UKC

Dear Climbing colleagues in the UK, 

The crag "Kullaberg" in the south of Sweden with 52 different cliffs and over 800 routes is threatened by a total climbing ban - based on which some few exceptions will have to be negotiated with the authorities.

The area shall become a natural reserve according to a new plan made by the Swedish government. Some reasons and arguments for a ban are given that are simply not true and the result of intense lobbying from a few individuals very negative to climbing. Part of the area is already seasonally blocked with a temporary bird protection area which has been respected by climbers.

The climbing ban has been suggested in a new government document which still has to be approved. After a year of obtaining feedback from environmentalist, the document was issued at end july, giving climbing clubs only two months to form resistance, protest it and suggest changes.

 An access group is working on the issue.

Kullaberg is the only high quality climbing destination for all danish climbers and the climbers of southern Sweden. A climbing ban is a devastating blow to the climbing sport in southern scandinavia. 

Facts about Kullaberg

Situated on a peninsular in the nortwest corner of southern Sweden, the crag has almost 1000 climbing routes spread out along the south and north coast. It is mainly a traditional climbing area with cliffs up to 50 m high. The rock is gneiss. Climbers have been active on Kullaberg since 1950 and it is also a very popular destination for climbers visiting from abroad.

How you can help?
Join the Facebook group "Save Kullaberg Climbing".

Sign the petition on change.org

Best regards,

Toby Winther
40 years climbing on Kullaberg

What is the authorities justification for banning climbing?

Good luck!

It is supposed to work like this: There will be a total ban, not only on climbing but also other activities like mountainbike, paragliding and riding. Then a committe between the sports clubs and the responsible authority will be set up to negotiate exceptions. The authority is a swedish governmant agency called "Länsstyrelsen". They have power over all natural reserves. So far, the democratic process has been faulty and lobbying ornithologists have had a heavy influence on the proposition (there is already a bird protection area covering 50% of the cliffs). The reasons are formulated in terms of "many people are worried about the impact of climbing", or "we feel there might be too many climbing routes". The arguments are not scientific, but emotional. Very weird for a governmant organizations.

"Despite 70 years of climbing it is so good for birds that it has a large bird population and is unspoiled enough to be a nature reserve. This shows climbers are not harmful to the bird population. Climbing may even be beneficial as it (I can't think of anything) and prevents unobserved (is there another human threat?). " 

Is it possible to use the evidence in favour of protection as evidence that 70 years of climbing has done no harm?

Obviously doesn't work if there is a relatively poor population of birds and birds are being scared away.