In reply to Milesy:
> (In reply to Howard J)
> [...]
>
> It is annoying that someone has drilled into rock in land which is not theirs. Land Access rights only apply if you respect the land.
But climbers are more than happy to drill into rock on land which
we've decided is OK to bolt.
The climbing community has decided, for reasons which are entirely related to the way it pursues its own esoteric activity, that some places should not be bolted, but that in other places it's allowed, so drill away boys. That's fine, so far as climbing is concerned, and to be clear it's a position I support. However I question whether we have the moral right to impose the rules of our game onto the activities of others, even if they share the same space, where they are not actually interfering with us. And where they do interfere with us, is unilateral action the best way to deal with it, or would it better to work towards a consensus that meets both sets of users requirements?
For what it's worth, I think that the slackliners who put the bolt on Old Man of Stoer were at fault for not considering the likely views of other users ie climbers. But to say that they shouldn't have done it because of of a decision by the MCofS or BMC is illogical - those bodies have no jurisdiction outside climbing, and a participant in a different activity is entitled to ask "what's that got to do with me?"
The climbing community is entitled to ask participants in other activities to take account of our concerns and to explain our reasons for objecting to bolts and to suggest alternatives. What we have no right to do is to
demand that they comply with the "rules" we have made to regulate our own activity, which is what some of the opinions expressed here have come close to doing.