UKC

I've just been canoeing on the N. Saskatchewan with a man of some considerable experience and know how. Someone who has the patience and skill to teach a novice the ropes, to pass on his local knowledge and help me to learn about the Canadian Wilderness. He has no formal qualifications to do this.

I learnt a vast amount of my Scottish Winter Climbing skills from a similar man, Jim Hall, and he had no formal qualifications for guiding or teaching either, just his vast experience.

Both individuals are far better mentors, teachers, than at least two individuals I know of who have a piece of paper that allows them to take a group climbing.

I know that many guides etc. will say that it is a combination of both but the truth is that many of those with the least ability are drawn to the qualification process in order to gain creditability whilst most of those best placed to teach and mentor shy away from it.

I know that the industry makes a fair amount of money running SPA's etc but should there be some other criteria, rather than a tick list or routes and walks that encourages our better teachers to become involved and discourages those who use the qualifications as a badge?

In reply to Removed User:
...
How do we know that's the truth though? It seems obvious that there will be lots of people around who would make good teachers but are not qualified to do so. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those who are qualified aren't sufficiently capable.


I wonder whether working as an outdoor educator (for want of a better phrase) is not a large enough market, or sufficiently well paid, for there to be room for a lot of people earning a lot of money. Many older, more experienced people might just feel that they can't (or aren't prepared to) live on the income that they would get from that? Not sure if that's really the case, but there seems to be a commen view that it's not very well paid work. If that's true, it might attract those who are younger because they often have fewer dependents. They also might then be relatively less experienced.

What do you mean by 'use the qualifications as a badge'?

I think qualifications and benchmarking are useful in some form or other. For those of us who were lucky enough to be taught by experienced people that we already knew it's different - but for many that's not an option. Experience doesn't necessarily mean competence though, so sometimes you get taught practices that you later realise are less than ideal. When you have a little experience it's safer to learn from other, non-qualified, people because you have some knowledge of your own that you can use to figure out whether you feel safe with them. If you are a total beginner it's very hard to make those judgements as you have no way of knowing. I think in that case going to a qualified person to learn the basics is very useful and they don't necessarily need to be the most experienced person or the most fantastic mentor (although it would be nice if they were) - they just need to be competent for you to get what you need from them.

In reply to Removed User:

I think there's three types. There's the extremely experienced non-qualified, the extremely experienced qualified, and the not experienced qualified.

I'd be happy to climb with either of the former two types.

From meeting a couple of the latter at crags, occasionally when they have been giving arrogant, unsolicited and notably incorrect advice (**grins**), I am occasionally concerned that the courses teach **one** way to perform a procedure, and therefore that all other ways are wrong.

Unfortunately, climbing, with its infinite variety, often has many ways of doing somthing, any of which may be better in a given scenario.

The experienced folks - qualified or non-qualified - tend to know this, and have a range of solutions applicable and will choose the most appropriate. The inexperienced qualified may apply a solution which is appropriate most of the time but may be inappropriate or even dangerous in an environment which is non-standard.

In reply to John_Hat:

Can you give an example of this - particularly one where it would be dangerous?

In reply to Removed User: Some people are good at their job, some are bad. You could apply the same thinking to teachers at schools - I remember a large number of my teachers were obviously extremely intelligent, and had the piece of paper to say they were teachers, but were utterly useless at getting their point across. Thedifference here is you get to chooseyour Instructor.

You are right, experience is very much what its all about, and that is why the requirements get tougher as you go through the qualifications and why there are extensive periods of consolidation. In addition these requirements are a minimum. The trouble is, how do you make the qualification more represenattive of the individuals teaching skills? Its a very difficult thing to assess!

In reply to cathsullivan: Can you give an example of this - particularly one where it would be dangerous?



I forget the location but a number of teams were camping in a basin recommended by the guidebook ie the standard location. Mark Miller was guiding a team chose to set up camp on a ridge seeing a risk in this standard location.

During the night there was a catastrophic avalanche that swept over the tents in the basin.

In reply to John_Hat:

There's 4 types, you missed out the inexperienced unqualified. By far the most dangerous type.

The NGB's awards are aimed at people with 'experience'. Obviously people can and do get through doing the minimum amount (I blame fast track college courses for that), but generally most who get the awards, especially after initial SPA/ML (S) have quite a bit of experience.

Yes the qualification is a badge. It allows people with no experience of the hills to select someone to look after them in their chosen adventure with some degree of confidence. Like a Dr with a medical degree.

In reply to Removed User:

"should there be some other criteria, rather than a tick list or routes and walks that encourages our better teachers to become involved and discourages those who use the qualifications as a badge?"


Like what? I can't see how the ML criteria could be any looser, it's just get out in the hills, how can that possibly put people off?

In reply to Removed User:

The best use for pieces of paper is wiping your arse.... but given the low cost of bog-roll this doesn't interest the "climbing industry". The worship of paper gods is, alas, a sign of the times we live in, but no one is forced to fall for it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The agenda of the "climbing industry" and the BMC and all responsible guides and instructors is to deliver safe and competent instruction to clients.

The selection of your guide or instructor is based not only on a piece of paper that represents competence and technical skill, but importantly experience, and in the cases of a Mountaineering Instructor Certificate and above this experience is considerable.

The alternative would be a lottery.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: So you see no associated value between the years of climbing experience required to gain a qualification in the first place and the piece of paper you get at the end of it? OK Bruce... I don't think anybody is suggesting worship here. What you do in your own time is up to you.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Don't lump all paper qualifications together Bruce. Some SPA people will probably be rubbish due to having very limited experience, some will be keen.

When people do MIC they need a lot more experience, get on well with people or don't get clients and do have to have shown they know a lot more than most punters and do it safely. It may seem to be only a bit of paper to you but could you get it, you certainly could not get the guides one looking at the experience you need.

Look at the lucky escapes we all had when learning, a bit of really bad weather at the wrong time and our preparation would be found wanting.

Everyone messes up at times, I had a row with the leader of one of the Outward bound schools in the 60s who really should not have had the job, luckily now being ex services is not quite enough to get the job through the old boys network.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


The alternative would seem to be to do as so many generations of climbers and ramblers did until all the "qualifications" and "courses" malarkey started... Did Irvine, Mallory or Scott go on a course or have a diploma?

PS. Am I allowed to follow this line of argument or am I irresponsibly putting at risk the lives of the poor little mites who may read my dangerous ramblings?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: No, you are allowed to have what ever opinion you want. Learning the old skool way is just as acceptable. Everybody should take responabilty for their own safety and whom they entrust that safety to. Some self taught climbers are very safe. Some are very unsafe. Some can teach, some don't know the meaning of the word. By and large a qualification at the ligher levels, means that you will have climbed and been going to the mountains for years and have good experience which is worth passing on Furthermore you should know what is dangerous. That is a formal pre-requiste otherwise you would not pass the exam. A piece of paper is a way of letting people know that you have those qualities. How is a beginner meant to find somebody who really is expert at climbing if they don't know how to climb - they don't know what to look for. Added to this clubs are no longer a particularly large part of the climbing fraternity so how is the beginner meant to find the "free" expert?

In reply to Removed User:

I think you are guilty of not comparing apples with apples. SPA does not demand a great deal of experience. Compare your many years experienced mentors to BMGs, who will also be vastly experienced AND know what to do when the shit hits the fan.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Guiding has been around since Victorian times Bruce.

If we have guiding and instruction it is better if it is accountable.

It is a personal choice whether you employ the services of a guide or that part of your education as a climber involves instruction or a course.

In reply to Removed User:

From personal experience i would agree, having learned to climb in my uni club i've learned alot from a a few different people. However had i not joined the uni club i don't know any climbers and would have looked for someone 'qualified'. This is more a confidence and trust thing in my mind, when you start out how can you be sure the 'experienced' guy is that good or even that experienced?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And in actual fact most do exactly that, go out with more experienced mates and learn by experience. Finding someone in an area you don't know who has that experience is difficult, in that case it's advisable to go with someone who has some qualification (IMHO). I have been through both processes, I was a BCU senior Instructor (SEA) for many years, but when we started the club up we had no instructors, we just bumbled our way along, and we could have continued in the same vein.

I managed to get some sponsorship through the local youth service and got qualified. Some of the Instruction I got, stuck, some got modified in line with my own experience and some I made up and put back into the system.

I've seen all sorts of instructors from the 'I've got a piece of paper' to 'I don't need a piece of paper' and seen good and bad in both, the worst was an unqualified idiot who nearly lost a group of girls off L'ancresse common, ended up with his group spread along the side of a live firing range. At the other end of the spectrum a good friend of mine nearly lost a member of her river group due to lack of experience, despite having a BCU instructors qualification.

I'm not sure that Irvine, Mallory and Scott (heroes one and all IMO) are the best examples to use in your argument though.

Steve D

In reply to SteveD:


Possibly not

At least you noticed, but to be fair to them they were probably amongst the most competent of their day, and self taught.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: What exactly is it that you have against learning from somebody and paying for it? There are plenty of climbers out there who have been mostly self taught but also had help from others and are extremely competent.

In reply to cathsullivan:

OK, example. I led an unprotectable traverse. Clearly dangerous for the second. At the top I rigged the belay so I could move to belay from both above the first part of the route, above any part of the traverse, and above the final headwall, so ensuring the second's safety, as they would effectively be on a top-rope at all times. The ropes were organised accordingly - i.e from the start of the traverse one was not clipped into any gear.

Also clearly, I would be moving as belayer, so I elected not to sit down, but stand at the top, even though anchors were low.

I have got grief from an SPA kid for standing belaying as it was apparently inherently unsafe. It was, apparently, "never" appropriate to stand when the anchors were low.

I explained the issue with the traverse, and also that the anchors were cams, able to take a multi-directional pull, and that the second weighed about two ounces (my dearly beloved!) and hence the issue of weight coming onto me first rather than the anchors was less of an issue
than my dearly beloved taking a swing if she came off the traverse. For which I would be unpopular! **grins**.

I was told I was wrong, and that he was "SPA qualified" and knew what he was talking about. I pointed out that I had led E4 plus several thousand other routes and also, hopefully, knew what I was talking about. We parted with acrimony.

He also went "downstairs", so to speak, and had a go at Lady Blue for her tie in method. She was using a perfectly safe method, albeit a tad overkill for the occasion. Possibly the guy had a God complex.

JHx

In reply to Removed User:

I read an interesting essay once (Jim Perrin?) about motivation for different types of climbing which suggested many instructors take up teaching as a way of avoiding risk without losing face (or something along those lines).

The other side of the coin I suppose is that the necessary attributes for taking a group of young novices top-roping at a crag, keeping them safe and ensuring they enjoy the experience is actually quite far removed from the attributes needed to climb high E grades / winter climb etc. It makes far more sense to have a basic qualification (SPA) that can be gained by people with good interpersonal / group management skills to give them sufficient (albeit fairly dogmatic) climbing knowledge to do the job. A job which in many cases would probably frustrate an experienced climber beyond belief.

I agree with you, yes, there is a special breed of t1t who gets a kick from gaining and then showing off their certification but at the end of the day they're thankfully easily spotted and pretty transparent to anyone who actually does know what they're talking about.

Life's rich tapestry and all that.

In reply to quadmyre:

Ha!

Guides especially face greater risk with a client.

In reply to John_Hat:

Thanks. I can see what you mean, although it's always hard to judge without seeing it all first hand. In fact it reminds of a similar encounter I had with 'mountain safety' man when out walking once.

In reply to John_Hat:

Was this guy just some random stranger or was he known to you already? I wasn't there but he does appear to have acted like a tit. He may have been an SPA but you shouldnt let this experience colour your judgement of what the award is about.

I'm dead curious about your partner's "overkill" tie-on method now!

In reply to Removed User:

Paper Guides?

Kenton Cool
Chris Dale
Richard Cross
Brian Hall
Alan Kimber
Martin Moran
Roger Payne
Guy Willett
Andy Perkins

etc etc

British Mountain Guides has over 140 members who hold the award of the International Guides Carnet,which demands the highest standards of skill and professionalism in all aspects of mountaineering.

http://www.bmg.org.uk/

In reply to quadmyre:


However these individuals (mostly SPAs) do seem to be colouring people's appreciation of instructors in general, which is pretty annoying if you've invested the time and energy in gaining experience and higher qualifications that I have!

In reply to cathsullivan:
Was that the one about dogs on leads etc?

In reply to Jamie B.:

No, he was totally unknown to me - he was topping out on the next route at the time.

As to the overkill method, she was tying into the centre of a doubled half rope - I had led up using both ends. Hence it was fig-8-on-bight and a screwgate through the loop.

She had the screwgate clipped through both top and bottom of the harness (effectively duplicating the belay loop) whereas I'd probably have just clipped the belay loop. My way is a bit easier, but much of a muchness really. There's an argument about a three-way pull (it's not really three way once loaded) if you clip both top and bottom, and there's an argument about single point of failure if you just clip the loop. I know there's religious arguments both ways but to be honest in "normal" conditions with limited fall potential (seconding) they are both pretty safe IMHO.

In reply to Jamie B.:

I had another instance when I did my SPA training where the instructor was a "traditional" kind of fella and didn't like cams. His view was that cams were inherently unsafe and only nuts and hexes should be used for anchors.

We had a "full and frank" discussion on this, and I persisted in using cams as and when appropriate for anchors throughout the course. He spent about five times as long checking my placements than everyone else's and couldn't fault them.

In the last exercise he rigged the anchor, using amongst other things, a cam.... **grins**.

In reply to Removed User: Not being funny but what does a single pitch award have to do with mountaineering??? its exactly what it is (single pitch rock cragging) How can someone who is SPA trained be compared to a mountain guide? The latter is vastly more capable and earnt their 'badge of honour'

Any tom, Dick and harry can get an SPA because thats all it is single pitch!!! its not trying to trick anyone!!!

In reply to Dan Parker:

Exactly Dan. Bobt gives anecdotes about mountain experience and then lays into the Single Pitch Award.

Very odd.

In reply to shingsowa:

No - I've always managed to steer well clear of those dog lead arguments! It was a chap who was coming back down from Striding Edge on a sunny, dry day and stopping people on their way up saying it was far too windy and dangerous up there and that the only safe course of action was to turn back. He told us several times about his qualifications (can't remember what they were, be he spouted various acronyms) and uttered the now immortal (to me and my two friends) phrase - "I'm afraid it's Swirral Edge today, ladies". Even if I could recall what qualifications he had, I wouldn't necessarily assume that all people with that qualification are overbearing, patronising and pompous (if well meaning) but rather that some people who had that qualification (along with many who don't) are overbearing, patronising and pompous.

More generally, I think there will always be people who are rather overzealous and highly likely to interfere with others. In some ways I'd always rather somebody spoke up if they felt what I was doing was dangerous (although this has never happened to me when I've been climbing and maybe I'd soon get fed up with it if it happened a lot).

But, with regard to the OP, I think that I would only really worry about this if I felt that there were large numbers of people who had qualifications yet were not able to carry out the instruction that those qualifications relate to in a safe way. Even if somebody is a bit overbearing and dogmatic, if they can do what their piece of paper says they can do (even if they can do no more than that) then I guess that's situation as normal and nothing really to worry about.

In reply to Removed User:

Qualifications are useful, but gaining them doesn't make you God. And in my experience well-taught courses are eye-opening, encourage you to think for yourself and never preach the gospel of the one-and-only way.

If you work in some fields (eg education), you need qualifications to take people out. So, as a school teacher who wants to take people out, I'm pursuing qualifications. They're not a badge and I'm not looking for a badge, but so far I'd say I've learned as much for myself as for my work, and expect further courses and assessments to continue giving me a true mixture of personal and professional development.

In reply to cathsullivan:

Yes, and although I have given two examples of people with SPA's who were a little closed-minded, I wholly concur that this was a trait within the people themselves rather than the qualification.

I know plenty of people, SPA trained/qualified, myself included, who I would not consider closed-minded. My comment regarding the guy at the crag was in relation to the OP's comment about "no experience + qualification" which that particular individual appeared to demonstrate quite well.

Personally, I found the SPA course refreshing, and there were several excellent ideas and ways of doing things which I had not come across enhanced my climbing and I use to this day.

In reply to mike kann:

I'm just against the commercialisation of climbing... I think it's time to kick the merchants out of the temple... just look at what the Himalayas have become, the accident rate around Mont Blanc and read these "safety" obsessed forums (while accident rates continue to soar) to see why.

Unlike many I have no vested interest in making money out of the pastime.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Are you a communist? Do you disagree with a free market per se or is it just with regard to the mountains? If something is good it will sell. Mountains and climbing are good, as we know well. This can certainly be a damaging process, but to me it is more logical to manage it than to try to block it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: > Unlike many I have no vested interest in making money out of the pastime.

You say that as though there is something inherently wrong in making money out of a past time?

Of course accidents rates will soar if participation soars. The two go hand in hand.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

What are you doing on this forum then? Its run as a commercial enterprise. You quote what has happened on Everest - on that count I am fully with you. I don't think anybody can manage the risk adequately on climbs like this. As for Mont Blanc - yes there have been accidents involving guides, there have been many many more involving non guided groups. If you compare the statistics you will find that the number of safe ascents compared to the number of accidents is a very low ratio where guided parties are concerned. And you must also remember that guides are fallible just like anybody - climbing will never be safe even when with the most experienced climbers.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Sorry, I've not been involved in this. Time difference and all that.

Mick, you need to re-read what I said.

In reply to Removed User:

This bit Bob....


Bit like those that do, do, those that can't teach....

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Not sure how that has me 'laying into the SPA' but I think that statement is valid.

In reply to IainRUK:


I suppose to be honest I do think this about climbing... once money and commercialism get involved in a pastime as pure as climbing, everything is soiled. It's quite noticeable in my lifetime how things have changed for the worse... attitudes, rubbish, bolts and chains, rules and regulations, and continual blathering about gear, grades and glory.

In reply to Removed User:


Was referring to the above Bob. The SPA is for crag use, your initial example was about the canoeing man and Jim Hall and Scottish ice.

I agree with you; there are paperless experienced mentors out there.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And you blame that on SPA's/ML's and the like?

I think climbing is as pure as you want it to be. Easy to avoid it all if one has the gumption to put some effort in and not go to the honey pots.

In reply to IainRUK:

The problem is that it may become less easy to avoid it as 'the piece of paper' becomes more widely used. I bet you a pound to a pinch of sh*t that if you take two inexperienced mates climbing and one gets hurt the first question asked will be 'Were you qualified'?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Nothing new Bruce, has been since Victorian times.

In reply to Removed User:

Not by anyone that matters. If it were to go to court it is purely your actions around the incident that would matter - qualifications or no qualifications.

In reply to Removed User:

If it was relevant I think the questions asked are more 'Were you competent?' and HSE recognises 4 routes to competence:
Relevant National Qualifications
Equivalent Qualifications
Appropriate in-house training
Competence through experience

( http://www.mltuk.org/docs/documents/NationalGuidelines2008internet.pdf )

Al

In reply to Removed User:

Is it?

The best rock climber in Wales, is now a full-time instructor at our national centre.

Two of the best female climbers in Britain have qualified as Mountain Instructors in the last two years.

Probably the best all-round climber in Britain and other top-climbers are involved in discussions and working groups aiming to develop qualifications in the coaching of climbing.

In reply to Mark Stevenson: You forgot Twid "climbed an e7 every year for the last 20 years" Turner. Total rubbish he is

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I suppose it depends on the reason for getting a qualification.

There are people who are just ticket collectors, they do the courses then move on to something new, proclaiming loudly as to their "experience and ability" along the way.

Then there are those who see an opportunity to make what they love doing their job. The crux here, is that they are responsible for people with far less experience than themselves, so some form of benchamrk is required. If I was entrusting my kid to an outdoors centre I would like to think the leader had been sufficeintly trained and examined to look after them. It also helps if they are not a peadobile as well.

I have no climbing qualifications, I don't need them since I don't take inexperiecned groups out into the hills. I do however have the MCA Yachtmaster Offshore Commercial which was bloody tough to get. Again, the issue is that on a boat I am responsbile for the 8 or 9 people on board and I could easily kill them through inexperience. I appreciate there are plenty of people out there sailing safely without such qualifications. However, just as I would not like to the think my 747 is being piloted by an agreeable autodidact, i would like to think skippers or guides have had at least some extended training.

You'd be a nutcase in my book... if you bring children into the world you should take care of this sort of thing yourself. After every accident where some harassed teacher gets unlucky and the worst happens all the parents cry and lament but they never think about the fact that they are the ones who have subcontracted out what they should have done themselves.

This applies to dangerous activities like climbing, for other standard sports I'd trust teachers... but if I did I wouldn't look for someone to blame if things went wrong.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Rubbish. Many primary school kids around the peak loved their week away each year at Thornbridge hall. Walking, abseling, etc. Parents did loads with us, but I've had been mightily pissed off had they denied me a week away with friends just because they 'should take care of this sort of thing' themselves. It was just part of school.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Who said anything about teachers. Indeed, you contradict your own argument, The issue is not using some over whelmed, poorly experienced teacher, but an experienced outdoors professional to teach climbing / canoeing or whatever.

Or are you saying that every parent has to become an expert on whatever their kids wants to do?

In reply to Removed User:
Our qualification system isn't completely rubbish. I remember a mate of mine going up to do his winter ML training at Highland Guides with his pal. After the first few days they told his pal to clear off and not come back until he had experienced a minimum of 7 further winters in the Scottish hills!
Mind you that was about 30 years ago!

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Clearly there are those who do have the ability and who do get qualifications but how many SPA's qualifiacations were issued last year?

Does anyone actually have that number?

In reply to IainRUK: Likewise I've lead courses with underpriviledged and troubled kids who simply would not have had the opportunity to discover the mountains at an early age had it not been for the course. Should these parents who knew feck all about the mountains take them out? Would they have taken them out anyway? I doubt it. Everybody can gain something from being in the hills even if its only once - why should these people be left to fend for themselves?

In reply to Removed User: Don Whillans never had a bit of paper, I do, but I know who would be better to be with in the mountains when the chips are down. (and I'm not a bad choice actually)

In reply to Bruce Hooker: 'Dangerous activities like climbing'....
My staff have a far worse injury record playing football and rugby than climbing. Further, I'd rather trust my child to a teacher who is a climber with an SPA keen enough to have done the ticket and want to introduce my kids to it than a PE teacher who is a Netball specialist coaching something really dangerous like Football (lets put 22 teenagers on a huge pitch and have them fight for possession of a small leather ball that bounces all over the place with only 'kicking' allowed and then tell one person to try to control it - good luck, sounds like a recipe for disaster to me).
'teacher who gets unlucky'. Believe me, I work in a Climbing Wall, I'm as against any suggestion of a litigious society as the next person (perhaps more). But, there are incidents where teachers have proceeded with activities despite poor weather and the advice of others in a similar situation and have been found at fault- correctly imho. I'm 110% behind volunteers and teachers introducing novices to climbing (if Mr Legge is out there as a retired Geography teacher, cheers)and would go out of my way to make training and qualifications accessible to them.
A qualification wont make you gods gift or make your judgement perfect. it wont stop a prat being a prat or make some officious numpty less so. It does give other people a way of measuring what experience you have and indicates a minimum standard of competence. It also means that you have been through a training, consolidation and assessment process that will (I use the absolute rather than 'may' purposefully) have helped progress your judgement.
Al

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I suppose alpine huts aren't in the least bit commercial.

In reply to AlH:


Says it all really

"really dangerous like football" !!! Stop the world, I want to get off.

Not joking, I feel more and more like a relic from a past age ever time I log on to ukc.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

They don't make money, if that's what you mean.. they are run by climbing clubs mostly and survive by subsidies... however they do soil the mountains, less now than before but they are in quite big mountains generally. I meant "soil" in the spiritual sense more than the literal.

But I don't think they spoil things in the same way as they are as necessary as hotels really. Without them access to the high mountains would become an even more restricted affair than even I would wish. A lot of families just go up to a hut, spend the night there and come down again... obviously without a guide. I can't see anything wrong with this... I'm not a "wilderness" fanatic.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

If they charge then they are commercial whether they make money or not. They would not exist without a commercial trade off.

Even those that are subsidised by clubs are commercial ie you pay your club fees and you get to use the huts, either for 'free' or at low cost.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I WAS joking (or tongue firmly in cheek at least)
Bruce you obviously care passionately about climbing so it shouldnt surprise you that some of us who make a living from it do so to. I love introducing people to climbing in all forms, I love being able to do it for a job, but you know what I really love? Its when they go off and do it for themselves and never need me again.
There's bits about the modern world that drive me barking too but my climbing and the job I do helping other people to discover it, despite modern cultural influences, is an island of sanity. Dont hop off yet - you know there are still good things for the ride to offer you yet
Al

In reply to AlH:

Clearly and concisely put, Al. The whole thing (as I see it too) in a nutshell!

In reply to AlH:

Ok, but, alas, many people do consider football like this and a lot of schools don't do it for this sort of reason. I'm not as hostile as I sound to people who instruct, I just think that things are going too far... and the driving force, like throughout society, is excessive commercialism. This thread shows very well that the resulting "corporatist" pressure (ie. the quite natural pressure of all those economically involved in an activity) is becoming too strong.. that the nature of the activity could be menaced by it.

I feel the same about spectator sports in general, which tend to be commercial... ie. for Graeme, set up with the purpose of commercial profit.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: I reckon we've got more common ground than you might think. You should hear my arguments with my boss about the 'commercial' aspects of our climbing business. There are plenty of us out there who care about our passtime and its roots. Maybe I'm kidding myself and its the thin end of the wedge and we'll all disappear under a wealth of marketing, junk e-mails ofering me climbing insurance or climbing dates and other commercial hype. Maybe I'll have to pay my toll on Tower Ridge or on the Buachaille. But not yet and we (and I include the BMC, MCofS most UKC users and most instructors I know) will go down fighting first
Al

In reply to AlH:


Not sure if this doesn't strengthen the case against. Quite often it doesn't give other people the chance to assess the ability of the 'instructor', it removes the desire to find out more. The assumption being that the qualification confers competence. So the average 'punter' who just wants an outdoor experience doesn't have anything else to judge by and doesn't know when his instructor is a 'prat' or 'an officious numpty' until it is too late and the experience ruined.

I'm not actually argueing against qualifications, just that we should try to avoid them becoming a false standard by which competence is judged, that we should try to ensure that the better 'mentors' are free to pass on their experience without the need for a qualification (perhaps 'Grandfather rights' might work?) and that those who patently have no business instructing (either from lack of technical ability or lack of personality)should be rigourously excluded from the process.

In reply to Removed User:


But you could say the same about driving licences...


So how are you going to apply this to those with experience but no qualifications?

While I agree with you in many ways (and can see why you regard Al's comments as a double-edged sword), my experience so far of training and assessment has been eye-opening (I've learned things I didn't expect to learn) and I'm looking for more *for me* as well as for my (work-related) need for 'tickets'.

In reply to AlH:
A qualification wont make you gods gift or make your judgement perfect. it wont stop a prat being a prat or make some officious numpty less so. It does give other people a way of measuring what experience you have and indicates a minimum standard of competence.

Actually thats just what it doesn't do.

In reply to Al Evans:

Hard-earned knowledge, experience and prudence is valued the most. Book knowledge is suspect, practical knowledge is respected.

That's the common mantra.

In reality we want a mix.

In reply to Removed User:

It's not just in outdoor activities where experience seems to count for little.

RANT

Our company, who have been in a specialised 'niche' sector of steel fabrication for over 40 years, has been asked to submit design calculations to support an item we have recently manufactured.

Upon submitting our calculations, we were also asked to submit CV's of our 'competent persons' to demonstrate that we know what we're doing.

It came as somewhat of a surprise when we received feedback that we were not deemed to be suitably qualified to submit such calculations - even though our combined experience in the field was over 90 years (3 people). The 3 people who's CV's were submitted had relevant engineering HNC (Structural, Mechanical & Civil) qualifications, gained in the 60', 70's and early 80's .

We've since found out that the people who were questioning our abilities are recently qualified graduates, with little practical experience, particularly of design in our specialised field. They basically could not understand our calculations.

They requested that we have our calculations checked by an independent firm of chartered engineers -- who are going to charge us over £1000 for the privilege. We even had to lead the consultants 'by the hand' to show them where forces acted, and how the product was to be used, and what were the industry 'standards' that should be appplied.

We solved the impasse by showing them photographs of a larger and more complex job than theirs, that we succesfully completed last year. The results are there for all to see - in concrete!

Some young 'engineers' were left with rather a lot of egg on their faces.

RANT OVER

In reply to Removed User:
I can see your point and that is why people (e.g. MLT Boards new DVD) are trying to increae the understanding of what our awards do and dont mean. The awards are historically rooted in safety. They do contain some input on leadership and coaching. They dont assess the personality of the candidate. Interestingly I see there are more 'benchmarks' appearing all the time which go some way to attempting to address this type of issue (google APIOL, lotcqualitybadge and AAIAC Adventuremark) - like I suspect you I'm unsure about their usefulness and effectiveness but I'll look on with an open mind (not suggesting you wouldnt). Also someone looking to use a 'qualified' person isnt necassarily that naive are they? Many will go on personal recommendations and reputation too (we see requests for these on UKC all the time). And if they are unable/unwilling to look beyond the ticket will they be able to interpret the difference between the experience level of an unqualified uber-coach and someone much less experienced/effective but who can make it sound good? I think there is a Darwinism at work too, the poor instructors cant make a living at it and leave the market.


I agree. See my post above about ways of recognising competence. They are only a 'false' standard if people assume they are assessing something they arent.

"(perhaps 'Grandfather rights' might work?) and that those who patently have no business instructing (either from lack of technical ability or lack of personality)should be rigourously excluded from the process."

The assessments are imho rigourous in terms of assessing tchnical ability as far as each award goes. Assessing personality would need a whole new assessment scheme and more 'badges' and paperwork..........

Al

In reply to Removed User:

This is a general reply to the thread rather than anyone in partcular

I do hold a number of outdoor instructor qualifications in several activities and make a reasonable living from them. Therefore it is a safe bet to assume that in general I am fully in support of these qualifications BUT I often have unqualified yet very experienced people helping me and in the same way I am more than happy with this situation.
Within the D of E scheme that I am involved with I work with a chap who has extensive hill/mountain experience but no qualifications and I trust him implicitly when he is out on the hill with the groups.

I agree that there are a number of qualified people out there who aren't particularly motivated to help people and do it for the money but having been through the scheme and worked on a few training and assessment courses I beleve the syllabus provids adequate and efective training and assessment. It does not (and should not) deal with peoples character.

In every walk of life there are good and bad people, after a while, survival of the fittest will work and the people who are good at their job will get more work than those who aren't.

I have worked very hard to gain the qualifications I hold at a lot of personal expense and time. It does annoy me however that just because someone who is qualified made a prat of themselves then suddenly people think that all qualified instructors are idiots and can't coach.

In reply to AlH:


Quite possibly, perhaps setting up some sort of lobby group or association of like-minded people with the specific aim of reflecting on this sort of question, establishing common points of view and then actively pushing them would be worth thinking of? I imagine some would say this is what the BMC does though.

In reply to Al Evans: I understand your point. But it does provide an indication of the least experience the person has. If that person has held the qualification for some time of course they have more and my comments to Bob about personal recommendations and reputation are relevant. The qualifications are a good starting point so that people understand one of the processes someone offering advice and instructio has been through. They are not exhaustive. Thats why when you look at websites you will see an 'About Me' section to provide more info. about experience or a 'Favourite Climbs' to tell potential clients more about an Instructor's climbing background.
Al

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

True Mick, but unfortunately EA's just want qualifications, I guess they have no alternative, and Don Whillans would probably have been a crap instructor.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Which is what most MICs/Guides, by the time they have been through the process, have?

In reply to AlH: Accepted points.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Perhaps. Many of the people working for organisations like AMI, BMG share these sorts of opinions already. I know the MCofS has always been against restriction to participation in walking and climbing. I've never been a good committee person but maybe I should make more of an effort (and find an 8th day of the week).
Bugger now I'm late for work.

Al

In reply to AlH:

Exactly. But is almost trendy antiestablishmentism to criticise those with 'bits of paper', in many walks of life.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm still not clear on what issue this would be attempting to address though, or what problem there actually is (and, more importantly, where the evidence is that there is a problem to be fixed)? Is there lots of evidence available to demonstrate that there is a significant level of dangerous incompetence amongst those people who have current qualifications? Or perhaps, more pertinently, that there is significantly more dangerous incompetence amongst the qualified than amongst the unqualified? Are there really no systems in place whereby dangerously incompetent instructors or guides can be helped, retrained, 'struck off' or whatever?

As to assessing the personality of an instructor or a guide this seems a nonsense to me as it is entirely subjective. What I consider to be a 'good' personality or character might be a total nightmare from somebody else's point of view. And, as has already been pointed out, if you tried to assess it formally and fairly it just means more 'tickets' and more regulation. How ironic that would be.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

So Al Evans and I are "trendy"! [must be some mistake ED?]

In reply to cathsullivan:

No, it was part of a slightly off issue wider consideration of the way the world was going and climbing in particular between myself and AIH... not just about qualifications. AIH posted about "fighting to the death" to defend certain values just above in reply to my expressed desire to "get off the world" after his remarks (joking) about the "danger of football". I was suggesting a sort of ethical lobby to preserve a certain ideal of climbing, not ratify paper qualifications.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Fair enough - so you're saying that the issue that needs addressing is that there is a change in the ethos and culture of climbing and you would like to challenge that and preserve an ideal that you think is more worthy? If so, how does this relate to the issue of qualifications? Sorry if that sounds a bit interrogative but I'm just trying to get my head around the various arguments here.

In reply to cathsullivan:

Loving this thread.

There really isn't a problem, but we can create one!

In reply to cathsullivan:

I expressed opinions about both issues... threads do wander a bit, we are down the pub after all

In reply to Bruce Hooker: At what stage does a thread leave the pub and go home to put the world to rights over a bottle of malt that you can no longer appreciate because you have had to much to drink?

Al

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

That's kind of what I was thinking really.

In reply to Removed User:

I'm a bit confused by the title of your thread, because gaining the "bits of paper" IS experience, not somehow opposed to it.

The SPA gets a lot of stick, but there's a lot of experienced climbers out there who add a valuable layer of knowledge and skills by doing this qualification. OK, maybe the climbing grade required could be a little higher, the entry age a little older, and the number of practice teaching days increased; but this is minor tweaking, and the bottom line is that we need the SPA, or something like it, to have an objective standard.

The idea of an SPA holder who is the minimum age, and also has the minimum amount of experience in all departments worries me a bit. On the other hand simply having spent years in the mountains doesn't mean you've been doing things in the best or safest way, and it certainly doesn't automatically make you a good teacher.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


And me, never been close to trendy (just ask my missus)

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I guess the 'problem' isn't the number of qualified people who might not be ideally suited to the task (and no one has yet been able to tell me how many are issued each year and in which category - anyone from the BMC who might collate this?), it's the possible exclusion of those who are ideally suited but don't have the qualifications.

I can think of specific examples where I know experienced people who have refused to become involved due to the fear of litigation. Before everyone shouts, I know the reality of litigation is not as high as is perceived but the 'fear' of it has still got in the way.

In reply to Removed User: Exclusion? There is no law inthe UK against unqualified persons wanting to teach mountains skills at all. Anybody can do it - how is that exclusive?

In reply to Removed User: I dont want to be instructed by anyone anyway who fears litigation especially if its an irrational fear. So Im glad your "experienced" freinds with their fear of litigation arent going to instruct me.

Id like my instructor to have the balls to know that in the case of an accident he knows he did everything right and has no fear of any possible litigation because he's confident in his abilities - not like your "experienced" friends.

In reply to Fawksey:

Is something wrong?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: No why Bruce? Hope you are well by the way.

These threads written by folk who dont like people with qualifications need stomping on forcefully. People who put the time and effort in to gain experience aswell as the ticket deserve to be credited and those who dont or cant shouldnt be jealous of them and snipe from the sidelines.

There was nothing wrong or incorrect in my previous post to which you responded "Is something wrong"

In reply to mike kann:

I'm not sure if there is a 'law' but I'm sure there is a 'liability'. if there is no law and no liability then I'll happily eat humble pie and ask for forgiveness.

In reply to Fawksey:

I take it you've got one then? I'm betting the vast majority of those 'defenders of the qualification' have aswell.

Only I know, from experience, the number of total f**kin wa*kers who've got climbing qualifications and actually, if you bothered to read the thread, the 'swipe' isn't at those who have got the qualifications but at the possibility that we might be missing out on some very good mentoring by those who don't.

In reply to Removed User:

Driving licence/car insurance springs to mind, doesn't make someone a good driver, would you choose to travel with an uninsured good driver???

In reply to Jason123:

Pretty poor analogy really. Do you only ever climb with insured people?

In reply to Removed User:

As I understand things, the BMC promotes relevant courses leading to certain qualifications that in turn allow individuals to be insured to instruct in certain activitys. without said courses/quals, the person is deemed inexperienced and thus uninsured. This is in the mind of insurance companys who just want to cover their backs.

I try to only climb with injured people so I look better.

In reply to Removed User:

<I guess the 'problem' isn't the number of qualified people who might not be ideally suited to the task (and no one has yet been able to tell me how many are issued each year and in which category - anyone from the BMC who might collate this?), it's the possible exclusion of those who are ideally suited but don't have the qualifications.

I can think of specific examples where I know experienced people who have refused to become involved due to the fear of litigation. Before everyone shouts, I know the reality of litigation is not as high as is perceived but the 'fear' of it has still got in the way.>

I'm not sure that I'm following this but what is actually stopping these people that are ideally suited to teaching and actually want to teach from getting the qualifications needed? I think it is the MLTUK who are responsible for courses and not the BMC. I'm sure that if you rang the office they could give you all the information you needed.

I wouldn't have thought it was the piece of paper you had collected or the grade you climbed that ultimately determined how good an instructor you were.

In reply to Lee Cameron:

I think you are the first person to ask this and a bloody good question it is too.

I guess it is a number of things, an aversion to training programmes, a dislike of the whole system, possibly even pride (I've been doing this for x years, why should I have to have a piece of paper?). It might be a time issue, a cost issue (lets face it, most people who take the qualifiacations (at least the initial ones)don't do it for commercial gain), possibly even a literacy or confidence issue. They might actually feel that they don't want to become part of the commercialisation of their passtime. In truth, I don't think there is one answer.

In reply to Removed User:

If you look at the profiles then most of those who are "pro-paper" have a vested interest... Really they should declare this in their posts I think, like MPs

Am I the only one who finds the idea of hiring a mountain guide in Britain strange?

In reply to Removed User:

>I learnt a vast amount of my Scottish Winter Climbing skills from a similar man, Jim Hall.

Hello Bob.
Some things I have learnt from Jim-
-all routes (summer or winter) must have close proximity to a real ale pub.
-his rucksacks are fecking huge, even for a trip into the wilds of Kyloe crag.
-he still moves like a whippet even with that gargantuan load. Makes me sick.

The other things I have learnt from him are unprintable on a family forum.

Davie

In reply to Wee Davie:

That made me smile.

Tell the old git to contact me on this email as I've lost his contact details.

Bob

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Nope, there are at least two of us.

In reply to Removed User:

Hello Bob :+) make that three.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


If I had the money and the time, I would. I'd get a lot more winter climbing done.

In reply to Removed User:

"far better mentors, teachers, than at least two individuals I know of who have a piece of paper that allows them to take a group climbing."

You have a personal agenda. Never a good place to start.

In reply to GrahamD:


The point is "you" would not be "doing" the climb, the guide would... and taking you with him

Screwing a prostitute is not making love, if I may use a somewhat excessive comparison (PS. I am not saying guides are whores... it's just to illustrate my point!)

In reply to Removed User: just to put a hole in yours and Bruces theory I have no climbing, walking or caving qualifications.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>The point is "you" would not be "doing" the climb, the guide would... and taking you with him

Another rubbish comment. Some people hire guides for days and weeks when they want to climb but have no mates free at the same time. They also share the lead sometimes when they are known to the guide, it may be they wish to lead a route all their regular partners have done and none of them will hold their ropes while they climb it.

In winter, the local guide will know somewhere there are conditions suitable to climb, saves you sitting in the pub looking at the snow sliding away in front of you but if you had only known of that route that is still in condition you could have done it.

In reply to Removed User: Errrr Bob, I have the qualifications, yet I support your point and always have. Fawksey has a problem with this in that its his job, other people do too, I got my qualifications because Stockport EA made it manatory for all people who were taking their kids out on the mountains, even as a volunteer.
They were not qualified to evaluate my experience or even if they did judge how safe I was taking their kids out, so I got the quals, but I still think my experience makes me far more qualified to look after the kids than the qualifications ever have.

In reply to Al Evans: Sorry Fawksey, I hadnt read your post, I just assumed there would be some proffesional quals required in your job, sorry for making an assumption I had no right to do

In reply to Al Evans: i dont see the problem. If youve got experience and wish to pass it on then go ahead. Without that attitude I wouldnt have got started. Dont see the need to criticise those who have qualifications. My tickets with MR and or commercial tickets do not qualify me to guide anyone.

In reply to Al Evans: i have proffesional qualifications non of which are relevant to climbing unless while you fall down a fecking big hole! And even better if its full of methane and poo x. No rabies yet?

In reply to Fawksey: My doc assures me I will be Ok, no indigenous rabies in the area and he is sure my last vacc is still relevant Bat is Ok

In reply to Al Evans:
, but I still think my experience makes me far more qualified to look after >the kids than the qualifications ever have.

For any MLTUK qualification it's your LOGBOOK that is the qualification - not just the pass page. The logbook details the person's experience, and from that an employer can judge whether a person is suitable to lead/instruct whatever.
All a qualification does is say you've attained a minimum standard and you have been assessed by very experienced (and qualified!) assessors.

There is no way you can achieve a higher level MLTUK qualifiation without having a vast ammount experience - the miniumums set out for the awards are just that, mimimumss.

For some awards like the SPA it may seem very little; and for awards such as the MIA it also may seem quite small - but - speaking from expereince here - to get the miniumums for my MIA and just to register for my MIC meant 100s of days on the hill climbing, walking, mountaineering, working with groups - yes, on paper you only need a miniumum, but to make that miniumum set high-quality, it meant many days ont he hill.
For example, you need 50 VS4c mountain/sea cliff routes to get your MIA - that's maybe 30 days climbing more or less - plus all the other days when you head out and the route you want isn't in nick, so you head off to do an easier route, or you back off, or whatever - so it all adds up.

In reply to sutty:

Yes, some (but not all) guides do this but when it comes to the crunch they take the vital decisions (they have no choice as their legal obligation is to make sure that no harm comes to their client) not the client, and taking the right decisions is the main difference between survival and the opposite.

In the Alps I've seen enough people being hauled up routes physically to have any illusions about who has the merits in much guided climbing.. of course there may be exceptions, but the limit that the guide is responsible always stays - a guide was recently condemned by a French court. He left his clients to rescue someone else in trouble and they tried to get down without him - against his instructions - and had an accident. The guide was condemned.

In reply to Al Evans: Just a point to think about - how would you assess someone who says they are 'very experienced'?

Would you look at the list of routes they claimed to have done? [There will always be individuals who claim to have done certain things (climbing doesn't appear any different from any other aspect of human endeavour where a few people who claim to have done certain things but haven't)]

Would you take them on the hill for a walk? What if the weather is good? Would that allow you to make a judgement?

Apart from knowing someone for a certain period of time and doing routes with them, and having the necessary experience to judge oneself, it seems very difficult to assess people as competent. What *exactly* would it take to form an accurate judgement?

As pointed out above, you don't need a qualification to instruct, guide, lead or supervise in the UK... just insurance.

In reply to Dee:
>
I wouldn't, which is a point I made above, EA's are not capable of judging so they need qualifications, but my point still remains, quals are no substitute for experience.

In reply to Al Evans: Thats right Al and you dont get the qualification without the experience.

No person with a qualification is making out that they are something they are not. Though its possible that some people without experience can suggest that they have it, how would the novice know? Theya re unaware as to how little thwe so called "experienced" persons knows.

My IRATA level 1 is not 25 years experience with the CRO and nobody is suggesting or should think it is.

You must have a split personality to keep your qualifications and your experience seperate, if you took me climbing how would I know which you are using? Are you taking me climbing as a qualified instructor, freind or experienced aquaintance? Its all experience one just has a note from someone else with experience saying your competent to the level youve been tested to.

People without the ability, time and effort to attain a ticket shouldnt snipe at those who have and shouldnt blame them or the system for exclusion from passing on their experience.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Yes there are different attitudes to how one leads a client. Many foreign guides are exactly that - guides. However, particularly UK guides are also there to facilitate clients getting out in the mountains. It is absolutely not there legal responability to ensure that their client comes to no harm - it IS a requirement to ensure that they are not negligent towards their client. The client accepts responsabilty for their own actions. So for example if a client wants to lead, and the guide feels that this would not be negligent in his part, there is absolutely no problem with this. If something happens, the client would have to prove that the guide acted with negligence. If the guide has done his job properly and assessed the strengths of his client correctly he will come through the litigation with no problems. When that client is on lead, he is making his own decisions - if he does something daft that is his responsabilty, not the guides.


As he should have been - he acted with negligence! He should have been able to ensure his clients safety by making sure that they did not move, and if hecouldn't do that then he shouldn't have been helping anybody...

In reply to mike kann:


How could he have done that, nailed their feet down before he went to rescue the others? The judgement seemed severe to me, although the newspaper report could have missed something out. It still illustrates the legal situation of a guide, and why climbing guided is not the same as doing the climb yourself with a partner... much more satisfying to my mind.

It doesn't sound to me as if the British law is really that difference as negligence is open to the interpretation of the courts. If a guide allowed his client to lead a dangerous pitch and he fell and died then even in Britain it would seem possible that a court could judge that he had been negligent in his judgement of the client's ability... but as there is little guiding on extreme mountaineering routes in the UK perhaps this sort of case hasn't come up yet? Apparently signing a disclaimer doesn't let the guide off, it's the commercial client/guide relationship that counts.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

He didn't have to help the others if it endangered his own party. I know in France there is the good samaritains law and I'm notsure how that all works, but in the UK its different. If he did not manage his group sufficiently well (i.e. let them wander off when they did not have the appropriate skills) then that is negligent.


Of course it is! But thats not necessarily the point. If you're with a guide to learn, that is one of the primary aims of the climb... not to be self sufficent but to set yourself on the road to being independant.


There have been a variety of cases concerning this and as far as I am aware the vast majority have gone in the guides favour. I am not particularly familiar with them though so could not give details. As for little guiding on extreme routes, I would not have thought this to be very different on the continent - yes there routes are longer, but there are guides taking clients up all sorts of difficult climbs, winter and summer. Don't forget that BMG's also operate all over the world, not just in the UK...

In reply to Removed User:

Sorry - I missed this. Yes of course the unqualified would also have to accept liability. The result of this is that insurance companies will insure you but it will cost a lot of money. If you have tickets then you will be able to obtain insurance to cover you for the remit of your qualification easily enough, but beyond this it again becomes difficult. Their view is that qualifications are a good indicator as to the level you are cabable of operating at safely and that as a consequence there is less risk of an accident occuring. This makes qualifications a good financial move in this sense. It also means in case of litagtion that you can demonstrate that you were operating according to best practice (unless you weren't!) and that you knew what you were doing. Of course experience will also be taken into account - a very experienced climber or guide will fare worse than a new climber or guide as they may be deemed to have been acting in the best interests of their client and to the best of their ability...

In reply to Removed User:

I'm not sure if there is much point in carrying on this thread. There are two points of view and I doubt the arguments here will change that. As a result, I'll stay out of this (until I'm bated back in) but just a note for Fawksey.

I absolutely reserve the right to snipe at a system that I perceive as a threat to the passtime I enjoy. I think the emphasis on qualifications will eventually impact on our freedom to enjoy the hills and crags. This might be paranoia but it is what I think. The proposal to restrict access to Mt.Blanc (for whatever hidden agenda this has)is an example of what might come.

I might not have the ability to pass a course (though I think I do), I definately have the time and money to take a qualification. Right now I choose not to.

In reply to Removed User:


I'm told that it already does in the USA. In some (or all?) national parks the rangers check out your gear and experience before letting you do some climbs (I was told this by a well know British climber who spent a lot of time over there). On some French crags there has been talk of limiting access to members of the club that "equip" ie. drill holes all over, the crag. As far as I know this has not actually been put into practice but those in favour use the arguments of insurance, safety and so on. At climbing walls, apparently, there are some where you cannot just turn up and climb (never having been in such dens of iniquity I am basing this on what people have told me). In the USSR there was a system of control on access to the harder mountains too... again to save people from themselves... and causing danger to those who would be sent to rescue them...

All "good" reasons, as is the ever increasing accident rates in the Alps (funnily despite the ever increasing number of courses and qualifications... funny that!) - already to use boat in France you must pass a driving test like for a car - the same could well come about in climbing if we are not extremely vigilant. For the moment the CAF, the mayor of Chamonix (and most Alpine communes) and all the associations I have heard of are against, but one feels on these forums that bureaucracy is on the march in our domain... the combination of vested interest, the nanny state, blame culture etc can build up extremely quickly.

What is worrying is that the attitude of the younger climbers seems to be rather more neutral (or worse) on this issue than that of older ones... so as natural (or unnatural) causes thin out the ranks of the latter those who would challenge the freedom of the hills may become stronger automatically.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I hope the concerns expressed in your last post (and Bob's) turn out to be unfounded and I would object as strenuously as you to those kinds of trends.

I think that one thing that divides opinion in this whole area of debate, however, is whether qualifications for training and guiding will necessarily increase the trend towards restricted access. I can see why you link the two - given that they are both related to issues of litigation, competence and insurance. But, I think it would be a shame to throw away a system for assessing competence (particularly one that helps those who don't have enough experience themselves to judge the competence of a prospective guide, mentor or trainer) simply because we want to resist any trend towards limiting access to those with qualifications. I would hope that one does not necessarily have to follow on from the other, and logically it doesn't, although I can see why you are concerned that in practice it might (or is already maybe).

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think this is a rather unfair statement Bruce. Yes there is a culture at the moment which reveres Bouldering and sportclimbing, - convienience climbing, but personally I would say that there is an equally strong if not stronger anticulture - certainly in the UK. I for one am against the proliferation of bolts and I know many others are two. And freedom of the hills I would say is an enormously important issue - in the UK there have been advances in the last few years with the CROW act. And furthermore there are campaigns being driven by the younger generation to solve other access problems such as Vixen Tor. I think that you are perhaps looking back with rose tinted glasses at what you did in past years and somewhat biasedly comparing it with what is going on now. Maybe I'm wrong, only time will tell. Perhaps the feeling you get from the younger generation in France is like what you say you feel, the French have never had the ethics police, but I can assure you there are enough here in Britain to make sure that what you are worried about cannot and will not occur.

Legislation? That is more often than not created by non-climbers lashing out in anger against those who they percive is to blame. I will continue teaching both on a formal and casual (which is actually the vast majority of my teaching!) basis despite this because I can't imagine a world where people will not need help occasionally. I am however aware of what could happen, and as a result I try to be as vigilent as I can, which is no bad thing. This does not inhibit me from helping people to take their own risks and to understand the dangers that are present, and how likely they are to occur. However this is not really what I am interested in teaching, just a minor part of it! Commercialisation of a passtime? Yes it perhaps takes away from some of the adventure - however there are different levels at which you can experience and tolerate adventure! Those that are naturally adventurous will continue to learn by themselves and learn from their mistakes. Those who are intimidated by the sport need help, and with clubs becoming less and less important in todays climbing society, the job of professionals becomes more important. And its important that these professionals are aware of whats at stake and uphold the traditions of the UK scene aand pass this down! You will note that in the UK there is no Sport climbing qualification, only those for trad climbing and Mountaineering - this is for a reason...

In reply to cathsullivan:

It's quite simple for me, I am for learning climbing, hiking etc in the traditional amateur way... going out in the hills with a few friends or in a club and working things out for yourself... probably with the help of a book or two. I can see no need for courses, training bodies, organised parties and even less for guided climbing, hence no need for testing and paper qualifications. Just my opinion.

As I've said already (Bob is right that the thread has said most already) I feel that all these are aspects of commercialisation, bureaucracy, outside meddling which is the opposite of what I think climbing, or mountain use in general, are all about. I could say live and let live except I feel the "other side" are becoming a threat to more easy going ways of going to the hills, whereas I don't see how it is reciprocal. The hills and the sea are the last areas of freedom and sanity in a world that is becoming more and more restricted.

I daresay most people agree with this general sentiment, but the disagreement is whether "paper" ie. official organisation of a zone of activity, is a danger or the opposite.

In reply to Fawksey:

Where have I ever said I would? In fact I have just this week sent my ML off to the MLTB for renewal because my first aid certificate had run out. As usual people put words into my mouth on here, read the posts and don't take things out of context.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
...

Yes, that's what I meant in my last post.

In reply to mike kann:

Terribly sad and fostered by the 'indoor climbing wall revolution'

freedom of the hills I would say is an enormously important issue - in the UK there have been advances in the last few years with the CROW act.
perhaps looking back with rose tinted glasses at what you did in past years

You mean like the Kinder tresspassers

Maybe I'm wrong, only time will tell. there are enough here in Britain to make sure that what you are worried about cannot and will not occur.

You mean like the Kinder tresspassers

Commercialisation of a passtime? Yes it perhaps takes away from some of the adventure - however there are different levels at which you can experience and tolerate adventure! Those that are naturally adventurous will continue to learn by themselves and learn from their mistakes.

Please God lets hope so

Those who are intimidated by the sport need help,

No they need to give up the sport

and with clubs becoming less and less important in todays climbing society, the job of professionals becomes more important.

Not true, anybody can find a mate who is equally keen, even today.

In reply to Al Evans:

Yes. We have a huge amount to be thankful to people like this!


Yes. You think the younger generation are incapable of this sort of demonstration? Thankfully I would say we now have some of the best access we've had to the open areas of the UK that we've ever had.


Don't talk pish Al, you know (I hope) that people can find the thought of climbing scary and are not sure how to go about getting into it despite wanting to - why should they not receive help? If you don't want to help these sorts of people, why do you hold an ML?

>> and with clubs becoming less and less important in todays climbing society, the job of professionals becomes more important.


Clubs have always been a way to pass down information and knowledge. Yes people can find a mate to do it with, but that doesn't necessarily mean that either one of them know what they are doing. With the increasing absense of clubs, professionals are an important way of passing down this knowledge and instilling the ethics of previous generations - how can you say that that is untrue? It is a fact.

In reply to mike kann:
>in the UK there have been advances in the last few years with the CROW act.

Land Reform Act: Scotland
CRoW Act: England and Wales

CROW is not UK wide.

Yours pendantically

davy

In reply to mike kann:

With respect thats pish too, I take out kids who really want to go and really want to get into climbing, what is the point of taking out and introducing a kid who is scared of the whole idea?

In reply to Al Evans, so I got the quals, but I still think my experience makes me far more qualified to look after the kids than the qualifications ever have. That Al is the statement you made to which I reffered.

In reply to mike kann:


Although my main residence is in France I spend a lot of time in the UK too - most holidays, many weekends - and I just don't see many "advances". In Sussex, where I lived before coming to France, so many places where we used to roam freely are now fenced off, so many footpaths closed.

The same for places I visit now compared to the 70s when you could easily camp and park at the top of the cliffs... Bosigran, Baggy Point, all fenced off now with "tasteful" but restricted access and parking. Llanberris Pass where we used to park and camp, again severely curtailed... It's hard to see how things are improving... property prices and "private no entry" attitudes plus a more and more officious bureaucracy are at work. So I can't share your optimism on this point either.

It's not restricted to the UK either, the problem exists elsewhere, but perhaps in such a crowded little island it is just more visible.

In reply to Al Evans:

Come on, Al. Being scared and strongly motivated to go climbing aren't mutually exclusive.

In reply to Al Evans: Erm, so that they get overtheir fear? I have a friend who was immensly scared of heights - she couldn't get more than a couple of feet off the deck but she was immensely motivated to get over it. We climbed a 250m VS trad route this summer. THATS the sort of reason I teach for - to help people.

In reply to cathsullivan:

Really, but do you think they shouldn't be? I really can't see the two going hand in hand actually. Why if they are scared are they going climbing? Has somebody pushed them? Will they ever get to love it, I mean really, or is it just motivated by a macho thing. I'm sorry, I can't see it as a good idea that kids scared of climbing take it up?

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Fair enough Bruce - I wasn't there so I can't comment. I do however think you are laying rather a lot at the guides door. You don't think that there is more to it than that, like a change in society in general and a general greed & a perceived need to protect whats yours?

In reply to Al Evans: Not just kids Al...

In reply to mike kann: Good answer

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Not Bosigran Bruce, the CC control that, if that happened we would be able to intervene by legal right.

In reply to cathsullivan:

I think this point is also a revealing one... should we encourage people to go to the hills or just let them decide for themselves if they want to do it? The trend is to push people, many a coach load of bored school kids wander about with harassed instructors, leaving litter and looking fed up.... why bother?

On this thread many have said that we need qualifications so that we can be sure that these "instructors" are suitable, but could it not also work the other way around? Once centres for training and qualifying instructors are set up they need to find customers to train, and these once trained have to find people to instruct.

The same for guides, outside the high mountain valleys at least, once they go through all the qualifying process they quite naturally want to guide people... not something that is immediately obvious in Snowdonia or the Peak! So we start to see the need for such guides being encouraged.... insurance questions aiding (no need for insurance cover of "instructors" or guides if no parties are being instructed or guided)... the whole system creates a dynamic of itself.

Obviously, if one questions the undeniable social need to drag to the hills all those deprived youngsters who would much rather hang around shopping centres bothering old ladies, or loaf on the settee with their Dads watching football on the telly and eating crisps, you will be accused of elitism!

PS. I quite appreciate that someone who has gone through a long and possibly often demanding program to acquire his guide's ticket and now feels he is ready to live a full, satisfying (and remunerated) life doing the pastime he adores, must find such opinions irksome... for which I apologise. I don't know what the solution is.

In reply to mike kann:

Yes, I agree that it's a wider change, and don't blame guides for that! I was replying to the statement about access being better now.

In reply to Al Evans:

I think that it's a decision that only the individual can make for themselves. If somebody I knew wanted to go and try some climbing, in spite of being very scared, then I would offer to take them and let them find out for themselves.

With regard to whether kids (or adults, I guess) who are scared of climbing would ever get to love it, I can only speak from my own experience. I was taken climbing periodically as a child and was reliably terrified. I wasn't made to keep trying (well, a bit, but there's a fine line between encouragement and bullying, eh?!) but I would tend to have a go, get terrified and feel humiliated, vow never to do it again and then after a while (a few months or years) decide that I wanted another go. I carried on more or less like that, in a kind of traumatic cycle, until I was about 20. Then when I was in my early thirties I decided to have another go - in spite of still being pretty terrified at the idea. I've been climbing regularly and frequently for the last 5 years. I don't think anybody can fault my dedication and enthusiasim. I'm still fairly chicken but I lead and have gained quite a lot of varied experience. Whether that would be a typical experience though, who knows. And I totaly agree that it is not a good thing to force or push anyone towards something that they are really terrified of and don't want to do. It's nice sometimes to have the opportunity to challenge yourself and your fears though - you can surprise yourself at times. I sometimes think that if I didn't make myself do scary things I'd never get out of bed in the morning - isn't that partly what life is about?

Sorry for going a bit OT.

In reply to Al Evans:

You can't just drive off the road and park and camp in the grass at the top of Bosigran anymore... unless things have changed again very recently. I think we have the new age travellers to blame for this in Cornwall, all the farmers are scared stiff they'll set up camp so they've put up barbed wire all over the place.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm not sure which point you're referring to, but if I've given the impression that I think people should be pushed to go climbing even if they are scared of unmotivated that was not my intention in the least. I think, as I said above, it's good that they have the opportunity to push themselves if they want to but I would never, ever (because of some of the experiences I had as a child) push somebody to do something that they are really frightened of and didn't want to push themselves towards. If they did want to push themselves I might help them, but that's different. Courses and guides perhaps give people one method of doing this, that's all I meant I think.


Hmmm, good point. Hard to know how you could manage this though - and hard to know to what extent the number of qualified instructors is a force to create a market compared to there being a market (created how? Hmmm) that creates a 'need' for instructors.

In reply to Removed User: I always thought that primary goal of most climbing qualifications was to teach people the skills which you do not learn through normal climbing experience. Stuff such as group management on ropes, specific rope techniques unique to the instructional side of the sport. Then there's the specialised client care techniques the guides use, short roping etc. Where does your experienced amateur mountaineer gain this knowledge?

In reply to Al Evans:

I was scared of heights when i started climbing, mostly got over it gradually and seem to be doing ok.

In reply to Removed User:
Read the first 4/5 posts.
Fair points drawn out but there will never be an answer to this. Why bother?
Get out loads. Take a course if you don't trust yourself to become self taught. Whatever afore mentioned category you're in you'll still make mistakes and learn from them.

I think it makes no odds whether you're self taught or course taught. Self taught people will more likely make more mistakes but also often on smaller things (less dire consequences). Courses give you the confidence to go on bigger things quickly and points out the mistakes not to make...yet you can still make them being only human.

So is it only a money argument? if yes, I have no problems with people spending their money the way they want.

In all the sports I do, I'm self taught (also a bit of a misnomer that one, means I met loads of people that showed me small tricks that I tried on my own and tweaked to suit myself) but that's because I enjoy the challenge to find out things for myself...arguably not everyone's the same.