UKC

Hi all

Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (GWT) - the landowner of Ban-y-Gor and the majority of Wintour’s Leap – have recently raised serious concerns about new routing activity and cleaning of the cliff face and base at Ban-y-Gor, particularly on the Main Cliff. Furthermore, the GWT wish to keep part of the cliff habitat free from disturbance to wildlife. A closure of the whole cliff beyond Ladder Gully - including all of the Main Cliff - for all climbing was initially requested by GWT, but we have negotiated continued access to arguably the most important part of Main Cliff - the Head Sector - and everything to the right of this, subject to the following code of conduct:

• All routes left of the Head Sector (beyond Heady Days) are temporarily banned for 2017 and this restriction will be reviewed early in 2018.
• No access to the upper tier of the Main Cliff (this was already the case)
• Stick to existing paths - don't create new ones as there is sensitive habitat off the side of existing paths
• Cutting trees on the crag or elsewhere on the site is not allowed
• Take your litter home and pick up any you find at the crag
• No fires, camping or bivvying anywhere on the Trust's land
• No further new routing

Please ensure you follow this code to the letter if climbing at Ban-y-Gor. Continued future access depends on climbers demonstrating good behaviour, and the agreement will be reviewed in 2018 with potential for us to argue for increased access if the code of conduct has been followed. The new access arrangements are also set out in the BMC's Regional Access Database, and a sign will be placed at the boundary of the restricted area. Happy to answer any questions – I recognise that there are good routes in the restricted area and so this will be disappointing news to many but I would ask that all climbers follow this agreement.

Many thanks

Rick Sewards
Wye Valley Access Rep

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Cheers

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Nice work with the negotiations Rick. It sound like cleaning and new routing is the real issue, rather than climbing existing routes?

I wonder how the access restriction would work in practice, while I agree this agreement needs to be respected I doubt everyone will....

In reply to Rick Sewards:

So the actions of the few against the clear guidance in the guide book have spoiled it for the many.

Thanks for your work Rick, sounds like good damage limitation

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Thanks for your work on this. Is it possible to remove hangers on the banned routes? People who don't know might end up climbing with realising the sensitivity of the issue.

In reply to Bristoldave:

Hi Dave

I don't think there will be any need to remove bolt hangers - once the sign is in place (which will probably be this weekend or next) it will be impossible to get to the restricted area without being aware of the restriction - there is only one approach to the Main Cliff.

Thanks

Rick

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Thanks for your hard work on this Rick. It is very important that climbers respect this agreement in order to enjoy continuing access.

Cheers

James Mann

In reply to Rick Sewards:

A sad, sad day. It is a shame we lose access with virtually no warning. I know you posted about fires before on UKC but many do not read this.

What happens next? Maybe the GWT will decide no climbing on any of their land?

In reply to paul wood:

Access situations change, some get better, some get worse. Best to be positive and respectful to the new arrangements - it's the best hope we have of restoring full access further down the line.
I'll miss splashing through the Muddy Waters (6a) though! Most of the rest of the banned stuff is beyond me, glad Heady Days (6b+) is still permitted, getting a clean lead on that could be a project this year.

In reply to The Ivanator:

You mean the best approach is to keep quiet and hope it gets better ? I am afraid I disagree strongly with you.

In reply to paul wood:
Not advocating silent acceptance and am 100% behind continued negotiations to restore full access, just saying these stand more chance if we respect the (hopefully temporary) restriction. In places where there are not sensitive ongoing access discussions I'm as happy as any to take my chance and be ejected if caught - it has happened to me in the last 12 months!
I'm sure Rick has done his utmost to secure continued access to most of the cliff and he deserves our backing. The whole situation throws a bit of a spanner in the works for the pending Wye Sport guidebook - I'll be interested to see how the Ban y Gor situation will be detailed.

In reply to The Ivanator:

It's a bit of a strange one, because if they changed the rules to no access then it would just come a business as usual climb and leave if asked type crag. It's best to come to a good agreement on both sides rather than enter into a useless standoff.

In reply to paul wood:


Isn't it more a case of keep quiet for now and let the BMC deal with it?

In reply to Rick Sewards:


Thanks for that Rick.

Those new rules seem very clear, so hopefully new-routers will now feel able to restrain themselves. Having said that - the rules were pretty clear before this, weren't they? It doesn't seem possible that they simply didn't know. It may have been a case of wishful thinking - that enough years had gone by to slip a few under the radar - but really there's no excuse for not first proposing a change in crag policy at an Area Meeting.

In reply to paul wood:

I hope people don't choose to express their dissatisfaction by climbing the banned routes.

If problems ensue with people not sticking to the agreement then removing the hangers might be a negotiating option.

In reply to bpmclimb:


Hi Brian, Paul and everyone else

There isn't any need for anyone to keep quiet - and I'd be interested to hear what people think are the most significant losses - but everyone should remember that this is a public forum and is likely to be read by non-climbers, including the GWT (not least because I intend to let them know about it so they can see we are implementing the agreement). Actually I suspect part of the problem was that there was a bit of an assumption among some people that anything at Ban-y-Gor (and especially down on the Main Cliff) would only ever be seen by other climbers (because it does feel very isolated down there and it's a dead-end path) - but that is emphatically not the case.

In answer to one of the other comments, some of the problems were connected to new-routing (which isn't in itself a bad thing - there wouldn't be any climbing there without it), and some to do with cleaning/ re-equipping routes, especially on the Main Cliff. In addition, the greater traffic down on the previously quiet Main Cliff was also noticed. Many of the actions, such as improving the path, may well have been intended to be public-spirited - the lesson is that if you think anything like that would be beneficial it would be best to take soundings first - it might have been fine if it had been cleared with the GWT beforehand. On the other hand the ban on camping and fires is clearly signposted, there is never any excuse for any litter (though climbers in general are definitely in credit on that, having shifted several tonnes out of the reserve in various clean-ups over the last 10 years) and it should be obvious that cutting down trees and shrubs in a nature reserve and SSSI would not be accepted.

Cheers,
Rick

In reply to Rick Sewards:

there is never any excuse for any litter (though climbers in general are definitely in credit on that, having shifted several tonnes out of the reserve in various clean-ups over the last 10 years) and it should be obvious that cutting down trees and shrubs in a nature reserve and SSSI would not be accepted.

Correction: last 40 years.

In reply to Removed UserJohn Willson:

Sorry John, happy to be corrected. I was sticking to what I personally knew about!

Rick

In reply to UKC users:
I certainly wasn't suggesting ignoring the new agreement.

My point is that I feel banning us from climbing somewhere that we have enjoyed access to for 40 years is a bit heavy handed. I imagine that 90% of climbers would be more than happy to nurture a better relationship with the GWT.

I appreciate Rick's work too but I feel that there is a chance that the scale of such a loss might be overlooked by the GWT when much of their interaction with climbers is on a one to one basis with the BMC rep (Rick).

I'm considering creating a petition to indicate to the GWT how many people feel strongly about this. At the very least it would indicate the volume of people enjoying the access and show that most of us use the crag respectfully.

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Surely this is a handful of people:
Firstly, you have be climbing around 6c to 7c to be down that end of the crag.
Secondly they have the experience and knowledge to put up a new route.
How many people are in both those groups are lugging all the required equipment to bolt a new line to that sector?
Surely some people know who it was? Better for them to explain their reasoning and apologize directly to the GWT?

Otherwise I don't see how anyone who has ignored the rules that are already in place, will now pay attention to stricter rules. Because of that I don't see the rationale behind the ban. Once wildlife and flora return to that area, surely it would then be disturbing it to climb there again, so why would access be re-granted?
I would be worried GWT are just slowly removing the ability to climb there entirely.

Paul is right as well that 90% of climbers are more than happy to comply with the guidelines and restrictions.

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Unfortunately, management of this SAC is gafflymbruldoblinish. Not enough people visit it. I've seen no one ever at main cliff when climbing ...they're all at wyndcliffe quarry. The Ban y Gor woods website is hardly encouraging. A random un named Lepidoptera...a mystical woodland...carpeted under my bare feet with moss and wind blown trees...a dormouse..no mention of peregrines ripping apart the throat of my favourite pigeon Doris.. Or any other rare and interesting species. The point is that climbers are the only ones seeing this great stuff when we've been encouraged to by a dibblle dopple dapple website and then comes the smack in the teeth that Ban y gor means ban climbing.. Post brexit knee jerk reaction? Never even seen a naturist on the prowl on the shady secluded track either. Goodness knows I've tried!

In reply to PaulTclimbing:

New routing, I suspect isn't entirely based on experiencing that piece of rock. For some it is more of a trophy. To be claimed, first ascended and publicly exclaimed. Given it is forbidden on this piece of rock. And such public knowledge (this thread, BMC etc) and the general body of the climbing comunity (and others) support of the ecosystem, enivironment and different interest groups should discourage the bolter and first ascentionist from continuing and repeating their actions.
Assuming this isn't a stunt, and the responsible persons are climbers, there is no gain to be had by "breaking the rules", all it'll do is limit future access.

We obviously have someone amongst our number who needs educating, I'd love to see this done positively and sympathetically, without the need for threats, or coming to loggerheads with GWT or any other parties. Working together has to be the way forward (which I'm sure we are).

I have little more to add, just my support to preserving the area, and hopefully the climbing heritage of these crags.

In reply to Kevster

Comments about Ban y Gor are a bit irony. Part based on disbelief a bit. I googled the woods stuff...it just is so banal and almost ...simple. This and last year has seen a huge growth/ re vegetation on UK crags...from a climbing perspective at main cliff some areas trad and sport are/were becoming unclimbable, however your right, climbing takes place with new routing for many reasons ..love of climbing to even vain glory...without there'd be no climbs....and your right education...are specific places highly sensitive there other than just the whole crag..and finally it's suggested this forum is open and viewed... Thank you to Rick/GWT negotiation and efforts..but is it not ok that a strength of feeling or differences be communicated. Like I say I've not seen anyone there in the numbers that would warrant a ban ..and definitely not one naturalist and given that these places are managed..that means for conservation, education in effect..public access.. Then climbers are the biggest market and core group... Why ban your core supporters? I will observe this also, like everyone else!

In reply to PaulTclimbing:

I spoke with the warden soon after the path improvement last year. He was very pleasant but clearly pissed off that climbers had removed plants / made changes etc without discussing it first. At the same time people had been lighting fires under the Mandela buttress .
I have been told that after this he approached a team who gave him abuse. In his position I would probably have reacted the same.

Its a big loss. I climbed the now banned routes regularly. Many of them are amongst the best on the crag. Let's hope we can develop a better relationship with the trust by showing we can respect the ban then hopefully Rick can renegotiate access in the future

In reply to Billg:


That should never happen. We should always be well behaved.

Mick

In reply to Billg:

Agree the unhappy loss..sounds like most of the other less mature upset for all is under Mandela Buttress..not main cliff. But it's still is a success story for 99% of climbers and conservationists and climber conservationists, on a daily basis....but alas that's not sufficient..back to bans..

In reply to Rick Sewards:

Hello Rick,
Are there any big signs stating this new policy at Ban Y Gor? Without something obvious I think there is a fair chance that some might inadvertently break the ban. Otherwise a good number of climbers might think it's just business as usual.

Paul