UKC

/ Whitehouses chipping

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Wizzy - on 04 Feb 2018

Unfortunately it seems as though there has been some extensive chipping at Whitehouses in Nidderdale. A very great shame

https://instagram.com/p/BexnVYGDvoi/

3
BenedictIEP on 04 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

It's not f*cking chipping. Call this vandalism what it is. 

9
balmybaldwin - on 04 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

was the do not climb sign up before the chipping? if so its pretty obvious who did it (i.e. whoever put the sign up)

haworthjim on 04 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

It would seem the landowner has had enough and has taken action. We were warned. Absolutely gutting that this gem has been lost. 

Andy Johnson - on 04 Feb 2018
In reply to haworthjim:

> It would seem the landowner has had enough and has taken action. We were warned.

There is obviously some background to this that many (myself included) will be unfamiliar with. Anyone care to summarise?

haworthjim on 04 Feb 2018
stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

Disgraceful behaviour by who ever was responsible. Dan Turner made short video showing the damage done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsK83G9KjEw

4
Offwidth - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

Frankly its disgraceful on both sides. If people park blocking gates, don't shut gates, and have lamping sessions when asked not to and rile someone so much they smash the rock, it could have been a lot worse (ie a physical altercation). I'm gutted for  the majority of respectful climbers who love such places, that morons have enraged someone so much that this happened.

Thanks for the video Dan.

1
galpinos on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to haworthjim:

> It would seem the landowner has had enough and has taken action. 

Not necessarily the land owner, I think there is a tenant on the land.

 

stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't know what when on the on the climbers side but just because you're pissed off doesn't give you a right to take a hammer and chisel to the natural environment. As Dan's video pointed out, just some signs would've been enough. Seems like many climbers weren't even aware of the problems there.

13
dunnyg - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

Thing is he does have the right.

pasbury on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

I agree - it does seem an extreme reaction. Let's not get too handwringy about it. We can condemn both inconsiderate climbers and vandals smashing up rock formations.

stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to dunnyg:

Yeah, legally that's true. But the law isn't everything, just a set of rules that suits a select group of people. I think there's a moral right too. The rock has taken millions of years to form and will be here millions of years to come so to vandalize it in that fashion just to get revenge on a small group of people is selfish in the extreme and just plain wrong.

19
dunnyg - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

Deep man. Not much of a geologist but I doubt those rocks will be there in millions of years. Climbers normally take notice of no climbing signs right?

1
SteveSBlake - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to dunnyg:

You're right, and even on Open Access land where you have a right to climb, the crags remain the property of the land owner. There is nothing to stop a frustrated, disgruntled and angry farmer from smashing holds as at Whitehouses, smearing grease or directing slurry onto the crag.

Given what I've seen in some places it surprises me that there aren't more access issues. As user numbers grow and grow we need to take a long hard look at how we use the crags and interact with their owners. Often access is a privilege, not a right and usually comes with responsibilities. Be polite, discrete, keep dogs under close control, or don't take them. Close gates,  clear up rubbish, don't light fires and don't park like a tw*t.  Remember to check the RAD and local forums to see if  there are restrictions or the venue should be avoided.

If you see people screwing it up then challenge them! They might think they're free spirits in the great outdoors..... They ain't.

Post edited at 17:31
dunnyg - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to SteveSBlake:

Well said.

johncoxmysteriously - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to SteveSBlake:

Or indeed dynamiting the entire crag - Yellowslacks, was it?

 

jcm

 

stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

>  We can condemn both inconsiderate climbers and vandals smashing up rock formations.

You can blame the climbers for blocking a gate (perhaps?) but they're not responsible for the actions of the person who smashed the rock.

 

22
stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to dunnyg:

So you're saying there were No Climbing signs put up and they were ignored? Didn't seem that way from Dan's video.

5
Ciro - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> The rock has taken millions of years to form and will be here millions of years to come so to vandalize it in that fashion just to get revenge on a small group of people is selfish in the extreme and just plain wrong.

Why do you presume the motivation was revenge? Some climbers have been making his life difficult with inconsiderate behaviour - the obvious motivation is to remove the reason for people to come and make his life difficult.

As gutting as it is to see good climbing ruined, there is no moral obligation to protect rock just because it's old... If there was, our lives would be a lot less comfortable, given that we couldn't quarry to build houses and roads.

The access issues must have been pretty well known locally - I've never climbed in that part of the country but I've seen it talked about plenty.

If people in our community go onto private land and make a nuisance of ourselves, the land owner altering their property to prevent us continuing to do so shouldn't come as a surprise.

toad - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:outcrops are surprisingly fragile and ephemeral. A disinterested time traveller to here and, say, Birchen Edge would probably conclude that this was inconsequential compared to the damage done to the rock by climbers at Birchen. 

We probably need to remember that climbing is a very niche interest. A non climbing friend was telling me how shocked he was by the mess made by climbers at Malham (by which he meant the bolts and tat). I doubt he would even notice this. Which is the worst case of vandalism?

 

SteveSBlake - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

From what I've read on the issue, the sign predates the 'modification'...... There seem to have been issues for a while. It's unlikely that we will ever find out what eventually provoked the damage; a constant drip feed of issues, or a major confrontation that the participants won't fess up to... Check UKB there's more more detail there.

The trouble is it seems it's all usual stuff, we don't seem to learn. 

Post edited at 17:59
Goucho on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to SteveSBlake:

> From what I've read on the issue, the sign predates the 'modification'...... There seem to have been issues for a while. It's unlikely that we will ever find out what eventually provoked the damage; a constant drip feed of issues, or a major confrontation that the participants won't fess up to... Check UKB there's more more detail there.

> The trouble is it seems it's all usual stuff, we don't seem to learn. 

Good point, Steve.

Sometimes we need to take a step out of our 'climbers bubble' and realise it's not always all about us and our climbing requirements?

dunnyg - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

No. I am saying climbers are not exactly known for sticking to the rules. No climbing signs don't stop everyone from climbing. 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to dunnyg:

> No. I am saying climbers are not exactly known for sticking to the rules. No climbing signs don't stop everyone from climbing. 

It would be a sad world if 'No Climbing' signs stopped everyone from climbing stuff that looks interesting.   As slightly more evolved apes climbing is normal human behaviour.    Fat b*stards and landowners that think climbing is antisocial are basically deviants who have a psychological problem accepting their own biology.  

44
deacondeacon - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What are you on about?

its not the act of climbing that anyone has a problem with.

Goucho on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> It would be a sad world if 'No Climbing' signs stopped everyone from climbing stuff that looks interesting.   As slightly more evolved apes climbing is normal human behaviour.    Fat b*stards and landowners that think climbing is antisocial are basically deviants who have a psychological problem accepting their own biology.  

That's certainly an interesting approach to delicate access issues?

 

stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Some climbers have been making his life difficult with inconsiderate behaviour - the obvious motivation is to remove the reason for people to come and make his life difficult.

Well I don't know the details and 'inconsiderate behaviour' is rather vague term. If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used I can understand the frustration of the moment but  any reasonable person could sort the problem with a simple sign: Please Don't Block the Gate.

Pretty much all climbers I know are decent people and just want to go climbing. And climbing is a pretty harmless pursuit causing little trouble to anyone else. It seems surprising that any such minor problems, like parking, couldn't have been sorted out in a civil and mutually respectful way - as they have at many other areas.

But as I said, I don't know the full details. Maybe something else went on here? Or maybe the person who vandalized the crag is just a total d*&k?

 

19
stp - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to dunnyg:

> No. I am saying climbers are not exactly known for sticking to the rules.

And you think the person that did this knows about about the history of climbing access issues then?

Also there are plenty of places banned where people don't climb. I don't think Craig y Forwyn got any traffic for many years when climbing was banned there.

1
Ciro - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

Read the links hawthornjim posted above. Including the following (if climbers aren't going to move their cars after being told by other climbers that they're putting access at risk, what difference is a sign going to make?)

 
Note: I'm awaiting confirmation on this from Yorkshire Area Gritstone Access Rep

After hearing about some issues with access , apparently the farmer doesn’t mind people climbing there but there are a number of things which are critical to making sure he doesn’t get annoyed with climbers (more so than he has been) & banning access completely:

1. Close the gate
2. No lamp sessions 
3. DO NOT park near the gate. Use the lay by further down .
4: Usual leave it as you find it considerations & general Crag etiquette.

Today a number of cars parked by the gate & after advising them of how the farmer feels about this, the climbers were not bothered & didn’t move their cars."
Simon Caldwell - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Or indeed dynamiting the entire crag - Yellowslacks, was it?

> jcm

Didn't he fall foul of the law as a result? 

pasbury on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to SteveSBlake:

> You're right, and even on Open Access land where you have a right to climb, the crags remain the property of the land owner. There is nothing to stop a frustrated, disgruntled and angry farmer from smashing holds as at Whitehouses, smearing grease or directing slurry onto the crag.

> Given what I've seen in some places it surprises me that there aren't more access issues. As user numbers grow and grow we need to take a long hard look at how we use the crags and interact with their owners. Often access is a privilege, not a right and usually comes with responsibilities. Be polite, discrete, keep dogs under close control, or don't take them. Close gates,  clear up rubbish, don't light fires and don't park like a tw*t.  Remember to check the RAD and local forums to see if  there are restrictions or the venue should be avoided.

> If you see people screwing it up then challenge them! They might think they're free spirits in the great outdoors..... They ain't.

Thank goodness for CROW legislation eh so we don’t have feel guilty about violating the sacred rights of landowners.

I don’t generally see evidence of climbers being irresponsible, when compared with other users.

Dialogue would be helpful but perhaps this perpetrator is an unstable or aggressive individual.

13
Ciro - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> I don’t generally see evidence of climbers being irresponsible, when compared with other users.

If you annoy a landowner to the point where they are prepared to go to considerable effort to destroy a crag, what difference does it make to say "we're not as anti-social as greenlaners"? It won't bring the crag back.

> Dialogue would be helpful but perhaps this perpetrator is an unstable or aggressive individual.

I cannot comment on the temperament of the individual here, but my understanding from reading about this last winter on social media is the crag is very close to the farmhouse and it's not uncommon for climbers to disturb him at night, which he's asked them not to do, with lamp sessions. On top of that, we also have climbers reporting asking other climbers to move their cars from in front of his gate, and that request being refused.

If you worked from home in the countryside, and people were coming along during the day preventing you getting on with your work, and coming into your garden at night and disturbing your peace, year after year, would you be "reasonable"? 

I wouldn't.

1
webbo - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> Well I don't know the details and 'inconsiderate behaviour' is rather vague term. If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used I can understand the frustration of the moment but  any reasonable person could sort the problem with a simple sign: Please Don't Block the Gate.

> Pretty much all climbers I know are decent people and just want to go climbing. And climbing is a pretty harmless pursuit causing little trouble to anyone else. It seems surprising that any such minor problems, like parking, couldn't have been sorted out in a civil and mutually respectful way - as they have at many other areas.

> But as I said, I don't know the full details. Maybe something else went on here? Or maybe the person who vandalized the crag is just a total d*&k?

Yet there are numerous posts on here about the morality of what is crag swag and what is theft.

climbers decent people. Some will be and some will be the dregs of society.

3
Wiley Coyote2 - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

If someone came along and started to play football on my lawn, cos it was, like, grass, and they thought they ought to be able to play on grass wherever it grew, cos it was , like, natural and they might bring some lamps so they could do it at night, oh and the drive might get blocked sometimes and I might not be able to get in or out occasionally and  maybe there'd be a bit of litter and they might bring their dogs too.......I'd think they were nuts.

Why do climbers think we have the right to trample over other people's property just because there's rock on it? It should not be very difficult to understand: if there's no legal access the landowner (or tenant) makes the rules and if people want to maintain access it pays to be polite and well-behaved and abide by those rules. Otherwise don't be surprised if this sort of thing happens.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to Goucho:

> That's certainly an interesting approach to delicate access issues?

I just feel that particularly in England people give in to landowners far too much.   It's better in Scotland but I'd be happy for the balance of the law to go even further in favour of access here as well.  The access issues are delicate because the city dwellers haven't got organised and persuaded their MPs to bring in strong enough access laws.

If you buy a house next to a pub or a school in a town you are expected to think about that before you buy and accept there's going to be a bit of disruption.    You might get some negotiated compromise if you ask nicely to the pub landlord or school head but unless it is way out of hand you aren't going to get far complaining to the council.

Landowners in the country need to develop similar expectations.   If you live next to a crag there are going to be climbers if there's a path across your land there's going to be walkers. You chose to live there: live with it.   You can't just block an established path or smash up the rock if you don't like people near your house ad you can't just claim a massive area of land and expect to have the same strong rights to stop people accessing it as you would get for a garden round a normal sized house.

 

Post edited at 22:44
35
Wiley Coyote2 - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

>  The access issues are delicate because the city dwellers haven't got organised and persuaded their MPs to bring in strong enough access laws.

So unless and until they do we have to work with the existing laws not the ones we want

> If you buy a house next to a pub or a school in a town you are expected to think about that before you buy and accept there's going to be a bit of disruption.   

But this guy has not bought/rented a house NEXT to a crag. He owns/rents the crag, which is a very different situation. The pub or school are operating  on their own land. The climbers are not.

>   You can't just ...... smash up the rock if you don't like people near your house

Yes you can. We dig and alter our land  all the time. I dig up bushes etc even plant or cut down the odd hedge or tree occasionally. Yorkshire farmers have a well-deserved reputation for forthright action. He's tried to be fair, allowed climbing and a proportion (perhaps small) have taken the piss. So as far as he's concerned he's solved his problem by getting rid of what was attracting the  dickheads.

 

 

dunnyg - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

No. He probably is just aware that he told some climbers to park not in front of his gate repeatedly and they kept doing it.

If people don't understand not to park in front of gates then they are thick or inconsiderate, no? 

I'm not saying it was 'right' to smash a crag up, but it's solved the problem in their eyes and was probably pretty satisfying to boot.

 

Post edited at 23:29
Ciro - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I just feel that particularly in England people give in to landowners far too much.   It's better in Scotland but I'd be happy for the balance of the law to go even further in favour of access here as well.  The access issues are delicate because the city dwellers haven't got organised and persuaded their MPs to bring in strong enough access laws.

I'm Scottish too, grew up hillwalking and fishing, passionate about the right to walk the countryside, and was shocked when I moved to England and discovered the attitudes there to people accessing land without causing harassment or damage to the owner. But that's not what we're taking about here.

> If you buy a house next to a pub or a school in a town you are expected to think about that before you buy and accept there's going to be a bit of disruption.    You might get some negotiated compromise if you ask nicely to the pub landlord or school head but unless it is way out of hand you aren't going to get far complaining to the council.

> Landowners in the country need to develop similar expectations.   If you live next to a crag there are going to be climbers if there's a path across your land there's going to be walkers. You chose to live there: live with it.   You can't just block an established path or smash up the rock 

Well, yes you can. Unless the rocks have been declared of special importance the farmer has as much right to smash them up as I have if a rock in my back garden is in the way of laying a patio.

Which is why it doesn't make any sense to pick the same fight for access to climb any hour of the day you fancy, as you might for the right to walk through. As we see here, you have too much to lose.

> If you don't like people near your house ad you can't just claim a massive area of land and expect to have the same strong rights to stop people accessing it as you would get for a garden round a normal sized house.

Arguing for a change in the law is all well and good, but until the law says we must apply for planning permission to break up rocks on our property, we'd best not antagonise people to the point where they decide to break up the rocks on their property.

 

Goucho on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I just feel that particularly in England people give in to landowners far too much.   It's better in Scotland but I'd be happy for the balance of the law to go even further in favour of access here as well.  The access issues are delicate because the city dwellers haven't got organised and persuaded their MPs to bring in strong enough access laws.

> If you buy a house next to a pub or a school in a town you are expected to think about that before you buy and accept there's going to be a bit of disruption.    You might get some negotiated compromise if you ask nicely to the pub landlord or school head but unless it is way out of hand you aren't going to get far complaining to the council.

> Landowners in the country need to develop similar expectations.   If you live next to a crag there are going to be climbers if there's a path across your land there's going to be walkers. You chose to live there: live with it.   You can't just block an established path or smash up the rock if you don't like people near your house ad you can't just claim a massive area of land and expect to have the same strong rights to stop people accessing it as you would get for a garden round a normal sized house.

The problem here doesn't seem to be a case of access. It seems to be case of climbers not adhering to a perfectly reasonable set of conditions and courtesies.

It's not the landowner/tenant farmer who should drawing your ire, it's the small group of selfish climbers who have, by acting like petulant dickheads, ruined it for everyone else - as happens so often. 

Some climbers really do need to take their heads out of their arses, and stop thinking they've got a god given right to climb anywhere there happens to be a lump of rock, in any manner they choose.

 

Post edited at 23:35
aln - on 08 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

>If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used... 

...they're stupid? What else is a gate for? 

 

tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

> Well, yes you can. Unless the rocks have been declared of special importance the farmer has as much right to smash them up as I have if a rock in my back garden is in the way of laying a patio.

Legally the guy who owns the land on a gritstone crag would be within his rights to grid bolt it and charge £10 to climb.   But he wouldn't get much sympathy from climbers if he chose to do that and he definitely shouldn't get any sympathy if he bashes holds off with a hammer specifically to stop climbing.  That is vandalism.

I don't go with the 'tug your forelock because you've got too much to lose' argument.  When it comes down to it there are far more votes in helping people access the countryside for leisure activities than helping landowners stop them.  In the medium to long term it's the landowners with the weak hand and people who get hassled when trying to access the outdoors should be more assertive.

 

 

32
John W - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

4
paul__in_sheffield - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, I don't think asking climbers or other users of other people's land to behave with the kind of respect we deserve and require in our own home/garden/workplaces is 'tugging the forelock'. We should all treat everyone with repect if we can, and it seems that this has been ignored here. It's his home and his workplace, and abuse of his good will has gone on for a long time.

btw it would only be vandalism if he did it to someone else's property. The proper way to address this is (like Windather Rocks) to work with the landowner, and if all else fails, buy the crag and secure a managed access. I guess that BMC don't have the resource to buy every lump of rock so have to rely on climbers treating others with respect. In this case it meant; don't block farm gates, park sensibly, don't do lamping sessions, all of which were ignored sadly.

mrphilipoldham - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Is it vandalism if it's your own property? I don't think so.

2
Goucho on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> Legally the guy who owns the land on a gritstone crag would be within his rights to grid bolt it and charge £10 to climb.   But he wouldn't get much sympathy from climbers if he chose to do that and he definitely shouldn't get any sympathy if he bashes holds off with a hammer specifically to stop climbing.  That is vandalism.

Just remind me again who is going to be most affected by the ban on climbing here?

Oh yes, climbers!

> I don't go with the 'tug your forelock because you've got too much to lose' argument.  When it comes down to it there are far more votes in helping people access the countryside for leisure activities than helping landowners stop them.  In the medium to long term it's the landowners with the weak hand and people who get hassled when trying to access the outdoors should be more assertive.

For the last time, this situation has been caused by some climbers not abiding by a couple of perfectly reasonable conditions.

Maybe sometimes, a little bit of what you consider tugging your forlock, is preferable and more effective, than waiving your cock around.

 

 

 

2
Ciro - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

From the looks of the satellite image on the crag page, it's about 40 yards from the guy's house, which is within "large garden" territory.

We're not talking about a landowner shouting "Oy, get off my land" just because it's his, we're talking about a tenant farmer asking people to close gates, park in a way that doesn't obstruct him getting in and out of his fields, clean up after themselves and avoid congregating at unsocial hours outside his house.

To comply with those requests is not tugging your forelock, it's common decency. 

I'm all for land reform and more public access, but that goes two ways - we also need to promote acting responsibly.

Bogwalloper - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to SteveSBlake:

Are you saying the do not climb sign was there for a time before the holds were smashed off and people still climbed there?

W

SteveSBlake - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Bogwalloper:

In my 'mind' I thought that was the case, I've re read the threads and I may be wrong,  but issues first hit  forums back in Jan 2017. Have a read:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,27779.msg560374.html#msg560374

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/rocktalk/whitehouses_-_climbing_not_permitted-667930

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28660.50.html

The Facebook page is 'closed', you'll need to ask to join to read that.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to paul__in_sheffield:

> btw it would only be vandalism if he did it to someone else's property. 

It isn't vandalism in the legal sense if they own the property but it is vandalism.  Deliberate and malicious destruction of something of aesthetic value.   

noun
1.
deliberately mischievous or malicious destruction or damage of property:
vandalism of public buildings.
2.
the conduct or spirit characteristic of the Vandals.
3.
willful or ignorant destruction of artistic or literary treasures.
4.
a vandalic act.

 

9
dunnyg - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So?

1
spidermonkey09 - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Bogwalloper:

That is absolutely not the case. There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. The UKB one is much more accurate.

Main points - The sign was not up prior to the chipping.

- The house over the road is not the landowners house. It belongs to someone else, and they are by all accounts lovely and very friendly to climbers.

spidermonkey09 - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

Not the guys garden. Person who lives over the road is not the landowner. Completely agree with the rest of your post btw!

Post edited at 10:14
Offwidth - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

We lost access to Eagle Tor as climbers couldn't behave themselves in a situation that involved literally shitting in someone's back garden. A pal at Rowtor the other day (a sensitive site where climbers are asked to keep a low profile) witnessed some climbers making a massive racket, including loud music. It goes on and on. As a community we do a lot to try and educate and inform about access but maybe we need to challenge this entitled idiotic minority more, if we wish to maintain access to the many fabulous crags on private land.

Offwidth - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to spidermonkey09:

The guy in the house is almost certainly in touch with the farmer/tenant and I doubt they will be keen on lamping sessions. It doesn't take a big IQ to realise lamping is a bad idea near a private residence unless there is explicit permission that it is OK.

Post edited at 10:23
spidermonkey09 - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

I'm not challenging that.

Ciro - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to spidermonkey09:

Ah, OK. Who's being disturbed by the lamping sessions then?

3
Coel Hellier - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used I can understand the frustration of the moment but  any reasonable person could sort the problem with a simple sign: Please Don't Block the Gate.

Do you really think a sign is needed?  Isn't it one of those things that everyone should know? 

Simon Caldwell - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If you live next to a crag there are going to be climbers if there's a path across your land there's going to be walkers. You chose to live there: live with it. 

And if you've lived for years in a house with a crag in the garden, then suddenly climbers discover it and start using it? To use your own analogy, that's like buying a house next to a vicarage and having someone convert it into a pub.

spidermonkey09 - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Ciro:

As far as I'm aware lamping ceased to be a problem some time ago; the landowner told the BMC he didn't want it (fair enough) and it pretty much stopped I think. Haven't heard of people going out there at night put it that way.More recently its been parking thats been the bugbear.

 

See: http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28660.0.html 

Post edited at 10:55
planetmarshall on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> Pretty much all climbers I know are decent people and just want to go climbing. 

Climbers are people. Some people are dicks.

1
C coldwell-storry - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

This thread is starting to irritate me. 

Insane amounts of speculation its incredible.

I Went there recently and spoke to the home owner opposite, they were keen to stress they didn't have a problem with climbers in general and were interested as to why we parked further down the road. We explained that as we understood it the farmer didn't want that lay-by used....even though it doesn't block the gate and is on a public road.

I can't believe anyone would 'forget' to close the gate in question....it doesn't open unless you lift the entire thing up. 

If someone was asked to move their car by another climber but didn't they should be named. 

Everyone I've seen, met or know who uses Whithouse's is an extremely experienced outdoor climber who would never dream or being rude to a farmer/land owner or compromising access on purpose. That being said, if anyone has any ACTUAL facts or first hand experience of this happening then by all means lets here it!!!???

 

3
Arms Cliff - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to C coldwell-storry:

Gate was left open, we were climbing there the day or so after  and discussed with the farmer (this was the first issue a long time ago now). The climber's rationale to the farmer was that the gate was open when they got there (apparently). The farmer had described the climbers as being rude and having a bad attitude or words to that effect, we were nice and polite and he was totally fine with us.

What's happened in between then and now I have no firm facts so I'm not going to muddy the already murky waters further.

Offwidth - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to C coldwell-storry:

The access reps recognised the problems were real, why don't you? Posting doubts about this here is daft..go and read the links above first (eg those from HaworthJim)

Post edited at 14:47
6
Al_Mac - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used I can understand the frustration of the moment but  any reasonable person could sort the problem with a simple sign: Please Don't Block the Gate.

I thought it pretty obvious that you don't ever park in front of gates, unless it's so decayed and/or overgrown that it would take several hours with a chainsaw to get through. Maybe that's just me taking the whole 'not being inconsiderate' thing too far though?

stp - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Is it vandalism if it's your own property? I don't think so.


I think there's big error of thinking in this thread of conflating land ownership with other kinds of ownership like a car or house.

The land was here before people were and will be here after we're gone. Those who have fenced off large sectors of it should be viewed more as custodians of the land. It's completely different from the types of ownership people are comparing it to. If we treat land ownership in that way then logically all the land in the country could one day be owned by single person who could then tell everyone what to do including sending them into the sea - which would be absurd.

In a very real sense the land belongs to everyone and I think it's important we recognize that.

11
stp - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Cloverleaf:

> I thought it pretty obvious that you don't ever park in front of gates

What seems obvious to one person may not be so obvious to another. A simple sign makes thing clear to all.

10
haworthjim on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to C coldwell-storry:

Totally agree with this and ties in with what I understand has happpened.

also to add (to my knowledge) the no climbing sign wasstuck up the day the holds where smashed. 

 

haworthjim on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Arms Cliff: didn’t know about this. Was always surprised about the close the gate rule/reminder on the RAD as said above it needed to be lifted over the stone to open and shut it. 

 

C coldwell-storry - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

 

Like I said above Offside that's exactly why we didn't park by the gate. NOBODY wanted Whitehouses to be destroyed and if you read UKB thread you see people offering their services to put up NO PARKING signs. 

Those links all say the same thing. Everyone I know in the Yorkshire scene was aware of and as far as I know adhering to.

Like I said if anyone has FACTS relating to people doing differently in the last couple of months let have it!!??

5
Wiley Coyote2 - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> In a very real sense the land belongs to everyone and I think it's important we recognize that.

And in a very legal sense it doesn't and I think it is important we recognise that. People may think it should belong to everyone. They may want it to belong to everyone but until it does  access will be protected a lot better by people behaving sensibly and courteously rather than by wishful thinking and insensitive behaviour..

 

Post edited at 00:00
Brass Nipples on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> What seems obvious to one person may not be so obvious to another. A simple sign makes thing clear to all.

You'd have to be the thickest person in the world not to realise what gates are used for.

1
Offwidth - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to C coldwell-storry:

Some climbers are morons and some landowners seriously overreact. There is a long history to such crazy actions against the rock, up to the use of explosives at Yellowstones !. Assuming your mates are representative of the behaviour all climbers is very naive.  I love Yorkshire grit and am gutted what happened to this crag but the warnings were there. I work closely with access teams in  tbe peak and know quite a few in Yorkshire,  having worked on the YMC guides. Bad behaviour from some climbers is sadly very real, despite most climbers being lovely folk. I've witnessed such in Yorkshire many times myself... from serious parking breaches liable to affect access to shit treatment of the rock.

Post edited at 00:31
jimtitt - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> I think there's big error of thinking in this thread of conflating land ownership with other kinds of ownership like a car or house.

> The land was here before people were and will be here after we're gone. Those who have fenced off large sectors of it should be viewed more as custodians of the land. It's completely different from the types of ownership people are comparing it to. If we treat land ownership in that way then logically all the land in the country could one day be owned by single person who could then tell everyone what to do including sending them into the sea - which would be absurd.

> In a very real sense the land belongs to everyone and I think it's important we recognize that.

All land in England except Cornwall is owned by the Crown, currently this is the old lady living in Windsor castle. You may hold land as freehold or leasehold but "hold" is the important part, it still isn´t yours, it´s hers.

Arms Cliff - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to jimtitt:

I assume in the same way that she's technically in charge of the government and the church...

Goucho on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> I think there's big error of thinking in this thread of conflating land ownership with other kinds of ownership like a car or house.

No, the big error is in your thinking.

> The land was here before people were and will be here after we're gone. Those who have fenced off large sectors of it should be viewed more as custodians of the land. It's completely different from the types of ownership people are comparing it to. If we treat land ownership in that way then logically all the land in the country could one day be owned by single person who could then tell everyone what to do including sending them into the sea - which would be absurd.

There is neither logic nor understanding of how land ownership works in this statement.

> In a very real sense the land belongs to everyone and I think it's important we recognize that.

No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't.

Your arguments regarding land ownership and rights of access, are both naive and silly in equal measure.

 

 

6
Offwidth - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to all:

The UKB thread:

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,28660.50.html

All looks a bit like the 4 stages of grief. In particular pushing blame on the BMC local volunteer access rep is pretty low but if there are problems with the RAD Ap thats serious and needs fixing fast... everyone should check RAD  before climbing in such places (small venues on private land). Having said that, I don't buy this was really about a communications failure. Climbers should never do things like block gates, leave gates open, lamp near private residences (unless this is known to be OK) or be rude or aggresive to landowners (however much they 'deserve' it) if we wish to retain access on private land. As others point out on UKB this is a story that repeats agian and again.. stupid selfish climbers may be a small minority but do exist. A predominance of ranting on any public record on the web about farmers who do something like this when riled makes life more difficult for recovering access in this case and  for access negotiations in similar cases in the future. Landowners who are pissed off with climbers can also use social media and can link evidence of past bad behaviour.

Post edited at 10:43
stp - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Goucho:

 

> No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't.

Yes it does and yes we should

 

> Your arguments regarding land ownership and rights of access, are both naive and silly in equal measure.

Your comments don't even constitute an argument, they're just insults and flat denial.

Post edited at 11:01
15
mrphilipoldham - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

Have you defaced the land you own with a house? It really is no different.

Post edited at 11:22
3
Goucho on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> Yes it does and yes we should

OK, give me a concise and legally achievable argument which supports your position, as opposed to something you'd expect to hear spouted by Rick from the Young One's. 

> Your comments don't even constitute an argument, they're just insults and flat denial.

A flat denial centred around how the real world works regarding land ownership you mean?

Land ownership legally exists - fact!

Legal rights of access exist on some land - fact!

Legal rights of access don't exist on all land - fact!

Some landowners where there isn't a legal right of access, still allow access under certain conditions - fact!

If those conditions are not adhered to, the landowner has the legal right to stop further access - fact!

If you're going to change things, you have to start from the reality of where things currently are, not some hypothetical, ideological premise based on a point in time which only exists in your head.

 

 

1
timjones - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

> Well I don't know the details and 'inconsiderate behaviour' is rather vague term. If someone parks in front of a gate not knowing it will be used I can understand the frustration of the moment but  any reasonable person could sort the problem with a simple sign: Please Don't Block the Gate.

Can I suggest that anyone who is too thick to appreciate the purpose of a gate should do us all a favour and stop indoors?

Graeme Smithy - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

This thread is like the life of Bryan all discussing the technicalities.

A group of people have generally pissed the farmer/tenant/custodian of the land off over long enough period of time to get him (or her) off his (or hers) arse. They probably did not want to pay to have a sign made or knock chunks off a crag but they did. Its probably been the result of a long period of smallish issues that have become the whole. Not a lot the BMC can do about some climbers being brain dead so the crag got banned.

I was stood at the bottom of Kilnsey in the build up to the show last year. Some guy who was working at the show slowed down and leaned out of the window to shout at a climber getting into his car. '' Can't you see you are blocking the road you f**king c**t? 

He had a point the road is busy with more traffic on it than normal, by leaving a car sticking out it reduced the road to one lane. It was embarrassing and left you feeling that its amazing that the land owner tolerates the climbing as he (or she) must be under pressure from the other locals to get it knocked on the head.

Some land owners are dicks some are not but generally when you piss someone off for long enough they tend to do something that you feel is extreme.

 

 

2
SteveSBlake - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to C coldwell-storry:

We are never likely to know the 'facts' to your satisfaction are we..... If some climbers you don't know were at the crag, indulged in dickish behaviour when you weren't there and had a confrontation with the 'the farmer/landowner/tenant/occupant' that precipitated the incident, then it seems unlikely that they would pipe up here and say 'Err, Yeah it was us.......'

While I don't doubt you and your mates are paragons of virtue, you mustn't get out much if you think everyone else is.  

 

 

 

 

 

rtinma on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

It may be vandalism if it involves destroying something of value to others. Like destroying a Graham Sutherland painting of Churchill!

Post edited at 20:42
1
Will Hunt - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Graeme Smithy:

> I was stood at the bottom of Kilnsey in the build up to the show last year. Some guy who was working at the show slowed down and leaned out of the window to shout at a climber getting into his car. '' Can't you see you are blocking the road you f**king c**t? 

 

Beautiful. Just beautiful. They don't mince their words in the Dales do they?

I was climbing in Troller's Gill one day when two stout, ruddy-faced Yorkshire women walked along below us.

"Eeeeee, I don't know why they do this rock climbing malarkey. I suppose they must get some sort of kick out of it."

"Aye, well. Nobody's going to come and scrape them up if they fall off."

This second comment was made with an absolute conviction that the climber would have got what was bloody well coming to them. And good riddance.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Goucho:

> If you're going to change things, you have to start from the reality of where things currently are, not some hypothetical, ideological premise based on a point in time which only exists in your head.

If you want to change things in opposition to a powerful interest group like landowners then you need to start with a vision of where you want to go and you need to be a little assertive.   If you start with where things are and assume that isn't going to change, then it won't.    The Kinder Tresspassers and Suffragettes didn't go with 'tresspass laws exist - fact' or 'women can't vote - fact', they started out with a vision and got the laws changed.

Other countries including Scotland have stronger access laws than England and the situation in England could easily be improved if the millions of people in cities who access the countryside for leisure activities flexed their political muscle.  

Post edited at 21:47
11
pasbury on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Brass Nipples:

I’d love to know what all these irresponsible climbers that are being lambasted on here actually did. I’m looking at google maps and see the crag as being a few yards south of the B6265 with cliffe house farm opposite and north of the road - is this the landowners/tenants/crag hammerers dwelling? Where is the disputed gate or lay-by?

webbo - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

I would have thought it’s pretty obvious by now what they did. They pissed the farmer off.

1
pasbury on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to webbo:

By doing what though, I know some folk who get pissed off if you park outside their house on a public road, others who won’t tolerate any loud children playing within earshot.

It’s so easy to piss off assholes without even meaning to. And an indicator of an asshole is someone who bashes up a crag with a sledgehammer.

Post edited at 22:46
13
Graeme Smithy - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

By parking badly over a long period of time causing a snowball effect. Who ever it is has got cheesed off with thinking/getting stressed about it so made the problem go away. They have achieved the result they wanted because they can. 

wbo - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury: as a starting list bad parking.  Lamping ? That would be extremely annoying. General lack of respect?  Any rudeness? 

 

pasbury on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to wbo:

All possibilities but not recorded events. Without knowing what happened it’s hard to know why the perpetrator was so provoked. 

4
Goucho on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to pasbury:

> It’s so easy to piss off assholes without even meaning to. And an indicator of an asshole is someone who bashes up a crag with a sledgehammer.

Or someone, who by their selfish behaviour, creates an access problem where previously there wasn't one?

elliott92 - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, you're an idiot. You're the sort of person to make the access issues worse in places. You think you have a god given right to be somewhere when you don't. I don't care about your ideology or vision, it won't help us with where we can climb right now 

1
elliott92 - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Tom, you're an idiot. You're the sort of person to make the access issues worse in places. You think you have a god given right to be somewhere when you don't. I don't care about your ideology or vision, it won't help us with where we can climb right now 

2
Goucho on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If you want to change things in opposition to a powerful interest group like landowners then you need to start with a vision of where you want to go and you need to be a little assertive.   If you start with where things are and assume that isn't going to change, then it won't.    The Kinder Tresspassers and Suffragettes didn't go with 'tresspass laws exist - fact' or 'women can't vote - fact', they started out with a vision and got the laws changed.

> Other countries including Scotland have stronger access laws than England and the situation in England could easily be improved if the millions of people in cities who access the countryside for leisure activities flexed their political muscle.  

When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.

2
Michael Gordon - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Wizzy:

Sad state of affairs. The farmer/landowner could have simply disallowed access without having to destroy the place.

4
Lemony - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

As this landowner has proven spectacularly, this isn't just an access question - in fact as I understand it, we still have access. We don't just want access, we want them to respect the rocks we want to climb. Because of that, antagonising the landowner is a spectacular own goal, you're bluffing against someone who holds all the aces.

Post edited at 10:18
Pawthos on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I tend to have a little more sympathy with people who work on the land than those who are lucky enough to use the land solely for their leisure. Farming is a hard, stressful job - particularly in this miserable winter we’re having, facing all that uncertainty around brexit, rising costs, living month to month... I couldn’t do it. 

The farmer in question is a tennant - they don’t own the land, they don’t fit with your idea of a rich, entitled land owner flexing their muscles.  

 

paul__in_sheffield - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Goucho:

> When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful & difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.

Another member of the UKC collective with a command of language, really nice work ;-)

Graeme Smithy - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to paul__in_sheffield:

+1

tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to elliott92:

> Tom, you're an idiot. You're the sort of person to make the access issues worse in places. You think you have a god given right to be somewhere when you don't. I don't care about your ideology or vision, it won't help us with where we can climb right now 

I'm not an idiot. I live in Scotland.  We have access laws which give rights which you don't have in England.

You are an idiot for thinking the landowners hold all the cards and not realising you could have the same rights as Scotland if you got your finger out and demanded them.   Access rights are not a license to be a total dick but they mean that landowners can't just unilaterally ban access and there is a bit of balance.    

In a relatively small country with 70 million people and relatively high costs for food production relative to imports using the countryside primarily for leisure is just common sense.  The city people farmers are trying to keep off their land are the ones paying over the global market price for food so they can stay in business.   

I'd also suggest looking at the pictures of that boulder on UKH and the mess it was left in before getting angry about whoever did it getting called a vandal.

Post edited at 11:13
20
Lemony - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

...and as the owner of Limekilns has shown in the past, scottish access laws don't stop landowners making climbing extremely inconvenient if climbers pee them off.

Ex Poster 666 - on 11 Feb 2018
Offwidth - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If you think most climbers and the likes of the BMC are not on the side of pushing back on access, I feel sorry for you. You don't acheive such broad political aims by pissing off a farmer/tenant on a small bouldering outcrop on private land, as vandalism and violence become a real possibility. You talk and compromise. The BMC reps identified a real problem (evidence) and advised on it (I noticed the advice despite never having been there) and the response of some here and on UKB is to deny the evidence and others to call the farmer/tenant a four letter word on public record (a public link that is easily found from the UKB thread but I'm not doing the work for those who want to gather evidence against climbers). Evidence of similar bad behaviour of a minority of climbers in Yorkshire is everywhere (most seriously parking at Kilnsey... a crag where everyone must be experienced enought to be aware of the issues ). I can't think I visit the same Yorkshire if others don't see what I see ... bad parking, sometimes dangerous parking, blocked and occasionaly open gates (where most likely no one but a climber would be), lamping on arguably Yorkshires best crag despite pleas from the BMC reps to desit, groups scrabbling round in dirty shoes on wet grit, overbrushing, overchalking...the vast majority of paired trad climbers and most boulderers (the problens I have with some in this group are in the lesser category of overbrushing and chalk) seem paragons of virtue but the minority let us down.

The BMC lobbied on CRoW and access to coasts (major gains, if not yet ideal), talked on endless local hot spots, lost access in a few cases (where dependant on the situation ...mainly the agression of policing ...climbers stealthily ignore the ban and politely leave on the rare occasions when challenged). The law is what it is even if we want it changed. Generating that change isn't as simple as it was in the Kinder Trespass now the worst behavior of landowners has already been constrained.

Post edited at 12:24
Offwidth - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Funny stuff but its important to show most climbers react to idiotic ideas that can make gaining and retaining access worse. Not all idiotic looking ideas are really idiotic, some are political (many would agree with stp) but this still won't help those in the current access front line.

Post edited at 12:42
dunnyg - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

where are you from again?

 

1
Graham Booth on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

You forgot along dry stone walls, because they didn’t want to get their trainers dirty.....climbing walls should take on more responsibility for education 

Michael Gordon - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Pawthos:

> particularly in this miserable winter we’re having

Strange comment. It's probably the best winter for years, unless you're injured of course!

tom_in_edinburgh - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Lemony:

> ...and as the owner of Limekilns has shown in the past, scottish access laws don't stop landowners making climbing extremely inconvenient if climbers pee them off.

If the BMC and a landowner can't reach an agreement the outcome is the landowner does whatever they like.   If the MCofS and a landowner can't reach an agreement and access is being restricted the outcome is the MCofS asks the local council to have the access laws enforced.   It's not a panacea and probably the laws should be strengthened further to speed the process of enforcement. 

Nevertheless legal access rights are a hell of a step forward.  It is also a good thing that the access laws include expectations about the behaviour of those exercising them.

1
Ex Poster 666 - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

You just don't get it, do you?!
It's not about the access ...
Anyone can still wander along that footpath.

1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to Lusk:

Access rights extend to climbing, not just walking along paths.

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/Practical-guide/public/climbing

1
FactorXXX - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What happens if people abuse those Access Rights by acting irresponsibly?
I understand that Loch Lomond has had restrictions imposed on camping due to irresponsible behaviour - Do you agree with those restrictions? Or, do you think access should be allowed regardless of any such behaviour?

Howard J - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

.> Other countries including Scotland have stronger access laws than England and the situation in England could easily be improved if the millions of people in cities who access the countryside for leisure activities flexed their political muscle.  

Even in Scotland the right is one of 'responsible access'.

 

EddInaBox on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Please explain to me how your Scottish access rights prevent the landowner from chiseling off all the holds, or covering a crag in manure, or coating it in anti-climb paint, or setting explosives and blowing the entire thing to smithereens?

1
mal_meech on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to EddInaBox:

Stops them putting up bat boxes when a history of access is established.... 

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2009/06/mysterious_boxes_at_limekilns_crag_fife_scotland-47880

This was negotiated at the time and remains a "sensitive" area where access needs to be sensible / responsible.

Wicamoi on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to EddInaBox:

Oh god, please don't let this turn into an England v Scotland thing. Tom's point is fairly simple, and makes perfect sense so long as you don't align it too directly with the present issue.

If you live in an us-and-them society where land-owners feel they can act with impunity and have the legal right to deny access, then it seems to me more likely that you will end up with regrettable incidents such as the Whitehouses affair than if you were to live in a culture with access rights which fosters mutual respect and responsibility between land owners and land users. Part of the "access culture" is down to the individuals that interact act each location, but part of it is defined by the national legislation.

Now, dear English readers, in this matter Scotland is more open and democratic than your country. This is not because Scotland is better than England, but because of all sorts of differences with regard to history, land-use and legislature. But you could certainly aim to achieve similar access rights (with concomitant responsibilities) to a much greater proportion of your own country. The frequently posed question: "how can it be right that a proud English citizen has more right of access in Scotland than in his/her own country?" bears repetition.

So I think Tom is right - you shouldn't get too used to doffing your caps and accepting that this is just the way things are. This does not mean that local defiance of inadequate national access laws is an intelligent way to proceed in many cases, and most likely attempts at conciliation will be more effective and satisfactory for both sides. However, in certain high profile cases - such as the mass trespass on Kinder - defiance clearly can be effective.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to EddInaBox:

> Please explain to me how your Scottish access rights prevent the landowner from chiseling off all the holds, or covering a crag in manure, or coating it in anti-climb paint, or setting explosives and blowing the entire thing to smithereens?

They don't.  But the access rights in conjunction with nature protection and planning laws and a general anti-large-landowner sentiment make it much harder to vandalise things without bringing down a sh*tstorm on your head.

For any large scale development there is a duty to consider leisure use and access rights.  You couldn't do anything as large scale as blow up a crag without going through a lot of legal hoops and not expect to get in trouble.  Maybe you could blow up a boulder.   

The nearest analogy would be Lord Elgin and Limekilns.  There's no love lost between Lord Elgin and climbers because they allegedly destroyed his 'ancestral ivy' and he tried to stop climbing by installing large bat boxes across the routes.  If bats had moved in then he'd have used that as a legal reason to ban climbing.   It wasn't pleasant but he backed down after the press/council/MSPs got involved.

I'm not claiming Scottish access rights are a panacea but they make for a much more even negotiation.

spidermonkey09 - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to Wicamoi:

God, thank you for doing what I simply didn't have the energy to. It was so obvious I simply couldn't be bothered. Spot on.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 12 Feb 2018
In reply to FactorXXX:

> I understand that Loch Lomond has had restrictions imposed on camping due to irresponsible behaviour - Do you agree with those restrictions? Or, do you think access should be allowed regardless of any such behaviour?

The Loch Lomond restrictions aren't a landowner acting unilaterally they are by-laws from the National Park and enforced by rangers/police.    I think that kind of due-process (i.e. landowners/residents complain to the council / national park authority which then makes an order which is enforced by the police) is a good model for access restrictions when they are needed.

More importantly landowners/residents should be able to get the council/police to enforce anti-social behaviour laws.   If the problem is people sh*tting all over the place or leaving litter after camping or illegal parking handing out fines should be the response, not access restrictions.

 


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.