - you and I have posted on here for a bit so you prob know I'm in the 'frothing at the mouth trad type' school on most things but......

a. The consulation on BB wasn't perfect/ideal but it seems to be wider and fuller than any precedent than I can think of.
b. I've been and had a look (it's a few minutes from my parent's house), before and after. Crap crag without 'em, less crap without. On the very very very strict condition that its not a thin end of any sort of wedge I don't object myself.
c. Thats a rather nice stand of mature Scots pine at the top. Do you really want it wrecked by abs/TRs??

G

In reply to GFoz:

I'd agree with that. There does seem to be the suspicion that it is the thin edge of the wedge and that the next thing will be bolts everywhere (particularly when Scott Muir is involved). As has been illustrated with someone's misrepresentation of Dave McLeod's position on bolting, there will always be those who see nothing but bad in anything they don't approve of and are happy to muddy the waters with whatever false accusations are appropriate.


Very fair point. My point was really aimed at whoever was concocting the conspiracy theories about Scott Muir and the MCofS. But the trees are used by abseilers - or at least they were when I was there. Since all the bolts are in the face of the crag, they're not suitable for beginners and novices and kids out for a days "outdoor education".

In reply to Davie:

'I do not really want to go to the effort of removing said bolts' well I doubt Scott is going to pull 'em!

'Anyway, have you tried hanging off one hand with a spanner and a bag of coloured resin and a pallette knife in your other?'

Sure have. I've placed loads of bolts & chopped a few. And if I can do it, then it's not exactly difficult to do!

'EXPEDITION GRANTS' what, you really think that going on an expedition isn't going on a holiday? And that climbing 'career' (such as they are!) aren't assisted by getting these loans - get one grant then get on the gravy train - bmc etc prefer to give to those that have a proven track record - they used to be like that, perhaps it has changed?

In reply to gr:

sorry didn't mean to say 'loans' - grants, I meant

In reply to GFoz: we agree for once!

In reply to Rye Gob:


Mr. Gob, where are you coming from with this?
Are you saying that the money is there, so spend it?

And
Bolt Benny Beg cos' we have the money to do it?

Davie

ps "Bolt" is a four letter word.

In reply to gr:
Phew Hot Potatoe! Your are the dude!
Bolt-placer and bolt-decimator all-in-one.

So what you are suggesting? Indescrimately placing bolts and low and behold "Bolto-Man" will vanish them with one ZAAAAP of his de-bolt-o-mator gun?

I love your attitude.

Davie

In reply to GFoz:
Agree, hug a tree.
or
if there a bolt ...clip & zip

Davie

In reply to Rye Gob: I personally dont want to apply for the fund unless the trip Im going on is excessively expensive, is a 'proper' expedition, and genuinely requires financial support.

Its all very well folk saying that if you dont apply you dont get, but if I was to get £250 for a 2 week trip to Norway then I would be keeping that sum of money from a trip which would benefit far more from financial help eg trips with complicated logistics like your trip to Kyzyl Asker.

In reply to EB:

EB

The point is that if you don't get that £250 for your trip to Norway then someone else will (e.g. Mr Muir) or even worse nobody will and the grant fund will dry up.

I personally think that government money in support of adventure climbing is a to be commended. I've applied for it, got it, spent it, and put up some great routes around the worlsd in the process. I'd encourage everyone else to do the same.

ps Davie - I'd sooner bolt my own head than an unclimbed piece of Scottish rock

In reply to Rye Gob: its a good point you make, and I agree that the government money is to be commended

second point- agreed, Id rather bolt my arms to my work desk than bolt a piece of unclimbed scottish rock

In reply to Davie:

don't understand your attitude at all - you seem to like wingeing on for the sake of it.
'Phew Hot Potatoe! Your are the dude! Bolt-placer and bolt-decimator all-in-one.'- I was stating a fact, no boasting. Whereas you? a lot of hot air dood...just chop the bennybeg bolts - apply for a bloody expedition grant to do it. Then that'll end this joke of a thread.

In reply to EB:

>we agree for once!

It had to happen....as Jamie says there's more that unites us than divides us....

In reply to Davie:

Davie - what are your views on retro-bolting when carried out by a senior office holder of your own club. I'm talking the (rather good) Ardvorlich crags here - and the source is reliable, trust me.

Would you condemn that too or are the rules all a bit more flexible when you're 'Club'??

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: Whilst I agree with your sentiments I think the best solution is just to get out there climbing and leave the MCofS and the very small number of people they support to get on with it. They are pretty much irrelevant when you look at the bigger picture. Climbing should be about enjoying yourself with companions of your choice on the terrain of your choice and within reason in the style of your choice.

In reply to GFoz:

Aye, but EB putting smiley emoticons on the end of his posts to you is frankly rather worrying.

Think you might be in there like.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Jamie B.:

Aye, you are right there. Erik does not take prisoners.

(Spelt right this time old boy?)

In reply to GFoz:

Dear G

Do you think I could have a fire with the pines, if so where is BB?

Norrie

In reply to Jamie B.: do I detect a hint of jealousy there big boy?

kisses

EB

In reply to EB:

Now I'm really worried.

JAMIE B>

In reply to Anonymous:
I was stating a fact, no boasting. Whereas you? a lot of hot air dood...just chop the bennybeg bolts - apply for a bloody expedition grant to do it. Then that'll end this joke of a thread.

So what you are advocating is...
End this thread, thus end all discussion, do what you want regardless of others and shut up?

Nice to know you have the courage of your convictions "Anon" when you don't even have the courage to come on here with a real name.
With that apparent lack of courage, how do you ever get off the ground?

yours

Davie ;-}

In reply to Rye Gob:


Aye look at that geezer Frankenstein, bolts never did him any good.

Still take issue with the money thing. My point is RESPONSIBLE allocation of grant monies.

regards
Davie

psst...I've got TWO fully charged 24v Hilti drivers. Don't tell Gfoz.

"Aye look at that geezer Frankenstein, bolts never did him any good."

Don't know 'bout that Davie - he's a got a higher profile than Scott Muir ! He also stood out from the crowd without carving 'Berghaus' across the skin of his forehead.

"Still take issue with the money thing. My point is RESPONSIBLE allocation of grant monies."

I personally like the concept of responsibly allocating monies to irresponsible climbers. Remember that climbing is an inherently irresponsible activity. Those Scottish Mountaineers exploring new frontiers (ha!) should be encouraged to do so in an appopriately irresponsible and irreverent manner, in order to uphold the finest debauched and decadent traditions of our sport. This also fosters the highest standards in 'raconteuring' - something of a forgotten art in the M-style age.

Am I really hearing an appointed member of the Creag Dhu advocating responsibility?!

I say take the money and run (climb, smoke, drink, procrastinate, etc)

In reply to Rye Gob:

Dear Rye

It does not mean having an “irreverent manner, in order to uphold the finest debauched and decadent traditions” and being “responsible” is mutually exclusive.

However, I personally failed in being irreverent, debauched, decadent and responsible, well not all, only one of them. Davie has not failed any yet, give him time and he may well will.

Norrie

PS The next time you apply for a grant, you could include some money for a wine waiter, I would be ideal for that role on the adventure.

In reply to Rye Gob:

actually what you advocate are irresponsible applications for grant money combined with responsible yet incompetent allocation.

if you have irresponsible handing out of money theyll give it too the likes of mr muir -the berghaus tatooed one not the wine waiter.

:-D

In reply to Davie:

'Davie' mmm that's just as 'anon' as not putting nowt in the your name bit when you post anonymously! name's georgeridge by the way , I don't lack courage in my convictions at all... well not regarding posting shite on fecking websites!

'So what you are advocating is...
End this thread, thus end all discussion, do what you want regardless of others and shut up?' What I'm saying is the record is scratched and its playing the same thing again and again and again...

'how do you ever get off the ground?' I don't very often, instead I just to sit in front of my pc lurking on rocktalk - it's so much more fun than the real thing.

In reply to gr:

Dear George

You may have posted anonymously by error (I on occasion have also done so, however I corrected it as soon as I realised I had made an error) so you should have made amends.

If you had followed the thread in the full, you would have realised that Davie first posted as Davie Sanderson, then dropped the Sanderson.

Norrie

PS I do not tolerate anonymous postings

In reply to Norrie Muir: "you could include some money for a wine waiter, I would be ideal for that role on the adventure"

I can just picture the scene, Kyzyl Asker basecamp, big campfire, you attired in baseball cap, rab softshell, dickie bow, green wellies, pouring buckfast into the paraletic ayberdeen loon's mug before you retire to beside the fire and pour yourself a large spiced rum.

How much should G or any other expedition budget for your services?

In reply to EB:

Dear E

I started reading your post and when I read buckfast, I thought – well I wont be drinking that, I‘ll behaving have the travelling rum.

There will be no fees for my services, payment of expenses will be sufficient.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

I'm afraid I simply cannot trust you Mr Muir.

The only time I ever saw you was in a photo on the wall of a certain weel-kent bar at the foot of a certain weel-kent Shepherd. In said photo (very nice by the way) you were belaying a comrade on what at the time - circa. 19oatcake -would have been rather a challenging route. Nothing untoward about this you might think, but closer inspection of said photo reveals a less-than-trustworthy approach - you're taking a piss for God's sake man!!!!!! Both hands firmly on your own rope, and not a thought for your gibbering leaders lifeline. Maybe he wasn't gibbering though - it was John MacLean I think.

Anyway, enough said, after seeing this I couldn't possibly trust you to look after vital liquor supplies in the arse-end of nowhere

In reply to Rye Gob:

Dear Rye

I do recall the photo you refer to, however, it was John who was “holding” the rope, I was on the sharp end. He fell asleep on the belay, due to overindulgence the night before. I realised there was a problem as I got rope drag when I only had one runner in, John’s solution after I woke him up was to let all the rope out. That is why the rope goes down in a big loop, and he then felled asleep again, I should have untied and soloed the route and left him there, but I am too responsible.

I would be an ideal wine waiter, as I do not drink wine any more, so the 6 bottles per man per day ration would be not be subject to loss by the staff (me). Mind you if you were overnight on a line, I would have to drink the day’s ration as there is no point in wasting drink.

Norrie

PS John does gibber, especially when he is drunk or sleeping, I can’t tell the difference.

a wee commment about expedition funding. We applied but were ineligble because of membership status (concessionary memberships rule you out).

Plan a trip somewhere remote, make sure you are elligible and you will find organizations to support you.

I dont mind the McofS raising the international profile of Scottish climbing, via funding to Scott Muir. There are plenty of other sources of (non commercial) expedition funding.


Surely 'sport' mixed climbing improves some alpine skills the same way as sport climbing does? The argument then is: would you support giving Mcof S expedition money to a Scottish climber wanting to redpoint 5.14 in Colorado?

A suggestion: there should be two pots of money
1 for expeditions
2 development - i.e. to support high profile scottish climbers

I probably havent thought this out too well
but that is my two cents.

m.

mark raistrick
(baffin island 2003)

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster: I think people like your self moan for any reason, just cause Mr Muir has got off his bum and had the balls to ask for agrant from the MRCofS, 'I say well done'. If you don't like it stop moaning and go ask yourself for agrant to do your on trip, anyway as one of the lads said stop paying if you don't like it..............

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Apologies Norrie, I stand corrected. I went climbing with John once upon a time in Glen Nevis. I wasn't allowed to use chalk and I wasn't allowed to use any 'newfangled gear' (i.e. a belay plate!). I was very young and somewhat in awe at the time, so obeyed my orders from the Old Master. In retrospect, you should have untied and soloed the route.

I remember he reminded me a lot of Rikki Fulton

In reply to Rye Gob:

Dear Rye

Yes, climbing with John is an experience not to be forgotten.

If you decide to take me with you as a wine waiter, I will have to take my wife, as I have never ironed a shirt in my life, I need her to make me presentable as a wine waiter.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir: "I need her to make me presentable as a wine waiter."

she'll have her work cut out

In reply to EB:
So, it is settled then Norrie's new vocation is as a Wine Waiter? Makes a change from Whinning Wine Drinker.

Norrie's credentials regarding wine are world renown.

Mr. Muir's stategy whilst esconsed in a group of at least three people were: on passing a bottle of Clydeside Chianti along the line, he was convienently located in the middle.

"One for the passer" being his reprise

Davie Sanderson :-}

In reply to gr:
aye good,agreed
like a scratched record but some how funny & entertaining, no?
Kind regards

Davie

In reply to Dubh Loch Monster:

Have a look at this:

http://www.bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/tac61/policies.htm

In reply to Anonymous: Well said that man.

In reply to Anonymous:

The Angry Corrie Edition 61 May 2004
Strong and damning words from Robin N Campbell.(ex. President of MCoS)!
The principle that: the tail is now wagging the dog is precise. We the paying members are being fleeced to sponsor a runaway agenda.

His proposal to set up an alternative body is attractive. I would be interested in other views on this?

Davie

In reply to Davie:

My view is that it isn't practically possible (even with considerable effort) to 'represent' the mountaineering community, who by their very nature are want to plough a great diversity of ethical and political furrows. Climbers and other mountain-goers who are genuinely concerned with specific issues would do better to take action individually (whether militant or otherwise) than depend on the 'consensus' representations of a small number of establishment bodies.

But then I work for an environmental Quango so my opinions may be somewhat jaded and cynical!

In reply to Rye Gob:
Dear Rye, or is it Wry?
I agree, that to set up an alternative body may dilute the ability of any representative body. But Robin Campbell's point of calling the MCoS to heel is laudable.

I am sorry you take a rather defeatist attitude towards these matters. Are your views perhaps skewed by not only, "Being in the employ of an Environmental Quango" but also by being a beneficary of MCoS Exped grants?

Davie

ps. if you really knew Norrie Muir that well, you would never bestow him the role of Wine Waiter!

In reply to Rye Gob:
Hi Rye
Could you contact me at the Lodge mate. hope yer weel.
Fun debate

In reply to Davie:

Davie,

My views are not so much skewed, but based on personal experience - even amongst my own small band of climbing pals, we rarely find agreement on a whole host of issues !

More importantly though, climbing is rapidly becoming mainstream sport these days, so you can't really make assumptions about values and ethics like perhaps you used to be able to. I reckon we'd be as well nowadays to put it to the Scottish Executive to set up a Mountaineering Development Unit.

F**k that !!!!!

In reply to Rye Gob: "I reckon we'd be as well nowadays to put it to the Scottish Executive to set up a Mountaineering Development Unit.

bloody good idea mate!! get that David Macca letcharus tory bloke to head it!! brilliant!!! ha ha!!


jesus jesus jesus, dinna get mi started looon!!!

In reply to Rye Gob: cheeeeeeeeeeesus min, I telt ye no te get mi started!!

McLETCHIE - "ONLY CONSERVATIVES CAN HELP THE POOR"

http://www.scottishtories.org.uk/


HA HA Hoooooooooo haaaaa haaaaa!!!!!!!!!

In reply to EB:

I thought you were apolitical nowadays, does this relapse mean I'll be listening to political ranting tomorrow?

In reply to Sue K:

Blimy
This thing is still going on!
There are a lot of comments since I last posted something. One of you asks at one point "Where's Kev?"
Sorry, I have been a bit busy.
Some of the comments are degenerating into personal drivel again and I have no intention of replying to them.
I will however comment on the interesting points about getting members views.
We almost always try and get members views. As the magazine goes to everyone, its the obvious way to do it. We also could not afford to send out info to all members seperatly from the magazine every time we had an issue to consult on - postage alone would cripple us.
So in the past when we have gone through the magazine, I have to say that in most instances very few people make comments. We asked 2 years ago for views about winter ethics - we drafted up a possible code of practice. Simon Richardson, John Mackenzie and Cubby and Rab all had input to drafting it. A good start we thought. We had less than 50 comments back. Despite every member of my club (SMC) getting a copy, very few made the effort to comment, but later condemed it as undemocratic - we can't win!!! When the SMC were recently circulated with it again, I had 1 comment back!

We do try to be democratic, but please don't then complain if you don't make the effort to have your say - same as government, don't vote - don't complain.

The idea of using email is one we wish to do. It will take time to get enough peoples email addresses to make this representative. Also bear a thought for the database Officer who has to keep track of changes - 9000+ members changing their addresses cause enough headaches already.

We have started using voting systems on the MCofS website for general things, but we have no way of knowing how many are members and how many are not. We will hopefully have a better system once the UK IT Database project is complete.

Thanks for the comments sue and others about using this method. I shall raise it at the next meeting of the MCofS Exec and hope that we can start this soon.

On the subject of the Ochils club not being consulted about Benny Beg - bear in mind that it was local climbers who know eachother round about Crieff who called the meeting not the MCofS (and not just Scot by the way). We were asked to attend and put our view forward, which we did. I guess local climbers here, hardly ever seeing anyone climbing at Benny Beg except groups thouhgt there was little interest in the place (I have lived here since 1989 and have only once seen a climber there other than those in groups or local - I used the place a lot and have soloed every possible combination of holds there). As guidebook writer for this area for Highland Outcrops Guide I tried to find reference to any recorded routes in the Journals and found none. It did seem that it was an inconsequential and little visited and little used venue, other than for the Army, who use it a lot.

Hence, the meeting had immediate local climbers, as they were the ones who seemed to be using the venue. MCofS position was that we had an agreed policy (agreed to by our members in the best way we could after past consultation) which we could use as a basis for comment. That is what I did at the meeting. I have explained above the process and the views and the outcome.

Again I reiterate, no one else has ever even attempted to consult such a wide range of interests on this subject before. All the people on this chat thread complaining about Benny Beg have not made one comment about the fact that there are sport routes on the mountain crag of Creag a Bhancair on Buachaille Etive Mor, or on Steall Hut crag in Glen Nevis, despite the strong feelings coming through against bolts. Why not make a comment about that?

Finally, our sports development committee have been looking at the fact that the current bolts policy has been ignored at Creag a Bhancair and at Arbroath. We have tried to analyse why. We have tried to understand what made the activists feel that bolts were OK there. Perhaps its because time has moved on and views have settled down? We are trying to draft an update to the policy as it is now 14 years old. We will put the draft out to members through the magazine and ask for comments, and we hope to have a further national debate about it perhaps? We also would like to carry on the debate about winter ethics started at the Ice Factory, and will do an article about that in the magazine and have a further national debate about it too.

When this happens (in the next year??) it would help us be happier that we are representing our members views if this time members make an effort to comment. But please also remember that if the majority view goes against what you think, then that is the price to pay for trying to be democratic. Hopefully, MCofS can find enough common ground to produce something that MOST people are happy with, most of the time.

We will also look at the idea of getting an agreement from climbers that before they bolt, they consult on it through the MCofS?? Personally, I feel this would be cumbersome and if we had a reasonable policy (or guidelines) that would not be necessary in most instances.

Try and keep all this in perspective - its climbing and its meant to be fun. Enjoy.
Kevin

In reply to kEVIN hOWETT: thanks for your reply, there is another issue which may be relevant and which you may wish to discuss. I hear that a bill has been passed through called 'Natural Justice'. Unfortunately I know very little about this. I am under the impression that the bill now means an individual or club can be 'thrown' out of the MCofS if they speak out against the MCofS.

Can you clarify exactly what 'Natural Justice' is?

cheers

Erik
PS I could find very little on the subject on the MCofS website.

In reply to kEVIN hOWETT:
kev,
Glad to see you have found the time to contribute to this forum. Interesting the number of responses and range of quality of debate you get on UKC?

Have you read Robin N. Cambell's article in The Angry Corrie on how your organisation has become the tail that wags the dog? Do you have any comment on that?

Davie

In reply to kEVIN hOWETT:


Putting my tuppence-ha'penny's worth in, and not neccessarily having a strong stance here, I would suggest that the easier routes at Benny Beg add a greater impetus to the possible eventual proliferation of sport-climbing. Surely you must recognise that there is a whole generation of climbers coming into the sport who are looking for a more quantifiable, controllable and attainable commodity than that which you and I chose? Places like Benny Beg are ideal for them, but they will soon want more. Where to then? Where else are there "underused" moderately-graded trad crags ready for a makeover? I can think of one or two which might arguably benefit from such an approach, but don't imagine for a second that it won't cause controversy. The more people who are seduced by sport climbing, the more certain trad venues will become marginalised; the arguments about underused venues which were applied to Norber Scar in Yorkshire can then be brought into play. This is the Domino Theory as proposed by Ken Wilson, and I suspect it may be inevitable. The time-scale of this "evolution" is probably down to how much dynosaurs like me are prepared to invoke commitees and lump-hammers to slow it down.

Visited Benny Beg the other day. Would argue that it wouldn't have been the worst trad crag in Highland Outcrops by a long way, and much of the ease with which it was retro-bolted was due its absence from any guides.

Would Arbroath have been a valid trad destination? That's a bit dissapointing.

Best regards for all your good work.

JAMIE B>