UKC

This is an excerpt from Chuck Fryberger's latest film Core that showcases Nalle Hukkataival bouldering on some of Finland's hardest problems.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=53540

In reply to UKC News: Not really into bouldering and it was a nice film but how many tick marks? I know it was 8b+ but s**t a brick...

In reply to UKC News:


And hard to find. You can watch the movies, but there isn't as far as I know any public information about where the boulders are. I think those who have found boulders don't want too many people going there, but then there is a certain irony about making movies for the sponsors about them!

In reply to TobyA: Agreed. I've see videos and photos of secret crags and find it really annoying. Climbing vids should be to inform and inspire people. If you don't want too many people to go to a place or are worried about access issues etc, then don't post a video.

In reply to UKC News:

The limited climbing that there was in that video was cool, a lot of weird hip hop visuals too though! Starting to think these climbing videos are going too far in the use of effects and "clever" post production techniques.

In reply to Ackbar:

I reckon if you were climbing 8b+ and popped Nalle an email he would probably tell you where they were. I don't personally feel the need to go and try the globalist any time soon.

In reply to TobyA:

Just asking peops from Boulderkeskus would prolly yield you the exact cordinates of the Globalist boulder...

But since the easiest established line is like 7C or so... well, prolly not many peops are interested...

In reply to HeMa: I think I actually know where some of the Sipoo sites are but only because I used to mountain bike quite a lot around there. But there seem to be some new Espoo sites which are on a "need to know" basis now.

I've got no problem with people developing new areas and keeping it quiet whilst they work the problems/climb the lines etc - after all they've put the effort into going out finding them, cleaning etc. It just seems a bit funny that things end up on a video going round the world but aren't in the local guidebook/website.

There's always been a similar problem with ice climbing as well here that's similar - I got sworn to secrecy once to go to one cliff, just once we go there we bumped into three other guys we knew who had been sworn to secrecy about the cliff from a totally different set of people!

27crags.com is great in that respect because there are so many odd spots around Finland, boulders or little cliffs with one or two lines; an open wiki idea is great so locals can fill in the details.

In reply to UKC News:

what is the music ??? its quite easy to listen to

In reply to TobyA: I do understand what you mean, and technically climbing does fall under the 'jokamiehen oikeius' (everyman's right) act, but some land owners just don't want too many people shuffling around on their property, or any people for that matter, if all access issues are up to scratch and people respect that they are on someone else's property then fine, but I'd much rather a boulder, or an area be climbable by some, than not climbable at all.

I do have a problem with developing something in silence, it's a stupid tradition, closing projects is ok if you've put in the effort of finding and cleaning, but keeping good climbing and areas where there are loads to do, issues cleared, and even more to do, a secret until you've had your fun is selfish as f*ck, and relatively pointless, except to bigup your own ego.

In reply to timo.t:


I do agree with you, but it has to be on a case by case basis.

In my own experience, I've let other know almost immediately (Sad Boulders, Bishop), or selfishly until I've done all I can do (Druid Stones, Bishop).

The crux comes when you decide to publicise an area on the internet, via news reports, articles, videos, images.... which explode virally amongst the climbing community. You'd better be sure you have OK'd it with the landowners or land managers, if you haven't, now that is selfish.

Like it or not, when we (climbers) descend en masse on an area, if things aren't sorted, shit can happen.

In reply to timo.t: For me it's more just the contradicition between making a movie and getting worldwide attention for routes or problems, but not making the area public for locals. I'm not a huge boulderer and there is definitely nothing I could do on the globalist boulder (well, maybe the route down!) but there might some who would like to go and see it and try pulling on the holds. I guess whenever there is a comercial interest involved (this is a BD film after all) there's just a slight distasteful aspect to it. No one gets rich from climbing, but still...

But, never mind - just a couple of hours ago I cycled over the bridge that they jump at the end of the movie - now that looks fun! There is even some cord insitu there, that at a guess might be for pulling the jump rope under the bridge with. If anyone wants to do it, I'll share the beta with you!

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

You're wrong, it isn't selfish in many cases. The landowner's feelings in many cases is irrelevant. Owning the land does not automatically give you rights to decide who can and cannot access it.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Isn't that more or less the definition of owning the land? Unless it's designated access land, or has a public right of way running through it.

In reply to stewieatb:

If you own the land, you should be able to control stuff like building on it, making money from it (e.g farming, mining), but not just block off access to it to the general public. I think scotland has got a pretty good idea. I believe finland has similar access laws.

Obviously exceptions are made for bits of gardens and suchlike.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

You clearly talk from experience?

It's not actually about access, or the freedom to roam, or being at a place.

It's about hundreds, if not thousands of people descending on one area, sometimes in a small period of time and having an impact.

That impact could be parking problems, crossing physical boundaries (fences), establishing new paths, litter, nosie, or a combo.

That situation can occur, and has done, through mass publicity about a place.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Absolutely.


I see no problem with crossing fences so long as you do not damage them. It would be courteous of the landowner to provide a method of getting around them. When fences are placed illegally to restrict access, I don't see a problem with removing them.

Litter should not be left by anyone, regardless of whether you are the only ones who know of the area or otherwise.

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

You are talking fantasy, not reality Calum.

The proof is this idealistic sentence, whilst true, that's not what actually happens.


In the real world, especially these days, it's political solutions to access that secure whether we can climb somewhere, ask anyone at the BMC.

On a global scale, each country is different, and there is no all-embracing solution.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Does UKC check landowners are OK with publicising areas before you run stories on them, for example, when reporting new routes?

In reply to Calum Nicoll:

Good point. No we don't.

The majority of areas that are covered editorially or in the news are well established climbing areas. I think maybe we should if they are new areas, or maybe not publish where they are until we assured that access is fine.

The emphasis however, in regards to new areas, is on those who found the area. They should not publish anything, print or web, until they have talked to the land owner/manager and checked that it is OK.

I'll give you a small example how this can go wrong that I heard recently. A Belgium website published a destination guide to a small and new climbing area in Belgium. 15-20 or so sport routes of high quality. Climbers descended on the area en masse.

Climbers car camped and partied by the crag, it was a small rural area. The locals were aghast at what had happened. Roads were blocked, noise was loud, daily life was disrupted.

The land owners asked for the article to be taken off the web. It was. I'm not sure of the access situation now, maybe you can climb there in small numbers. But mass publicity, like videos, can cause problems.

Another example. 1996. I'm in Bishop. New areas are being discovered. I write guides/articles etc to direct climbers to areas. Before I did anything I contacted the local land managers, told them bouldering is popular, things will be published by people, including me, be ready, what can we do.

A plan was implemented, local climbers and local groups work with local land managers. Today, some areas are published - videos, guidebooks etc - others are not, but you can still climb at these 'others' ... if you can find out where they are .... not easy without guides, local knowledghe, videos, articles etc...

Do we have a right to climb anywhere? I hope so. But we must always tread lightly and thoughtfully.