UKC

No organization is immune from the influence of charismatic individuals with their own agenda. This fictional article takes an arguably apocalyptic look at a future world where climbing is perceived from an alternative mindset and supported by a different and far bigger majority.

It was originally written for the 2006 Festival of Mountain Literature competition.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=1806

In reply to UKC Articles:
I enjoyed the article,what is worrying is how easily it could happen, especially if big landowners like the national trust thought they might get sued.
Any plans to make the 'lead climbing is illegal' logo into TShirt

In reply to UKC Articles:
I would buy one.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

LOL!



<adds random text so he can post in 'all uppercase'...>

In reply to Chris Craggs: Worry about H&S restrictions is a red herring. Some private land owners (Vixen Tor, anyone?) have always used it as a smokescreen to restrict or prohibit any access. They'll always find some reason. The large public / NGO landowners aren't that bothered - there is ample legal precedent to cover their backs. Their concerns about climbing are from other concerns - social and environmental (you may skip to my last point from here ). The big private landowners (quarries, eg) Don't want any hassle - I've seen just as many obstacles put in the way for birders accessing gravel pits. It isn't about H&S, though Mines and Quarries is a lot more onerous than just public liability, it's about non core activity diverting resources away from making money through digging stuff up.

The biggest obstacle to climbing is climbers -- swearing, shouting, shitting in public, ignoring conservation restrictions, dog bans, dropping stuff on people below, or whatever. We need to stop looking for others to blame.

In reply to toad:

I'm inclined to agree with toad. I’m also from an ecological background but …. I do so find it amusing though that a geological SSSI will be used to ban people from climbing at a crag. But, if you’re a land fill company you can cover the geological SSSI with waste (having gone to visit several County Wildlife Sites and discovered the geological interest had been buried along with the Wildlife Site!). Its also been the case that I went to a site to discover that a large industrial shed had to demolish half of the geological interest of a SSSI in order to be built and that’s fine! By allowing people to use crags surely you’re able to assign cost benefit analysis calculations to show multiple benefits of having a crag that is being used and loved. If not what seems to happen is that countless sycamore grow around the crag (base and top), the roots damage areas of rock, shading makes the area green damp and sometimes difficult to visit for the tiny minority of geologists that visit these SSSI and RIGS sites .

In reply to moo cow: The excuse I once heard was that landfilling a geological SSSI would provide long term protection to the special interest against weathering and human interference

In reply to toad:
yes I have heard that before. And in fairness there can be an element of truth in that. Although I'd hate to be on the crew that’s uncovering a land filled site for these future generations only to discover the membrane and clay bund allowed leachate to damage the precious treasure. Not that that would happen because highly trained engineers deal with it.

Why do all ecologists become Cynical.

My thinking is that if the crag can be climbed on the cost benefit analysis can rationalise its existance without being covered for future generations wrapped up in cotton wool. It would use similar systems to the method used by CABE to assign value to parkland (and maybe the DEFRA Local Sites Guidelines; multi use value system).

In reply to UKC Articles:

Not quite plagiarism but remarkably similar theme to this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=170

Question is, who was first?

In reply to Removed User:

It's unlikely either of us could have seen each other's articles. Mine was written in February 2006 along with two others for the Festival of Mountain Literature, which I think was in April of that year. It was the last one ever held at Bretton Hall. Only a handful of my friends plus the judges have ever seen it and it's not been published anywhere else as far as I know. Only the winning entry was read out at the festival. Mine wasn't because it came second.
However we may have been subjected to similar influences. The Working at Heights debacle had been resolved not long before, and the impact of proxy votes on clubs and the BMC was being hotly debated at the time.

In reply to AlisonS:

Great minds think alike eh?

In reply to UKC Articles:

Nothing like a great disaster movie for a good giggle, especially one related to climbing, but like most in that genre the exaggeration and conflagration of unlikely events rather grates. The most unbelivable bit of course is the UK winning the top 3 Olympic medals in top-roping.