This is a sad little story about a man – Mr VIP - who thinks he is more important than other people.
For the record, Avon Area has had a bolts policy since 1994, which was overhauled in 2012. These revised policies were overwhelmingly endorsed by a massive BMC Area Meeting in the Hen & Chicken in Bedminster, (more than 100 folk attended). The current policy can be found on pages 389-90 in the definitive Avon guide. Since 2012 the Area policy has been consistently supported by local activists.
Given all that, you might reasonably think that anyone intending to a bolt belay onto a trad route would first contact the BMC Access Rep to check their idea seemed sensible.
For, only a fortnight ago, following a substantial rockfall above the Bonbogies area which wiped out the belay tree – the finishing point for 9 routes – we agreed to put in a new dual-bolt belay straight away. [BTW there is still substantial amounts of loose rock above the new Bonbogies belay so it is currently unsafe to climb one of the 19 routes starting below i.e. from The Mal rightwards to Mason’s Folly.]
We introduced Mr VIP at the beginning of this tale. He decided to try and create a new micro-route on the pocketed face where Critic’s Choice (E5 6b) and other routes already exist. He decided to rope-solo this new micro-route. So far so good. He felt that he was too important to bother with Area Bolt Policies and Access Reps. To turn his plan he went onto the classic HVS Nightcap and installed a dual ring-bolt belay on it so he could happily dangle on his project.
As this action was in blatant disregard of our local bolts policy, today Mr VIP’s bolts have been chopped. The ring-bolts and hangers have been donated to the Wintours Leap re-equipping project.
The sad bit about this story is that the volunteers who removed the bolts today were originally intending to spend their time removing some more of the rock from above Bonbogies.
What a d1ck. I think I know who you mean.
Not acceptable! Thanks to you both for removing the bolts.
I’d imagine you spoke to Mr VIP in person first before you posted this. Would Mr VIP be someone that we owe for the first accent of many local routes many of us enjoy?
It really doesn't matter who it is or what they have or haven't done in the past, the result would be the same.
Fair. Not for me to say, I’d wonder if it did matter in the community and historic sense though, but perhaps not. Mr VIP only thinking of him self n the whole vibe of this post feels a bit cheap to me though.
Describing the route as classic is possibly a bit strong? No stars and less than 100 UKC ticks. Not that that changes bolting policy, I just assumed you would be talking about Malbogies or Hell Gates
This is a poorly written post and doesn't do anyone any favours. Clearly the climber in question should have spoken with the Rep first but that doesn't give license for this kind of post which simply stirs controversy and belittles people. I find it immature and I'm sure others feel the same. Ostracising and mocking people is not the way that you build a strong community and improve adherance to ethics.
Hear, hear. I started writing something similar but stopped because I didn't want to stir further. I'd also add that the OP not naming the person is pretty cowardly and potentially casts aspersions at several people. If its the person I think the OP is referring to then that person has done incredible work in the area over many years. If its not that person then the OP should be aware that he is potentially besmirching the reputation of people who do not deserve it.
There would probably be similar criticism if he'd have outright named him in the original post though right?
Same. MischaHY is always spot on…
I’ve no idea what the OP wanted out of making this post, what his end game was?
> There would probably be similar criticism if he'd have outright named him in the original post though right?
Maybe best not to have posted at all but merely had a chat with the person about the issue.
Don't be rational, this is the internet
Hi Colin
I placed the lower-off you have referred to. I don't regard myself as a "VIP" and am happy to have a constructive, polite and open discussion about the issue.
Despite your comments, I placed the lower-off after careful consideration and studying the guidebook. My view was that it was placed sufficiently down and right of Night Cap and down and left of the Tin Drum not to interfere with the traditional protection of those routes. You obviously disagree. I respect your opinion and I have no wish to break the BMC bolt policy at Avon. I have spent decades climbing traditional Avon Routes from Mod to E7 and have huge respect and indeed affection for their adventurous nature. Indeed the new line I was working on would be pretty bold- and quite likely too bold for me.
I am happy to discuss with you in person whether the BMC would find it acceptable that I place a 2 bolt lower-off another say 8-10 foot down where no one climbing Night Cap or the Tin Drum could possibly reach it. The line I was looking has no reliable trad belay immediately above it. Equally I don't mind abandoning it. I felt it would be a worthwhile addition to Sea Walls climbing if it goes, but I am completely uninterested in upsetting other climbers or getting involved in an antagonistic debate on social media. If you had contacted me first and explained why you felt that I was breaking the existing bolt policy, then I would have removed the lower-off myself and saved you the effort.
John.
Nice one for stepping forward with a neutral and open response, John 👍
Graceful. Good for you.
John
thanks for clarifying with such a well considered and balanced response. Very sensible.
Perhaps Colin could return your hangers and rings to you rather than deciding to give them to another local area’s bolt fund (without any obvious rationale for his decision).
Matt
Dear John
Thank you for your reply.
I was astonished to read that it was you who had placed the bolt loweroffs, given your long experience.
I ask myself why, if you considered that your placing of the bolts could have been considered contentious, you did not first contact the Avon Access Rep, Simon Fletcher.
As it stands, I think a discussion off-line is the sensible option.
Colin
Can we please frame these last 2 posts? It's like the adults have figured out the internet
> As it stands, I think a discussion off-line is the sensible option.
There are some who would have said that was a better option from the start...
In fairness it was much more the case that I pinched them as had planned an immediate use for them and would of saved me a bit of a trip to pick some up but it didn't happen in the end so if John wants them back that's no bother
This is one of the best responses I've ever seen in my years on UKC. Classic!
So this hasn’t aged well…
No. Still, all’s well that ends well. There’s a local BMC rep for many reasons and this would be one of them.
Yep, and quite honestly it would be good if the official rep didn't go on social media and start a bun fight with a member of the local community who has done plenty. Yes john should have talked to Colin before he did it but to respond with the OP just kind of beggars belief, mainly the tone of it...
I’d just like to point out that Colin isn’t the local access rep, that’s Simon Fletcher, although Colin is heavily involved in all things to do with Avon.
> and quite honestly it would be good if the official rep didn't go on social media and start a bun fight
Has that happened? It certainly doesn't sound great if so.
(But if you're referring to this thread, perhaps you're under the impression that Colin is the BMC rep - in which case I'm pretty sure you're mistaken.)
Also, reading between the lines I get the impression that the "Mr VIP" on the receiving end of the OP's opening salvo of buns is not in fact John but someone else being (as it turns out) falsely accused. In which case that someone is probably owed an apology.
Fair play, my mistake. Dunno, just seemed that way from the OP. Rereading it I have got the wrong end of the stick in that regard. Maybe not with the tone though...
Yes, mistook Colin for the rep. Should have realised he would have posted as such if he was. And yes, I understood he had made a mistake about the identity of Mr VIP which is kind of my point. If you're going to write a diatribe like the OP, might be worth being certain who you're talking about? Bit like me googling Colin 😉
Funny way of spelling “Sorry for calling you a d1ck John”
Yes that's the impression I got as well. Guy was my first thought as he's been doing quite a bit with the drill down Avon way.
I have some questions to help me better understand the ethical details at play here. Reasoning through this will help me with some projects I'm thinking about (not in England!)
1) This is generally considered an all trad area with intermediate protection climbers place themselves, and top anchors that climbers construct around trees of rock features, corect?
2) Are there any sport routes that have been left in place for historical reasons, and are there any bolted top anchors in addition to the newly installed anchor placed because of rock fall/loss of a tree?
3) Is there a tradition/ethic of how routes have been established i.e. ground up or by rappelling and so on.
OK, thanks.
The particular area concerned is a limestone quarry, 30m from a main road, 60m high and consists of predominantly trad routes. In this instance due to the compactness of rock, fixed pegs feature heavily and in some places bolts have been placed where there is no other alternative, but these are kept to an absolute minimum. In recent years an effort my the BMC has taken place to replace fixed equipment on a like for like basis, I.e. if the route originally had a peg, every effort is made to replace the remnants of the stub and to replace it with a similar peg. In very rare cases, if there is a trad placement which has been made possible with the Advent of new gear, the peg may be removed entirely, or if a peg is unremovable, the area will refer to a committee to make a decision about whether it could be replaced with a bolt.
The prospective new route climbs a short steep wall with very little protection above it apart from some old pegs which are part of an established route, Nightcap, HVS. This route has sparse gear for the first 40 feet or so, climbing a short groove and then an easy slab above this before reaching a steeper wall where you find the crux which is reasonably protected with pegs and wires. As I understand it, the new bolts were placed at the top of this wall, in theory far enough away from the line of Nightcap to mean that it is unlikely someone would clip them as protection when climbing Nightcap. I think the concern here is that in theory some could clip them, thereby altering the difficulty (read danger here) of the HVS which is a well established route and new equipment should not affect the overall experience of any preexisting route. The difficulty for the new router is that the climbing is really hard on that wall, and it is sufficiently high that mats would make a marginal difference to a ground fall. Hence I assume the rational behind placing the lower offs.
Please let me know if I'm wrong as is customary 🤣
Adding another name into the mix may not be seen as helpful at this stage. Given that person's day job you may want to reconsider your position m'lord
Hanlon's razor is a fantastic lens through which to view life - at least if you take stupidity to be inclusive of all non-malign explanation.
Simply the most graceful, calm and level reply I've read on here in ages. If there were an award for Post of the Year, I'd be nominating you now even through it's still only March.
Are you sure we are talking about the same Guy Smith?