In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
'sfunny video...though it wasn't clear to me who is who. "I didn't chop them 'cos the guy that put them in is my boss" (or similar) was great.
Agree about the points on how to have an effective debate, but to be fair to the chair, a room so crowded that people can't get round the door isn't the best venue.
The problem with the debate in general is that by the time it relates to a specific venue, it's too emotive. What's needed is a concensus on principles - and you don't get that by 50 folk turning out at a meeting. A BMC referendum?
Actually, before that, a concensus on what the questions would be good:
- who gets to set ethics locally? How much local / non-local / national influence?
- what level of input achieves concensus? A few top climbers living locally or >50% of all climbers using the area (from anywhere)? (My point here is that I don't think you can get good concensus - it's just not possible)
- how much say does the first ascenscionist get? why?
- bolts for pegs? bolts for bad bolts? bolts for belays? bolts to protect further worsening of rock? no bolts? bolts as the FA sees fit?
Without an agreed final arbiter, the debate is bottomless.
J