UKC

Flipping through the new Staffs guide, I noticed the comment that bouldering mats were 'good for the environment'?

I don't get it: around my soloing patches of Stanage and Burbage, I regularly see these things thrown around, and dragged around, and the bouldering areas which are heavily used are now scorched earth underfoot. (I accept that this happens with or without mats, due simply to pressure of numbers.)

In what way is the original comment justified?

In reply to Anonymous:

don't be a retard.

spotters can stand on them which limits erosion and when you fall on them a hundred times that's a hundred times your feet aren't denting the earth below.

common sense really - think before you post...

In reply to Anonymous:
They reduce the levels of erosion by spreading the force through a larger area, the scorched earth areas are simply a result of boulderings increasing popularity

In reply to Anonymous: I suppose you don't add to the erosion, what with your feet not touching the ground, as you go floating by on that cloud of pompous self-rightousness.

In reply to Anonymous:
I don't reckon they make much difference either.
Good for wet-bums tho.

In reply to boy not logged in:

Re-read the original post. I am not tyring to argue for or against any style of climbing. I am questioning the claim that mats are 'good for the environment'.

Bouldering has been going _long_ before mats were invented.

I see a lot of morons (not you, I hope ...?) dragging mats around the dustbowls at the bottom of crags, and throwing them through foliage rather than carrying them more carefully, and that's why I raised the question.

In reply to Anonymous:

Mats are probably 'good' as in they're better than feet - they help spread the load so erosion must be reduced. They will cut out more light if used repeatedly but I think the use level would have to be very high to have much of an effect in comparison to their beneficial ant-wear effects.

In reply to Anonymous:

But are they biodegradable, that's what I'd like to know?

The sooner the better IMHO.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Yes and they make good emergency food (high in fibre or is that fiber?) if you get benighted on a problem!

In reply to Anonymous:

get a life you nob head

In reply to Anonymous:


It depends on the substrate, vegetation, slope and climate...prolly a few other factors also.

M

In reply to nathan silcock:


Nathan - a quality argument. Congratulations.

In reply to Anonymous:


That suggests that it is the (mis)usage that some people put bouldering mats to is the cause of the problem - ie they don't think of the consequences on the environment of the way they behave... They probably drop litter and fag-ends and don't clear them up either...

So, it's people's attitudes that are the main part of the problem - the attitude that has been awesomely demonstrated by some people on this thread...

In reply to Anonymous: Just bought my copy today. Well impressed. Thanks should go to all involved & the Rockfax guys for dragging guidebooks into the 21st Century.

I noticed that bouldering mats also make routes 'easier'.Do they have anti-gravitational properties built in? Cool!

But the mat material and processes that go into making the mats are detrimental to the environment? no?

So if you take into account:
-less foot traffic (less erosion) vs more people willing to do bouldering cuz it is safer with a mat (ie.more erosion.)
-no pollution from mat production vs mat production, chemecals, waste
i think that you couldnt say mats are good for the environment. meerly they disperse erosion at the bottom of the route.


ps. anyone seen the woodchips around the bottom of trackside boulder at curbur- whats going on there!?

In reply to Neil Morbey:

another counter-erosion measure perhaps? they seem to work damn well at harrisons...

oh, by the way, do you drive a car?