This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Raven Crag (Langdale)Middlefell Buttress (D)
The tree at the top is clearly unstable, and will come down; suggest removing unsightly tat, saving the tree and possibly someone's life by putting a couple of discreet bolts in. What do people think?
Suggest extreme caution if thinking of abseiling off the tree (especially with groups).
The tree at the top is clearly unstable, and will come down; suggest removing unsightly tat, saving the tree and possibly someone's life by putting a couple of discreet bolts in. What do people think?
Suggest extreme caution if thinking of abseiling off the tree (especially with groups).
In reply to ozcro:
wonder what's happened to it - stout rowan, IIRC, not normally a tree to give up
there are 3 alternative ways (at least) to get off from there without rapping so i wouldn't be voting bolt just yet
john
wonder what's happened to it - stout rowan, IIRC, not normally a tree to give up
there are 3 alternative ways (at least) to get off from there without rapping so i wouldn't be voting bolt just yet
john
Post edited at 15:16
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I am aware of the alternate routes off the climb. But, i can't stress enough, if people continue to use this tree it will fall down (quite possibly with someone on it).
I, in general disagree with bolts in the mountain crags, but in this case, I think that having two resin bolts at the top of middlefell buttress, instead of having all that messy tat on the tree ( which is not only unsightly but is also killing the tree) will greatly improve the safety and appearance of the abseil point. I believe that at the moment the largest concern is for the groups that regularly use the tree for abseiling because at times there can be up to 3-4 people hanging off the tree at one time; I'm sure the rest of the climbing community would agree that if it fails at these (or any) times it would be truly disastrous.
I am aware of the alternate routes off the climb. But, i can't stress enough, if people continue to use this tree it will fall down (quite possibly with someone on it).
I, in general disagree with bolts in the mountain crags, but in this case, I think that having two resin bolts at the top of middlefell buttress, instead of having all that messy tat on the tree ( which is not only unsightly but is also killing the tree) will greatly improve the safety and appearance of the abseil point. I believe that at the moment the largest concern is for the groups that regularly use the tree for abseiling because at times there can be up to 3-4 people hanging off the tree at one time; I'm sure the rest of the climbing community would agree that if it fails at these (or any) times it would be truly disastrous.
In reply to ozcro:
Tat on the tree will only encourage folk to use it.
MFB ? should cut the tat off.
If the tat reappears it would suggest that regular users consider the tree acceptable ( or their judgement is flawed).
If its the tree I recall, last used it many years ago. Recently I have used other options for good reason.
Tat on the tree will only encourage folk to use it.
MFB ? should cut the tat off.
If the tat reappears it would suggest that regular users consider the tree acceptable ( or their judgement is flawed).
If its the tree I recall, last used it many years ago. Recently I have used other options for good reason.
In reply to Rick Graham:
As a regular user of the tree myself, the issue with the tree has appeared recently, I'm not sure when exactly, but it was certainly in a bad way yesterday. I entirely agree that the first step would bet to cut off the tat. The main reason I suggest placing bolts is because the abseil is very popular with group use and with people wanting the quickest dissent off the route. If there is demand for abseiling off there, people will still do it. The solution, then, would be to find an alternative anchor to abseil off.
Bolts would be the least visually disruptive solution, however others do exist. Bolts, also will last a longer period of time than using more tat elsewhere.
As a regular user of the tree myself, the issue with the tree has appeared recently, I'm not sure when exactly, but it was certainly in a bad way yesterday. I entirely agree that the first step would bet to cut off the tat. The main reason I suggest placing bolts is because the abseil is very popular with group use and with people wanting the quickest dissent off the route. If there is demand for abseiling off there, people will still do it. The solution, then, would be to find an alternative anchor to abseil off.
Bolts would be the least visually disruptive solution, however others do exist. Bolts, also will last a longer period of time than using more tat elsewhere.
1
1
In reply to ozcro:
hi Ollie
Flagging this up on here is really useful - its a busy route
Alternatives -not everyone will know middlefell as well as you so i think its worth posting that alternatives exist
have you considered posting on FRCC website
Rick - when the wind and rain stop i'll pop up
cheer John
hi Ollie
Flagging this up on here is really useful - its a busy route
Alternatives -not everyone will know middlefell as well as you so i think its worth posting that alternatives exist
have you considered posting on FRCC website
Rick - when the wind and rain stop i'll pop up
cheer John
1
In reply to ozcro:
People must use their judgement on the safety or otherwise of abseil points. Instructors taking groups ought to be aware of how to select safe anchors. If they can't do something as basic as that and, equally importantly, pass that important skill on to their students they probably should not be taking groups. If a 'desire' for safety is to be your criterion for placing bolts I've a list of gritstone slabs that I dare not lead in their current 'dangerous' condition that you might like to consider bolting for the rest of us.
People must use their judgement on the safety or otherwise of abseil points. Instructors taking groups ought to be aware of how to select safe anchors. If they can't do something as basic as that and, equally importantly, pass that important skill on to their students they probably should not be taking groups. If a 'desire' for safety is to be your criterion for placing bolts I've a list of gritstone slabs that I dare not lead in their current 'dangerous' condition that you might like to consider bolting for the rest of us.
Post edited at 17:44
1
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Although I appreciate you giving feedback, I think it is completely out of context.
I have suggested putting in bolts in onto a part of the crags that don't have any climbs, therefore will not be affecting anything except the safety of people descending off the crag.
As I have mentioned there are other potential alternatives. I only was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of using the tree.
Although I appreciate you giving feedback, I think it is completely out of context.
I have suggested putting in bolts in onto a part of the crags that don't have any climbs, therefore will not be affecting anything except the safety of people descending off the crag.
As I have mentioned there are other potential alternatives. I only was trying to raise awareness of the dangers of using the tree.
In reply to ozcro:
Panic measures mate. Dodgy anchors are part of the game, instructors should know that and behave properly. If they can't they should stick to indoor climbing, that after all, is where the pure sanitised conditions are found.
Simple answer is cut the tree down, escape another way. Called natural maturation.
Panic measures mate. Dodgy anchors are part of the game, instructors should know that and behave properly. If they can't they should stick to indoor climbing, that after all, is where the pure sanitised conditions are found.
Simple answer is cut the tree down, escape another way. Called natural maturation.
1
In reply to ozcro:
I don't think someone would necessarily get killed - if the tree is obviously dodgy, then if they assess their anchor before abseiling, it would not happen. There are a lot of dodgy anchors out there.
I would be against putting bolts into mountain crags in the Lakes.
I don't think someone would necessarily get killed - if the tree is obviously dodgy, then if they assess their anchor before abseiling, it would not happen. There are a lot of dodgy anchors out there.
I would be against putting bolts into mountain crags in the Lakes.
2
2
In reply to ozcro:
Hi Ollie
check out
https://www.facebook.com/NTLakescampsites?ref=hl
you can see the tree and post your comments if you want
Hi Ollie
check out
https://www.facebook.com/NTLakescampsites?ref=hl
you can see the tree and post your comments if you want
In reply to John Kelly:
If it's there people will use it. Take the choice away. After all it will eventually grow back, stronger than before.
If it's there people will use it. Take the choice away. After all it will eventually grow back, stronger than before.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
i think if the tat was gone the tree would have a chance, it's not that easy lassoing this one, funny spot - I'm no tree botherer but i'm guessing the tree will be hundreds of years old - free the tree
i think if the tat was gone the tree would have a chance, it's not that easy lassoing this one, funny spot - I'm no tree botherer but i'm guessing the tree will be hundreds of years old - free the tree
2
1
In reply to climbwhenready:
I understand your views, and in general I share them. But I do think that since the tree that is used for abseiling is on a scrappy gully wall, that is not used for anything except abseiling it shouldn't really matter.
I think that my original wording was slightly off though and feel that it is worth mentioning that other, worthwhile alternatives to bolting do exist that are maybe worth considering.
I knew that there would be a lot of opposition to bolting but I think that people's opinions towards it are very closed and old fashioned. I think the routes themselves should be kept in ththeir original format ( ie not bolted) but if people's safety is really concerned we do need to be more open minded and consider all the alternatives.
I understand your views, and in general I share them. But I do think that since the tree that is used for abseiling is on a scrappy gully wall, that is not used for anything except abseiling it shouldn't really matter.
I think that my original wording was slightly off though and feel that it is worth mentioning that other, worthwhile alternatives to bolting do exist that are maybe worth considering.
I knew that there would be a lot of opposition to bolting but I think that people's opinions towards it are very closed and old fashioned. I think the routes themselves should be kept in ththeir original format ( ie not bolted) but if people's safety is really concerned we do need to be more open minded and consider all the alternatives.
In reply to ozcro:
Who abseils off Middlefell anyway? From the harder climbs like Mendes it's a reasonable scramble off and walk down the gully and from Middlefell there's a path down, so, no bolts needed and people need to take responsibility for themselves re. the tree
Who abseils off Middlefell anyway? From the harder climbs like Mendes it's a reasonable scramble off and walk down the gully and from Middlefell there's a path down, so, no bolts needed and people need to take responsibility for themselves re. the tree
In reply to LakesWinter:
As I mentioned before, there are other methods of getting off the crag. But because people continue to abseil off the crag, then the tree needs to stop being used and alternative abseil points need to be utilised.
The abseil seems to be most popular with groups so other anchors need to be considered. I cannot stress enough that it will fall down at some point. either people need to stop using it or find other anchors to ab off.
As I mentioned before, there are other methods of getting off the crag. But because people continue to abseil off the crag, then the tree needs to stop being used and alternative abseil points need to be utilised.
The abseil seems to be most popular with groups so other anchors need to be considered. I cannot stress enough that it will fall down at some point. either people need to stop using it or find other anchors to ab off.
In reply to Glenn Sutcliffe:
yes Glen - i'm very forward thinking - corrected now i hope
thanks
john
yes Glen - i'm very forward thinking - corrected now i hope
thanks
john
Post edited at 18:58
In reply to LakesWinter:
People always have an issue with bolts and I realise that if I went up there and bolted that abseil, you can guarantee that they would be chopped in a matter of days.
I feel that although you have one of the most valid arguments out of anyone else, you are looking at the words 'bolts' and instantly getting defensive. I feel that the fact that I am trying to raise awareness of the danger of the tree comes almost secondary to some people when they read 'bolts'.
I was simply suggesting a safe, simple, long-lasting solution to the problem instead of covering the mountains with tat. I would class myself as a trad climber and don't think that bolting is always the solution, but I do think that bolting is in no way worse than covering the beautiful landscape that we have in the lakes with tat, that realistically is only a short-term solution.
People always have an issue with bolts and I realise that if I went up there and bolted that abseil, you can guarantee that they would be chopped in a matter of days.
I feel that although you have one of the most valid arguments out of anyone else, you are looking at the words 'bolts' and instantly getting defensive. I feel that the fact that I am trying to raise awareness of the danger of the tree comes almost secondary to some people when they read 'bolts'.
I was simply suggesting a safe, simple, long-lasting solution to the problem instead of covering the mountains with tat. I would class myself as a trad climber and don't think that bolting is always the solution, but I do think that bolting is in no way worse than covering the beautiful landscape that we have in the lakes with tat, that realistically is only a short-term solution.
Post edited at 19:14
2
In reply to ozcro:
Since your profile says you are 14 I'm not going to be too upset at being considered old fashioned. But judgement and a strong element of self-reliance are important parts of trad climbing in places like the Lakes. Picking and/or rejecting anchors is part of that. Nobody needs to ab off that tree. After all, you could see it was dodgy so clearly there is enough visual evidence. If you think the tat is creating temptation and luring less skilled climbers than you into danger feel free to cut it off. There are viable alternatives to abbing off a dodgy tree, including walking down. Bolts are definitely not needed. You don't need to appoint yourself as our safety officer.
> I knew that there would be a lot of opposition to bolting but I think that people's opinions towards it are very closed and old fashioned. ..... if people's safety is really concerned we do need to be more open minded and consider all the alternatives.
Since your profile says you are 14 I'm not going to be too upset at being considered old fashioned. But judgement and a strong element of self-reliance are important parts of trad climbing in places like the Lakes. Picking and/or rejecting anchors is part of that. Nobody needs to ab off that tree. After all, you could see it was dodgy so clearly there is enough visual evidence. If you think the tat is creating temptation and luring less skilled climbers than you into danger feel free to cut it off. There are viable alternatives to abbing off a dodgy tree, including walking down. Bolts are definitely not needed. You don't need to appoint yourself as our safety officer.
1
In reply to ozcro:
some old dude's said
Modern equipment is so technically advanced you can climb anything if you put your mind to it. The impossible has been removed from the equation'
Walter Bonatti '
The Murder of the Impossible that "Expansion bolts contribute to the decline of alpinism".
Messner
you can seriously damage the journey with bolts and probably middlefell not the place
some old dude's said
Modern equipment is so technically advanced you can climb anything if you put your mind to it. The impossible has been removed from the equation'
Walter Bonatti '
The Murder of the Impossible that "Expansion bolts contribute to the decline of alpinism".
Messner
you can seriously damage the journey with bolts and probably middlefell not the place
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
I am a little bit irritated about your last sentence as I was only raising awareness for the climbing community that the tree is potentially dangerous. I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore. I don't think that bolts are always the solution in the hills, but since I spend all of my free-time scrambling and climbing in and around the lakes then I think that my judgement is viable when it concerns people's safety on my doorstep.
if you think that others safety in the hills is unimportant then continue as you are, but I don't think you need to accuse people who are trying to help people by giving useful advice, of, in some way becoming self-appointed safety officers.
I care about the safety of others so thought i would mention the tree. i would hope that you would have thought to do the same thing.
I am a little bit irritated about your last sentence as I was only raising awareness for the climbing community that the tree is potentially dangerous. I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore. I don't think that bolts are always the solution in the hills, but since I spend all of my free-time scrambling and climbing in and around the lakes then I think that my judgement is viable when it concerns people's safety on my doorstep.
if you think that others safety in the hills is unimportant then continue as you are, but I don't think you need to accuse people who are trying to help people by giving useful advice, of, in some way becoming self-appointed safety officers.
I care about the safety of others so thought i would mention the tree. i would hope that you would have thought to do the same thing.
1
In reply to John Kelly:
I think you are missing the point. DANGER* to peoples lives (*notice emphasis on danger) should always be thought of first. I might point out that bolting is AN* option ( * again emphasis) and there are other alternatives which are perfectly valid.
I think you are missing the point. DANGER* to peoples lives (*notice emphasis on danger) should always be thought of first. I might point out that bolting is AN* option ( * again emphasis) and there are other alternatives which are perfectly valid.
Post edited at 19:35
In reply to ozcro:
THE TREE IS DANGEROUS. FORGET ABOUT BOLTING, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE IS A REAL RISK WITH THAT TREE. Okay?
THE TREE IS DANGEROUS. FORGET ABOUT BOLTING, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THERE IS A REAL RISK WITH THAT TREE. Okay?
In reply to ozcro:
I'm sorry but you are asking a ridiculous question. Middlefell Buttress is a classic easy multi-pitch route. There is no need to abseil off - indeed many people use the route as an entertaining scramble access to Gimmer. Bolts have no place there. Ever.
So if you want remove the tat, 'save the tree' and don't you dare even think about putting some bolts in to as a cop-out for people who are incapable of walking down.
I can't log in at the moment but my name is Andy Say. I confess to being an 'instructor'. I used to instruct in just that area and wouldn't ever have contemplated getting 'groups' to abseil off (just how big a group do you envisage being led up Middlefell by the way?).
I'm sorry but you are asking a ridiculous question. Middlefell Buttress is a classic easy multi-pitch route. There is no need to abseil off - indeed many people use the route as an entertaining scramble access to Gimmer. Bolts have no place there. Ever.
So if you want remove the tat, 'save the tree' and don't you dare even think about putting some bolts in to as a cop-out for people who are incapable of walking down.
I can't log in at the moment but my name is Andy Say. I confess to being an 'instructor'. I used to instruct in just that area and wouldn't ever have contemplated getting 'groups' to abseil off (just how big a group do you envisage being led up Middlefell by the way?).
1
In reply to ozcro:
Thanks for bring this up Ollie. The tree is indeed popular as a means of descent - missing the last pitch whilst conveniently fitting retrievable abseils into an instructional day. Periodically one of the regular users chops the old tat and leaves a static rope loop with maillon in place to keep it tidy. If all tat is removed the tree gets ring-barked and damaged further by people persisting to use it. If it's unfit to use (I've not seen it since the summer) I doubt instructors will continue using it, but if there's no alternative natural anchors I'd suggest it's best consigned to history, not substituted with bolts.
Thanks for bring this up Ollie. The tree is indeed popular as a means of descent - missing the last pitch whilst conveniently fitting retrievable abseils into an instructional day. Periodically one of the regular users chops the old tat and leaves a static rope loop with maillon in place to keep it tidy. If all tat is removed the tree gets ring-barked and damaged further by people persisting to use it. If it's unfit to use (I've not seen it since the summer) I doubt instructors will continue using it, but if there's no alternative natural anchors I'd suggest it's best consigned to history, not substituted with bolts.
1
In reply to ozcro:
Ollie - crawl back under your bridge. You are WRONG.
> I am a little bit irritated about your last sentence as I was only raising awareness for the climbing community that the tree is potentially dangerous. I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore. I don't think that bolts are always the solution in the hills, but since I spend all of my free-time scrambling and climbing in and around the lakes then I think that my judgement is viable when it concerns people's safety on my doorstep.
> if you think that others safety in the hills is unimportant then continue as you are, but I don't think you need to accuse people who are trying to help people by giving useful advice, of, in some way becoming self-appointed safety officers.
> I care about the safety of others so thought i would mention the tree. i would hope that you would have thought to do the same thing.
Ollie - crawl back under your bridge. You are WRONG.
1
2
In reply to ozcro:
> (In reply to LakesWinter) People always have an issue with bolts and I realise that if I went up there and bolted that abseil, you can guarantee that they would be chopped in a matter of days.
>
I think you've answered your question here, so why ask it?>
In reply to Anonymous:
I think that you, Andy, are being a bit extreme. Its not a matter of 'saving the tree' its a matter of potentially saving lives. in answer to your question, yesterday, in the pissing rain, there was at least ten people being taken up middlefell.
I doubt that I will ever get though to you but you don't seem to understand that people are not 'incapable of walking down' but rather use the abseil as an alternative method of getting down.
I think that you, Andy, are being a bit extreme. Its not a matter of 'saving the tree' its a matter of potentially saving lives. in answer to your question, yesterday, in the pissing rain, there was at least ten people being taken up middlefell.
I doubt that I will ever get though to you but you don't seem to understand that people are not 'incapable of walking down' but rather use the abseil as an alternative method of getting down.
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
The question is secondary. I don't really see
your point though. People's safely in the hills is the main point I have been addressing .
The question is secondary. I don't really see
your point though. People's safely in the hills is the main point I have been addressing .
Post edited at 20:10
In reply to John Kelly:
Just a suggestion from afar (haven't climbed there for about 15 years and can't remember anything about a tree - I'm fairly sure I would have walked off) - if you're going up there to remove the tat would it be worth hanging a discreet little laminated sign (obvious when you get there, small enough not to be an eysore from the path) to the tree advising that it's in a dangerous condition and should not be used for abseiling? That would seem to deal with the OP's concerns without setting any precedents (and no, before anyone leaps in, I'm not suggesting putting safety notices on every dubious tree and flake in the Lake District...)
Rick
Just a suggestion from afar (haven't climbed there for about 15 years and can't remember anything about a tree - I'm fairly sure I would have walked off) - if you're going up there to remove the tat would it be worth hanging a discreet little laminated sign (obvious when you get there, small enough not to be an eysore from the path) to the tree advising that it's in a dangerous condition and should not be used for abseiling? That would seem to deal with the OP's concerns without setting any precedents (and no, before anyone leaps in, I'm not suggesting putting safety notices on every dubious tree and flake in the Lake District...)
Rick
In reply to Rick Sewards:
signs - BMC job i would have thought, not keen
not sure what i will do, will probably go past in next day or two, and decide then.
good chance someone will beat me to it
I chuck boulders off it every so often so cleaning the tat's not a big deal
be good to have a consensus
it may be that one of the instructors or guides can resolve tat as they install, i believe, and they are likely to be on route in near future
signs - BMC job i would have thought, not keen
not sure what i will do, will probably go past in next day or two, and decide then.
good chance someone will beat me to it
I chuck boulders off it every so often so cleaning the tat's not a big deal
be good to have a consensus
it may be that one of the instructors or guides can resolve tat as they install, i believe, and they are likely to be on route in near future
1
In reply to ozcro:
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
I have used that tree many times over the years and will certainly miss the convenience of that abseil when working on Middlefell. Of course other options to bolting do exist (as you rightly pointed out), but I do agree with you that bolting is worth considering for that abseil descent. Many a novice cuts their teeth on that route and fumbles with the abseil set up, a bolted abseil station would be a good solution.
And as regards bolting mountain crags in general, it seems you've been hassled unnecessarily about this. Maybe folk don't climb on that fabulous mountain crag named Gimmer, the one with the massive chain at the top for convenient abseils.
Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
I have used that tree many times over the years and will certainly miss the convenience of that abseil when working on Middlefell. Of course other options to bolting do exist (as you rightly pointed out), but I do agree with you that bolting is worth considering for that abseil descent. Many a novice cuts their teeth on that route and fumbles with the abseil set up, a bolted abseil station would be a good solution.
And as regards bolting mountain crags in general, it seems you've been hassled unnecessarily about this. Maybe folk don't climb on that fabulous mountain crag named Gimmer, the one with the massive chain at the top for convenient abseils.
In reply to ozcro:
I just wasted five minutes of my life checking whether Ollie Hensman-Crook was an anagram for Franco Cookson !
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)
>
> I am a little bit irritated about your last sentence as I was only raising awareness for the climbing community that the tree is potentially dangerous. I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore. I don't think that bolts are always the solution in the hills, but since I spend all of my free-time scrambling and climbing in and around the lakes then I think that my judgement is viable when it concerns people's safety on my doorstep.
>
> if you think that others safety in the hills is unimportant then continue as you are, but I don't think you need to accuse people who are trying to help people by giving useful advice, of, in some way becoming self-appointed safety officers.
>
> I care about the safety of others so thought i would mention the tree. i would hope that you would have thought to do the same thing.
>
> I am a little bit irritated about your last sentence as I was only raising awareness for the climbing community that the tree is potentially dangerous. I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore. I don't think that bolts are always the solution in the hills, but since I spend all of my free-time scrambling and climbing in and around the lakes then I think that my judgement is viable when it concerns people's safety on my doorstep.
>
> if you think that others safety in the hills is unimportant then continue as you are, but I don't think you need to accuse people who are trying to help people by giving useful advice, of, in some way becoming self-appointed safety officers.
>
> I care about the safety of others so thought i would mention the tree. i would hope that you would have thought to do the same thing.
I just wasted five minutes of my life checking whether Ollie Hensman-Crook was an anagram for Franco Cookson !
2
In reply to ozcro:
no its not, its simply your opinion that the tree isn't safe, have you ever considered someone else may have a different opinion? Its up to individual climbers to decide on what they abseil from and long may it remain so.
Are you going to personally inspect all of the ab stations in Langdale and give us your opinion on their suitability for abseiling?
> (In reply to Dave Ferguson) The question is secondary. I don't really see
> your point though. People's safely in the hills is the main point I have been addressing .
> your point though. People's safely in the hills is the main point I have been addressing .
no its not, its simply your opinion that the tree isn't safe, have you ever considered someone else may have a different opinion? Its up to individual climbers to decide on what they abseil from and long may it remain so.
Are you going to personally inspect all of the ab stations in Langdale and give us your opinion on their suitability for abseiling?
1
1
In reply to John Kelly: fair enough that it's a natural thread. But every bit as unsightly for some as a set of bolts might be and every bit as useful too.
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
No. But if a couple of bolts in rock will save the tree and possible someone's life then I'd be in favour.
No. But if a couple of bolts in rock will save the tree and possible someone's life then I'd be in favour.
In reply to ozcro:
Just as a matter of interest, Ollie, could you explain to the more dinosaurish among us exactly how lamping some bolts into the top of a Diff first climbed more than a century ago (1911) is going to add to the 'development of climbing'? I'm genuinely intrigued to hear the thought process involved.
> I can only assume that you are one of the people that are holding back the development of climbing by clinging onto views which are not really relevant anymore.
Just as a matter of interest, Ollie, could you explain to the more dinosaurish among us exactly how lamping some bolts into the top of a Diff first climbed more than a century ago (1911) is going to add to the 'development of climbing'? I'm genuinely intrigued to hear the thought process involved.
3
1
In reply to ozcro:
Bolts have no place on British Mountain crags. It would be an act of the utmost vandalism to do so. Let nature take its course, and let us not succumb to vandalism for convenience sake.
Bolts have no place on British Mountain crags. It would be an act of the utmost vandalism to do so. Let nature take its course, and let us not succumb to vandalism for convenience sake.
Post edited at 22:01
In reply to ozcro:
Thanks for drawing our attention to it - appreciated.
However everyone I know (and certainly an instructor/guide) checks any anchor before abseiling so hopefully there will not be any accidents.
Please don't put abseil bolts in.
The convenience argument for groups doesn't seem a good enough reason and might be a thin end of a wedge. How long before someone suggests abseil stations down the Idwal Slabs because of the nuisance of taking novices down that pesky descent?
Thanks for drawing our attention to it - appreciated.
However everyone I know (and certainly an instructor/guide) checks any anchor before abseiling so hopefully there will not be any accidents.
Please don't put abseil bolts in.
The convenience argument for groups doesn't seem a good enough reason and might be a thin end of a wedge. How long before someone suggests abseil stations down the Idwal Slabs because of the nuisance of taking novices down that pesky descent?
In reply to Babika:
Fixed that for you
> How long before someone suggests abseil stations down the Idwal Slabs because of the nuisance of taking novices up that pesky descent?
Fixed that for you
1
In reply to Anonymous:
Jesus Christ, all this guy is saying is that the tree is unsafe and that options should be considered. Don't jump on a throttle the guy to death just because he said the b-word.
> So if you want remove the tat, 'save the tree' and don't you dare even think about putting some bolts in to as a cop-out for people who are incapable of walking down.
Jesus Christ, all this guy is saying is that the tree is unsafe and that options should be considered. Don't jump on a throttle the guy to death just because he said the b-word.
In reply to ozcro:
Middle Fell buttress is many peoples first introduction to a 'mountain route' which starts somewhere near the bottom and carries on up. Please lets not reduce it to another single pitch convenience who aren't really interested in doing a mountain route at all.
Middle Fell buttress is many peoples first introduction to a 'mountain route' which starts somewhere near the bottom and carries on up. Please lets not reduce it to another single pitch convenience who aren't really interested in doing a mountain route at all.
1
In reply to ozcro:
On another point - bolts do not make abseils 'safe' - competence makes abseils safe (or at least as safe as it can be). Plenty of abseiling accidents happen off bolted anchors. Giving an impression of safety to those that don't have the necessary level of competence will increase the number of accidents, not reduce them.
On another point - bolts do not make abseils 'safe' - competence makes abseils safe (or at least as safe as it can be). Plenty of abseiling accidents happen off bolted anchors. Giving an impression of safety to those that don't have the necessary level of competence will increase the number of accidents, not reduce them.
2
In reply to A Mountain Journey:
I guess another perspective is that abseils can be more risky than leading, meaning not having bolts or a tree (if it's unsafe) could be better?
I happily walked off Middle Fell Buttress as a teenager 20 years ago.
> Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
> I have used that tree many times over the years and will certainly miss the convenience of that abseil when working on Middlefell. Of course other options to bolting do exist (as you rightly pointed out), but I do agree with you that bolting is worth considering for that abseil descent. Many a novice cuts their teeth on that route and fumbles with the abseil set up, a bolted abseil station would be a good solution.
I guess another perspective is that abseils can be more risky than leading, meaning not having bolts or a tree (if it's unsafe) could be better?
I happily walked off Middle Fell Buttress as a teenager 20 years ago.
Post edited at 14:00
In reply to ozcro:
Is this the tree to the left of the start of the final pitch of MFB? Good on you for flagging it up, but it is neither at the top, nor the only way down, so a far simpler alternative would surely be to continue climbing to the top of the route, preferably add on the extra pitch on the right, and walk off? No need for bolts.
Is this the tree to the left of the start of the final pitch of MFB? Good on you for flagging it up, but it is neither at the top, nor the only way down, so a far simpler alternative would surely be to continue climbing to the top of the route, preferably add on the extra pitch on the right, and walk off? No need for bolts.
In reply to Morgan P:
The tree is not "unsafe".
Abseiling off the tree may be unsafe.
A small notice to that effect placed near the tree should persuade people to find a more appropriate method of descent.
The tree is not "unsafe".
Abseiling off the tree may be unsafe.
A small notice to that effect placed near the tree should persuade people to find a more appropriate method of descent.
In reply to John Kettle:
Of course, rather than wait until the tree is gone before finding an alternative, we could just all decide to do so before the tree is consigned to history.
> (In reply to Ollie Hensman-Crook)
>
> I doubt instructors will continue using it, but if there's no alternative natural anchors I'd suggest it's best consigned to history, not substituted with bolts.
>
> I doubt instructors will continue using it, but if there's no alternative natural anchors I'd suggest it's best consigned to history, not substituted with bolts.
Of course, rather than wait until the tree is gone before finding an alternative, we could just all decide to do so before the tree is consigned to history.
In reply to ozcro:
I am less experienced than most of those on here. However I have climbed on raven crag and there are plenty of ways down than abseiling off a tree. I can appreciate for people wanting to get lots of routes in it might be slightly quicker.
I'm in agreement with most of the above. Once you bolt one thing in the lakes-where does it end?
And for middlefell buttress it just seems pointless. Climbing is all about risk assessment, I wouldn't abseil off anything that wasn't bomber.
It is good and right to highlight here ollie, I definitely agree. I just don't agree with bolting it because the optional abseil anchor is becoming unusable.
I am less experienced than most of those on here. However I have climbed on raven crag and there are plenty of ways down than abseiling off a tree. I can appreciate for people wanting to get lots of routes in it might be slightly quicker.
I'm in agreement with most of the above. Once you bolt one thing in the lakes-where does it end?
And for middlefell buttress it just seems pointless. Climbing is all about risk assessment, I wouldn't abseil off anything that wasn't bomber.
It is good and right to highlight here ollie, I definitely agree. I just don't agree with bolting it because the optional abseil anchor is becoming unusable.
Post edited at 00:06
In reply to ozcro:
Just checked my logbook- I've actually led this route. Don't bolt it mate there's plenty of walk offs.
Just checked my logbook- I've actually led this route. Don't bolt it mate there's plenty of walk offs.
1
In reply to Chris Huntington:
I haven't climbed MFB for decades but I don't ever remember having to ab off. As you say there is no problem with walking off, so why all the fuss about an ab point??
It isn't necessary.
I haven't climbed MFB for decades but I don't ever remember having to ab off. As you say there is no problem with walking off, so why all the fuss about an ab point??
It isn't necessary.
2
In reply to ozcro:
just been up to have a look at the tree
pics here
https://www.facebook.com/NTLakescampsites
tree has suffered over the years
how strong is the tree? - i would but i wouldn't let my kids
tat still in place, didn't think removal justified
john
just been up to have a look at the tree
pics here
https://www.facebook.com/NTLakescampsites
tree has suffered over the years
how strong is the tree? - i would but i wouldn't let my kids
tat still in place, didn't think removal justified
john
1
In reply to John Kelly:
Non facebook link please for those of us at work and with restricted access.
Non facebook link please for those of us at work and with restricted access.
1
In reply to Bob:
does that not take forever?
I'll have a go later - im off down a plumbago mine now
does that not take forever?
I'll have a go later - im off down a plumbago mine now
Post edited at 11:40
In reply to John Kelly:
Not really - use the form to upload them then a quick email to Alan or the photo mods asking to expedite the process as the shots are relevant to an ongoing thread.
You mean you are swinging the lead?
Not really - use the form to upload them then a quick email to Alan or the photo mods asking to expedite the process as the shots are relevant to an ongoing thread.
You mean you are swinging the lead?
Post edited at 11:41
In reply to Bob:
ha ha - cracking
sort of gave up with ukc photos take too long, will sort this evening
> You mean you are swinging the lead?
ha ha - cracking
sort of gave up with ukc photos take too long, will sort this evening
In reply to Bob:
No wonder the country's f*****.
Also a bit naive.
Google b** ******
get loads of hits
see how much posting you are doing in works time
rick, self employed, just off to FGH in a hour for a second cast on a ( very ) expensive broken ankle
> Non facebook link please for those of us at work and with restricted access.
No wonder the country's f*****.
Also a bit naive.
Google b** ******
get loads of hits
see how much posting you are doing in works time
rick, self employed, just off to FGH in a hour for a second cast on a ( very ) expensive broken ankle
In reply to ozcro:
If the tree really is unsafe, cut off the tat, stick a notice on the tree. Job done.
If the tree really is unsafe, cut off the tat, stick a notice on the tree. Job done.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Ok but notices are only really justified at examples like Castle Rock or Gowder Crag where the danger is not predictable from the base. A lame tree or dodgy block should be assessed by the individual.
Ok but notices are only really justified at examples like Castle Rock or Gowder Crag where the danger is not predictable from the base. A lame tree or dodgy block should be assessed by the individual.
1
In reply to ozcro:
I remember there was a bolt and chain absail point not far from said tree when I last went up, granted I might have had a few at the time.
I remember there was a bolt and chain absail point not far from said tree when I last went up, granted I might have had a few at the time.
In reply to Rick Graham:
If it's a choice between a small notice and a bolt, I'll go with the notice every time.
If it's a choice between a small notice and a bolt, I'll go with the notice every time.
2
In reply to ozcro:
I don't think that bolts are the answer as this is a British mountain crag where the tradition of adventure and self reliance should be maintained. I think that removing the tat from the tree is a sensible step if you are worried about its stability.
I don't think that bolts are the answer as this is a British mountain crag where the tradition of adventure and self reliance should be maintained. I think that removing the tat from the tree is a sensible step if you are worried about its stability.
2
In reply to Tom Valentine:
That is clearly what I meant but thank you for pedantically clearing that up
> The tree is not "unsafe".
> Abseiling off the tree may be unsafe.
> Abseiling off the tree may be unsafe.
That is clearly what I meant but thank you for pedantically clearing that up
In reply to GrahamD:
Yes, this. I couldn't originally work out why anyone would ab off given the choice, but it makes some sense if it's instructors teaching abseils. However, I'd suggest it loses a lot of its educational value if it's bolts, rather than a tree, as they're not something you'll find at the top of many British crags.
> On another point - bolts do not make abseils 'safe' - competence makes abseils safe (or at least as safe as it can be). Plenty of abseiling accidents happen off bolted anchors. Giving an impression of safety to those that don't have the necessary level of competence will increase the number of accidents, not reduce them.
Yes, this. I couldn't originally work out why anyone would ab off given the choice, but it makes some sense if it's instructors teaching abseils. However, I'd suggest it loses a lot of its educational value if it's bolts, rather than a tree, as they're not something you'll find at the top of many British crags.
In reply to Carolyn:
If instructors want to teach abseiling techniques then a very popular route is not the best and most sensible place to do it. Look at the damage to Peak Routes like Zapple and Louie Groove. I would have thought most instructors would agree with me on this.
If instructors want to teach abseiling techniques then a very popular route is not the best and most sensible place to do it. Look at the damage to Peak Routes like Zapple and Louie Groove. I would have thought most instructors would agree with me on this.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
I was assuming the abseil went off to the side, not down the route itself. Not actually sure if that's true, but seems likely given how busy Middlefell Buttress can get.
I was assuming the abseil went off to the side, not down the route itself. Not actually sure if that's true, but seems likely given how busy Middlefell Buttress can get.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
A notice saying what exactly?
"this tree may be dangerous to abseil from, on the other hand it may be perfectly OK, but we would hate for you to make your own decision"
> (In reply to Morgan P)
>
> Sarcasm aside, what do you think about my suggestion of a notice?
>
> Sarcasm aside, what do you think about my suggestion of a notice?
A notice saying what exactly?
"this tree may be dangerous to abseil from, on the other hand it may be perfectly OK, but we would hate for you to make your own decision"
1
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
What a wonderful multi layered post.
should be ok after tidying your grammer and punctuation a bit
What a wonderful multi layered post.
should be ok after tidying your grammer and punctuation a bit
In reply to Jimbo C:
How much of this drive for abseil points comes from mountain 'professionals' ie people using the outdoors as a workplace and bringing the constraints and pressures for speed and safety into a natural mountain environment. The follow on from this is their clients think it's normal. I wonder why climbers used to be able to walk off at Tremadog, manage the perilous scramble off the top of Idwal without a massive in situ ab sling and abing off middle fell buttress, without it going dark or started snowing why????
How much of this drive for abseil points comes from mountain 'professionals' ie people using the outdoors as a workplace and bringing the constraints and pressures for speed and safety into a natural mountain environment. The follow on from this is their clients think it's normal. I wonder why climbers used to be able to walk off at Tremadog, manage the perilous scramble off the top of Idwal without a massive in situ ab sling and abing off middle fell buttress, without it going dark or started snowing why????
In reply to ozcro:
As a teenager, which is quite a long time ago, we use to solo Middle Fell Buttress as an alternative approach to Gimmer Crag. Abseil anchors are not needed here, it's too easy to get up, down or across the route. The tree has grown in my time, now it's dying. Big deal, it's a mountain, stuff, holds, nature change things all the time.
.
As a teenager, which is quite a long time ago, we use to solo Middle Fell Buttress as an alternative approach to Gimmer Crag. Abseil anchors are not needed here, it's too easy to get up, down or across the route. The tree has grown in my time, now it's dying. Big deal, it's a mountain, stuff, holds, nature change things all the time.
.
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
How about:
"Unsafe for abseiling. You are advised to find an alternative way down"
Sarcasm aside, pick a fault with that.
How about:
"Unsafe for abseiling. You are advised to find an alternative way down"
Sarcasm aside, pick a fault with that.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Well said.
I don't know when the first ascent was, but it lasted a lot of years with countless ascents and descents before someone decided that abseiling off it was a necessary option.
Now that this option has been created, it provides its own problem as well.
The way off from MFB wasn't broken before and it doesn't need fixing now.
Well said.
I don't know when the first ascent was, but it lasted a lot of years with countless ascents and descents before someone decided that abseiling off it was a necessary option.
Now that this option has been created, it provides its own problem as well.
The way off from MFB wasn't broken before and it doesn't need fixing now.
1
In reply to Tom Valentine:
When did we start to need signs in the mountains? The OP said the tree is 'clearly unstable', surely people can be expected to form their own judgements on what is or isn't safe? There is no need to abseil from here.
When did we start to need signs in the mountains? The OP said the tree is 'clearly unstable', surely people can be expected to form their own judgements on what is or isn't safe? There is no need to abseil from here.
In reply to Howard J:
Assume that the tree genuinely is unsafe. Then yes, people should make their own judgements. BUT if people are still using the tree (presumably out of either carelessness or a desire to live on the edge) stick a notice on it. The notice should say 'Warning - this tree may be unstable. Use your own judgement'. This will probably dissuade most climbers/instructors from using it without at least giving it a bit more of a thorough examination...
Assume that the tree genuinely is unsafe. Then yes, people should make their own judgements. BUT if people are still using the tree (presumably out of either carelessness or a desire to live on the edge) stick a notice on it. The notice should say 'Warning - this tree may be unstable. Use your own judgement'. This will probably dissuade most climbers/instructors from using it without at least giving it a bit more of a thorough examination...
In reply to Carolyn:
The abseil goes down into the descent gully and using it provided an opportunity to introduce clients to abseiling and (IIRC) missed out a couple of awkward steps at the start of the descent. (it's been a good few years since I was there)
The abseil goes down into the descent gully and using it provided an opportunity to introduce clients to abseiling and (IIRC) missed out a couple of awkward steps at the start of the descent. (it's been a good few years since I was there)
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I think it's a dangerous precedent. The ethos of climbing has always been that climbers take responsibility for themselves. It is difficult enough to persuade landowners that they won't be held liable for a climbing accident on their land, and the BMC has gone to the lengths of publishing a leaflet to try to reassure them. This could be undermined if the climbing community itself then goes about sticking warning signs on things.
An instructor who can't check their anchors shouldn't be instructing.
If the tree is clearly unstable as the OP claims then it should be apparent to anyone. If someone still chooses to ab from it then that is their choice and they face the consequences. If there is a hidden hazard which is not apparent then there may be a case for someone to deal with it to remove the hazard. But please, no signs. Where would it stop? I don't want to see anybody hurt, but taking the responsibility away from people will just make them less likely to think for themselves. Why a sign here and not on any of the other loose holds or anchors?
I think it's a dangerous precedent. The ethos of climbing has always been that climbers take responsibility for themselves. It is difficult enough to persuade landowners that they won't be held liable for a climbing accident on their land, and the BMC has gone to the lengths of publishing a leaflet to try to reassure them. This could be undermined if the climbing community itself then goes about sticking warning signs on things.
An instructor who can't check their anchors shouldn't be instructing.
If the tree is clearly unstable as the OP claims then it should be apparent to anyone. If someone still chooses to ab from it then that is their choice and they face the consequences. If there is a hidden hazard which is not apparent then there may be a case for someone to deal with it to remove the hazard. But please, no signs. Where would it stop? I don't want to see anybody hurt, but taking the responsibility away from people will just make them less likely to think for themselves. Why a sign here and not on any of the other loose holds or anchors?
1
In reply to ozcro:
If it's about saving the tree, just put a discrete label on the tree saying 'we are trying to save this lovely tree, please don't abseil off it'
No different to a label saying 'don't climb this route, there is a cute bird nesting on it' or 'avoid the grumpy farmer by walking around on this path'
There is no need to bring safety into it. Climbers need to make their own judgements and bolts are unnecessary in the mountain environment. Tat (I.e discarded rubbish) isn't great either. It's certainly no better than a stainless chain on a natural thread. I can kinda see the point of a chain, but only as an alternative to tat. Ideally, just MTFU, carry some boots and walk down.
Steve
If it's about saving the tree, just put a discrete label on the tree saying 'we are trying to save this lovely tree, please don't abseil off it'
No different to a label saying 'don't climb this route, there is a cute bird nesting on it' or 'avoid the grumpy farmer by walking around on this path'
There is no need to bring safety into it. Climbers need to make their own judgements and bolts are unnecessary in the mountain environment. Tat (I.e discarded rubbish) isn't great either. It's certainly no better than a stainless chain on a natural thread. I can kinda see the point of a chain, but only as an alternative to tat. Ideally, just MTFU, carry some boots and walk down.
Steve
In reply to Howard J:
I think there are trees in Cheddar Gorge that have signs on them warning against abseiling on them?
I suspect most landowners would be happier with a loose tree bearing a sign warning against abseiling off it than a loose tree with abseil tat on it.
Obviously! I assume you are volunteering to monitor use of the tree and chastise instructors accordingly?
True for individual climbers. Not true for instructed groups who cannot be expected to check the anchors just in case their instructor is lazy or incompetent...
While self-reliance is an important skill I don't think it should be taken to extremes - where information is withheld because climbers should find things out for themselves. Guidebooks often warn of loose blocks and trees, or warn that a route contains loose rock; climbers often share information amongst themselves. Arguably putting a sign on the tree is an act of self-reliance by the climbing community as a whole?
Fundamentally it comes down to two questions.
a) Is the tree genuinely loose and potentially dangerous.
b) Is the tree commonly used by climbers and groups in spite of point a).
If so, then it is an accident waiting to happen. This makes it unusual - most loose things are on less-travelled routes, where people should and do take more care to check anchors etc. Most trees are not that heavily used. Only the combination of these factors would make the risk high enough to warrant mitigation; I don't think it is the thin end of the tree-signing wedge...
> I think it's a dangerous precedent.
I think there are trees in Cheddar Gorge that have signs on them warning against abseiling on them?
> [...] This could be undermined if the climbing community itself then goes about sticking warning signs on things.
I suspect most landowners would be happier with a loose tree bearing a sign warning against abseiling off it than a loose tree with abseil tat on it.
> An instructor who can't check their anchors shouldn't be instructing.
Obviously! I assume you are volunteering to monitor use of the tree and chastise instructors accordingly?
> If the tree is clearly unstable as the OP claims then it should be apparent to anyone. If someone still chooses to ab from it then that is their choice and they face the consequences.
True for individual climbers. Not true for instructed groups who cannot be expected to check the anchors just in case their instructor is lazy or incompetent...
While self-reliance is an important skill I don't think it should be taken to extremes - where information is withheld because climbers should find things out for themselves. Guidebooks often warn of loose blocks and trees, or warn that a route contains loose rock; climbers often share information amongst themselves. Arguably putting a sign on the tree is an act of self-reliance by the climbing community as a whole?
Fundamentally it comes down to two questions.
a) Is the tree genuinely loose and potentially dangerous.
b) Is the tree commonly used by climbers and groups in spite of point a).
If so, then it is an accident waiting to happen. This makes it unusual - most loose things are on less-travelled routes, where people should and do take more care to check anchors etc. Most trees are not that heavily used. Only the combination of these factors would make the risk high enough to warrant mitigation; I don't think it is the thin end of the tree-signing wedge...
Post edited at 15:24
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Plenty of dodgy trees are heavily used - Shorncliff (where there are few if any alternatives) and Tremadog spring to mind.
Heaven help the current generation if they ever want to visit the Alps !
Plenty of dodgy trees are heavily used - Shorncliff (where there are few if any alternatives) and Tremadog spring to mind.
Heaven help the current generation if they ever want to visit the Alps !
1
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
I can attest to the danger of that tree, I once abbed off the end of my rope because of it. If it had been safely bolted that would never have happened...
I can attest to the danger of that tree, I once abbed off the end of my rope because of it. If it had been safely bolted that would never have happened...
In reply to GrahamD:
But they aren't in the Alps, and if they do I am sure they will recognise that the Alps are a more serious environment.
> Heaven help the current generation if they ever want to visit the Alps !
But they aren't in the Alps, and if they do I am sure they will recognise that the Alps are a more serious environment.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Anywhere where you're dangling over a potentially lethal drop on a rope that's attached to a single anchor is a "serious environment". You'll be just as dead if your anchor blows at Raven Crag as you would on the Dru.
> But they aren't in the Alps, and if they do I am sure they will recognise that the Alps are a more serious environment.
Anywhere where you're dangling over a potentially lethal drop on a rope that's attached to a single anchor is a "serious environment". You'll be just as dead if your anchor blows at Raven Crag as you would on the Dru.
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I don't know Cheddar, but I would hazard a guess that might be due more to access restrictions rather than safety. The same goes for bird restrictions. Those are usually erected by others, or if by climbers at others' behest.
Liability is a difficult area and widely misunderstood. My point is that it may make it harder to persuade landowners that they are not liable for climbers and not responsible for policing natural hazards if climbers then go around sticking warning signs on things. And if you warn of one hazard, might you then be liable if you fail to warn of another?
The very act of climbing is an accident waiting to happen. We reduce the risk with equipment but most of all with judgement.
The question of groups using it should be a red herring. If professional instructors cannot be trusted to set up a safe abseil then something is badly wrong. Individual climbers should take responsibility for themselves. This is apparently not a concealed hazard or one which only becomes apparent when you are committed to the route, neither is it necessary to ab from here.
I agree we should share information. I agree the tat should be removed. I don't think signage of any sort is appropriate on the mountains.
I don't know Cheddar, but I would hazard a guess that might be due more to access restrictions rather than safety. The same goes for bird restrictions. Those are usually erected by others, or if by climbers at others' behest.
Liability is a difficult area and widely misunderstood. My point is that it may make it harder to persuade landowners that they are not liable for climbers and not responsible for policing natural hazards if climbers then go around sticking warning signs on things. And if you warn of one hazard, might you then be liable if you fail to warn of another?
The very act of climbing is an accident waiting to happen. We reduce the risk with equipment but most of all with judgement.
The question of groups using it should be a red herring. If professional instructors cannot be trusted to set up a safe abseil then something is badly wrong. Individual climbers should take responsibility for themselves. This is apparently not a concealed hazard or one which only becomes apparent when you are committed to the route, neither is it necessary to ab from here.
I agree we should share information. I agree the tat should be removed. I don't think signage of any sort is appropriate on the mountains.
In reply to mrj_langley:
Love it
> I can attest to the danger of that tree, I once abbed off the end of my rope because of it. If it had been safely bolted that would never have happened...
Love it
In reply to andrewmcleod:
They are on a UK mountain crag and so should recognise that it isn't Portland either.
> But they aren't in the Alps, and if they do I am sure they will recognise that the Alps are a more serious environment.
They are on a UK mountain crag and so should recognise that it isn't Portland either.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
we don't know its unsafe though, that is the point, someone weighing 8 stone wet might think: "thats OK, I'm happy with that"
an 18 stone chunker might think: "I'm going nowhere near that".
its for each individual to decide whether they are happy to abseil off a particular anchor. There are trees with tat on above Bleak How that I would be more than happy to abseil off, there are others I would not, thats just my opinion, its not fact. Are you going to put signs on some of these saying they are unsafe, and consequently are you then assuming trees without a sign are safe to abseil from?
> (In reply to Dave Ferguson)
>
> How about:
>
> "Unsafe for abseiling. You are advised to find an alternative way down"
>
> Sarcasm aside, pick a fault with that.
>
> How about:
>
> "Unsafe for abseiling. You are advised to find an alternative way down"
>
> Sarcasm aside, pick a fault with that.
we don't know its unsafe though, that is the point, someone weighing 8 stone wet might think: "thats OK, I'm happy with that"
an 18 stone chunker might think: "I'm going nowhere near that".
its for each individual to decide whether they are happy to abseil off a particular anchor. There are trees with tat on above Bleak How that I would be more than happy to abseil off, there are others I would not, thats just my opinion, its not fact. Are you going to put signs on some of these saying they are unsafe, and consequently are you then assuming trees without a sign are safe to abseil from?
In reply to Dave Ferguson:
I don't want a sign there, in an ideal world.
But someone started this thread with the idea of putting in bolts so that climbers could ab off MFB.
If people had a bit more gumption and learned to cope with the descent in the traditional way then there would be no need for either signs or bolts.
As I said earlier, a sign seems to me to be the lesser of two evils, but overall we should be able to assess our own anchors.
To be honest, until this thread cropped up I would never have expected to see people abbing off a route like Middle Fell Buttress. Whoever started the trend ought to feel a bit sheepish.
I don't want a sign there, in an ideal world.
But someone started this thread with the idea of putting in bolts so that climbers could ab off MFB.
If people had a bit more gumption and learned to cope with the descent in the traditional way then there would be no need for either signs or bolts.
As I said earlier, a sign seems to me to be the lesser of two evils, but overall we should be able to assess our own anchors.
To be honest, until this thread cropped up I would never have expected to see people abbing off a route like Middle Fell Buttress. Whoever started the trend ought to feel a bit sheepish.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
To be honest, dumb sheep don't seem to have a problem with getting around that part of the crag.
> To be honest, until this thread cropped up I would never have expected to see people abbing off a route like Middle Fell Buttress. Whoever started the trend ought to feel a bit sheepish.
To be honest, dumb sheep don't seem to have a problem with getting around that part of the crag.
In reply to Tom Valentine:
We don't need either evil. Ollie got himself in a tizz about a dodgy tree and suggested the bolts. That was pretty quickly scotched but then for some reason people got themselves all tangled up in the need for cutting down the tree (now also scotched, I think) so now we're down to signs, which in my opinion are also totally unecessary.
People seem to be fretting about groups. They are not a problem. By definition a group on a course will have instructors who can assess the anchors . So we can forget about them.
So we are left with unsupervised climbers. If they have elected to go unsupervised they obviously consider themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be competent. We must respect their judgement just as I expect other to respect my judgement when I go climbing. Now we have no problem at all. No need for bolts, saws or signs. That's it.
> a sign seems to me to be the lesser of two evils, but overall we should be able to assess our own anchors.
We don't need either evil. Ollie got himself in a tizz about a dodgy tree and suggested the bolts. That was pretty quickly scotched but then for some reason people got themselves all tangled up in the need for cutting down the tree (now also scotched, I think) so now we're down to signs, which in my opinion are also totally unecessary.
People seem to be fretting about groups. They are not a problem. By definition a group on a course will have instructors who can assess the anchors . So we can forget about them.
So we are left with unsupervised climbers. If they have elected to go unsupervised they obviously consider themselves (rightly or wrongly) to be competent. We must respect their judgement just as I expect other to respect my judgement when I go climbing. Now we have no problem at all. No need for bolts, saws or signs. That's it.
Post edited at 19:43
1
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
And just how many 'groups' get led up Middlefell Buttress. We are talking about a 3 pitch Diff? So most MIA's will be working at around 1:2?
I was a bit concerned by a post earlier that seemed to suggest that the poster, as an instructor, does regularly use this tree with 'clients'. And further posts that seemed to be suggesting that it was all the fault of 'instructors'.
'Instructors' (i.e. MIA and above) ARE - by default - climbers. They have a pretty thorough thrashing through the training and assessment for the MIA and should easily be able to manage the selection of safe anchors. SPA? Shouldn't really be up there at all.
Look at the stats and MR reports. It's not 'instructed groups' that come to grief. Its dumb-ass recreational climbers.
> People seem to be fretting about groups. They are not a problem. By definition a group on a course will have instructors who can assess the anchors . So we can forget about them.
And just how many 'groups' get led up Middlefell Buttress. We are talking about a 3 pitch Diff? So most MIA's will be working at around 1:2?
I was a bit concerned by a post earlier that seemed to suggest that the poster, as an instructor, does regularly use this tree with 'clients'. And further posts that seemed to be suggesting that it was all the fault of 'instructors'.
'Instructors' (i.e. MIA and above) ARE - by default - climbers. They have a pretty thorough thrashing through the training and assessment for the MIA and should easily be able to manage the selection of safe anchors. SPA? Shouldn't really be up there at all.
Look at the stats and MR reports. It's not 'instructed groups' that come to grief. Its dumb-ass recreational climbers.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Sorry Mr Coyote,
You said the same thing as me, earlier, with more moderate language.
Good effort.
Sorry Mr Coyote,
You said the same thing as me, earlier, with more moderate language.
Good effort.
In reply to andyathome:
Easy there, Andy. I realise that a single instructor would not take a group. That's why I said instructors (plural). Whenever I see groups in the Lakes there are always several instructors/supervisors. Anyway we seem to be agreed they pose no problem at all.
> And just how many 'groups' get led up Middlefell Buttress. We are talking about a 3 pitch Diff? So most MIA's will be working at around 1:2?
Easy there, Andy. I realise that a single instructor would not take a group. That's why I said instructors (plural). Whenever I see groups in the Lakes there are always several instructors/supervisors. Anyway we seem to be agreed they pose no problem at all.
In reply to andyathome:
Climbing on a big mountain crag in Southern Europe today with routes up to 15 pitches. Top of the crag not only has signage to the abseil descent, the abs are fully bolted too.
None of this is necessary as a 'walk off' is very doable by a fast team, however, it's very handy and likely results in fewer calls to the local MR team. A good thing in this case, I think so. A good thing in every case, not necessarily.
Climbing on a big mountain crag in Southern Europe today with routes up to 15 pitches. Top of the crag not only has signage to the abseil descent, the abs are fully bolted too.
None of this is necessary as a 'walk off' is very doable by a fast team, however, it's very handy and likely results in fewer calls to the local MR team. A good thing in this case, I think so. A good thing in every case, not necessarily.
1
In reply to A Mountain Journey:
Want to list all the other things they do in Europe while you are at it? My favourite is how VFs encourage all sorts of folk into potential weather hazzards they are not experienced enough or equipt properly to cope with (rain, snow lightning) and of course keeps those rescue teams busy. Self reliance based on experience is the best safety practice we have anywhere.
Want to list all the other things they do in Europe while you are at it? My favourite is how VFs encourage all sorts of folk into potential weather hazzards they are not experienced enough or equipt properly to cope with (rain, snow lightning) and of course keeps those rescue teams busy. Self reliance based on experience is the best safety practice we have anywhere.
Post edited at 21:07
1
1
In reply to andyathome:
So if you have a certificate, you are a climber.
If you do not have a certificate, you are a dumb-ass recreational climber.
Bit strong considering probably 99% of climbers are recreational.
So if you have a certificate, you are a climber.
If you do not have a certificate, you are a dumb-ass recreational climber.
Bit strong considering probably 99% of climbers are recreational.
1
In reply to Climbingspike:
Did he actually say that though?
> So if you have a certificate, you are a climber.
> If you do not have a certificate, you are a dumb-ass recreational climber.
> Bit strong considering probably 99% of climbers are recreational.
Did he actually say that though?
In reply to Climbingspike:
Did he actually say that though?
> So if you have a certificate, you are a climber.
> If you do not have a certificate, you are a dumb-ass recreational climber.
> Bit strong considering probably 99% of climbers are recreational.
Did he actually say that though?
In reply to Howard J:
I believe they are in the agreed access gully (Shoot Gully) and are explicitly about looseness of the trees since the gully itself is a bit terrifying, I slid down the start of it the one time I tried to get up it and decided today was not the day...
> I don't know Cheddar, but I would hazard a guess that might be due more to access restrictions rather than safety. The same goes for bird restrictions. Those are usually erected by others, or if by climbers at others' behest.
I believe they are in the agreed access gully (Shoot Gully) and are explicitly about looseness of the trees since the gully itself is a bit terrifying, I slid down the start of it the one time I tried to get up it and decided today was not the day...
Post edited at 11:46
In reply to GrahamD:
Portland can be pretty loose too! But more seriously, whether they should or not people do make judgements based on things like the popularity of the route. If you are in the Alps you expect everything to be loose. If you are on a 3 star well travelled sport route you expect almost nothing to be loose. Personally I always wear a helmet, even while sport climbing, but how many people save the helmets for trad? If you see a tree covered in tat at the top of a popular route, people may be lazy and not check it as thoroughly as they should. I'm not excusing this behaviour!
The OP claimed the tree was heavily used by instructors, and that 3-4 people were often hanging off it at any one time. The OP claimed the tree was unstable. Obviously I have no way of verifying either of these stories. I do hope that these stories are not true and either the tree is not unstable or everyone using it is making a detailed assessment of the tree and deciding it is stable enough for them, and if it is unstable it is not being used by groups. In this case, like 99.9% of other trees, no sign is warranted. Only if people really are regularly making mistakes here is a sign warranted. Otherwise, I agree no sign is needed (even if the tree is unstable).
> They are on a UK mountain crag and so should recognise that it isn't Portland either.
Portland can be pretty loose too! But more seriously, whether they should or not people do make judgements based on things like the popularity of the route. If you are in the Alps you expect everything to be loose. If you are on a 3 star well travelled sport route you expect almost nothing to be loose. Personally I always wear a helmet, even while sport climbing, but how many people save the helmets for trad? If you see a tree covered in tat at the top of a popular route, people may be lazy and not check it as thoroughly as they should. I'm not excusing this behaviour!
The OP claimed the tree was heavily used by instructors, and that 3-4 people were often hanging off it at any one time. The OP claimed the tree was unstable. Obviously I have no way of verifying either of these stories. I do hope that these stories are not true and either the tree is not unstable or everyone using it is making a detailed assessment of the tree and deciding it is stable enough for them, and if it is unstable it is not being used by groups. In this case, like 99.9% of other trees, no sign is warranted. Only if people really are regularly making mistakes here is a sign warranted. Otherwise, I agree no sign is needed (even if the tree is unstable).
In reply to andrewmcleod:
I don't think a sign helps at all. If the person is incompetent enough to need to be told about a dodgy tree, should they not have been reminded to check their knot at the foot of the route or notices saying that there are more sensible ways off MFB (like finishing the route) ?
Its a slippery slope when the climbing community feels it has to hold everyone's hand in every situation. Climbing is a bottomless well of opportunities to f*ck up badly. Drawing attention to a few of them only leads to an unjustified sense of security. What do people do when there isn't a sign on a tree ?
I don't think a sign helps at all. If the person is incompetent enough to need to be told about a dodgy tree, should they not have been reminded to check their knot at the foot of the route or notices saying that there are more sensible ways off MFB (like finishing the route) ?
Its a slippery slope when the climbing community feels it has to hold everyone's hand in every situation. Climbing is a bottomless well of opportunities to f*ck up badly. Drawing attention to a few of them only leads to an unjustified sense of security. What do people do when there isn't a sign on a tree ?
1
In reply to GrahamD:
I realise I am as guilty as everyone else, but this thread is pointless unless the following two questions are answered:
a) Is the tree 'unsafe' in some way.
b) Is the tree being used by climbers/instructors who are failing to make an accurate assessment of the tree.
Unless both questions are true no actions need to be taken. If both questions are true then doing nothing may lead to an accident.
I think there is a psychological issue here. People will be much less likely to properly assess a tree that has tat on (on the assumption it has been used before), and will be much more likely to assess or just avoid a tree with a notice on. This isn't right but I would be very surprised if it wasn't true. As a minimum dodgy trees should not have tat on to discourage careless clipping.
I realise I am as guilty as everyone else, but this thread is pointless unless the following two questions are answered:
a) Is the tree 'unsafe' in some way.
b) Is the tree being used by climbers/instructors who are failing to make an accurate assessment of the tree.
Unless both questions are true no actions need to be taken. If both questions are true then doing nothing may lead to an accident.
I think there is a psychological issue here. People will be much less likely to properly assess a tree that has tat on (on the assumption it has been used before), and will be much more likely to assess or just avoid a tree with a notice on. This isn't right but I would be very surprised if it wasn't true. As a minimum dodgy trees should not have tat on to discourage careless clipping.
Post edited at 14:39
In reply to andrewmcleod:
Fundamentally I disagree. What will lead to an accident is one person's misjudgment - just like any other aspect of climbing. The tree is obviously safe if its left alone so fine, remove tat but expect numpties to abseil with the rope directly round the tree thereby accelerating its demise.
> Unless both questions are true no actions need to be taken. If both questions are true then doing nothing will lead to an accident.
Fundamentally I disagree. What will lead to an accident is one person's misjudgment - just like any other aspect of climbing. The tree is obviously safe if its left alone so fine, remove tat but expect numpties to abseil with the rope directly round the tree thereby accelerating its demise.
In reply to Climbingspike:
Listen very carefully.
If I say to you that all Cocker Spaniels are dogs that does not mean that there are not other dogs who are not Cocker Spaniels.
I didn't say 'certificate'; I referred to the Mountaineering Instructor Award. The MIA's are the Cocker Spaniels. With me?
Recreational climbers are dogs just as much as Cocker Spaniels. And vice versa. I would totally agree that probably around 99% of dogs are not Cocker Spaniels.
I would ask you to consider my suggestion that an analysis of accident statistics suggests that Cocker Spaniels and dogs in their care tend to feature less than dogs who are not Cocker Spaniels and not in the care of Cocker Spaniels. Although it is not unknown for even Cocker Spaniels to run wild.
I had a Cocker Spaniel once. Name of 'Butch'. Lovely dog.
> So if you have a certificate, you are a climber.
> If you do not have a certificate, you are a dumb-ass recreational climber.
> Bit strong considering probably 99% of climbers are recreational.
Listen very carefully.
If I say to you that all Cocker Spaniels are dogs that does not mean that there are not other dogs who are not Cocker Spaniels.
I didn't say 'certificate'; I referred to the Mountaineering Instructor Award. The MIA's are the Cocker Spaniels. With me?
Recreational climbers are dogs just as much as Cocker Spaniels. And vice versa. I would totally agree that probably around 99% of dogs are not Cocker Spaniels.
I would ask you to consider my suggestion that an analysis of accident statistics suggests that Cocker Spaniels and dogs in their care tend to feature less than dogs who are not Cocker Spaniels and not in the care of Cocker Spaniels. Although it is not unknown for even Cocker Spaniels to run wild.
I had a Cocker Spaniel once. Name of 'Butch'. Lovely dog.
In reply to A Mountain Journey:
You are on top of your big mountain crag in Southern Europe looking down a potentially very slippery slope.
What we want on the mountain crags of UK is 'handy signage'? I think not. What we want are fully equipped rap lines? I think not. Slow teams should have the facility of a quick exit from a big route rather than actually walking? I think not.
Personally I don't go climbing expecting that things will be made 'handy' for me.
And I'd echo the comment made above: 'convenience routes' sucker in the unwary because they are 'safe'. And they aren't.
> Climbing on a big mountain crag in Southern Europe today with routes up to 15 pitches. Top of the crag not only has signage to the abseil descent, the abs are fully bolted too.
> None of this is necessary as a 'walk off' is very doable by a fast team, however, it's very handy and likely results in fewer calls to the local MR team. A good thing in this case, I think so. A good thing in every case, not necessarily.
You are on top of your big mountain crag in Southern Europe looking down a potentially very slippery slope.
What we want on the mountain crags of UK is 'handy signage'? I think not. What we want are fully equipped rap lines? I think not. Slow teams should have the facility of a quick exit from a big route rather than actually walking? I think not.
Personally I don't go climbing expecting that things will be made 'handy' for me.
And I'd echo the comment made above: 'convenience routes' sucker in the unwary because they are 'safe'. And they aren't.
In reply to andyathome:
Read this very carefully.
MIA, (climber with a certificate to instruct), a cocker spaniel dog ( climber by default ) all other dogs dumb ass climbers, so I think you are saying all climbers are dogs but those who have past a test are cocker spaniels and not dumb assess like the rest.
I have considered accidents involving cocker spaniels, as 1% of all the dog population, percentage wise their accident rate is much higher than you might think. I know of two recently and one of them was best of breed ( a Guide )
Just to keep on track with the tree, no to bolts, no to signs, no to tat, just leave it be, people will do what they want.
Read this very carefully.
MIA, (climber with a certificate to instruct), a cocker spaniel dog ( climber by default ) all other dogs dumb ass climbers, so I think you are saying all climbers are dogs but those who have past a test are cocker spaniels and not dumb assess like the rest.
I have considered accidents involving cocker spaniels, as 1% of all the dog population, percentage wise their accident rate is much higher than you might think. I know of two recently and one of them was best of breed ( a Guide )
Just to keep on track with the tree, no to bolts, no to signs, no to tat, just leave it be, people will do what they want.
In reply to John Kelly:
Second post on the thread and probably one of the most sensible responses!
> (In reply to Ollie Hensman-Crook) wonder what's happened to it - stout rowan, IIRC, not normally a tree to give up
> there are 3 alternative ways (at least) to get off from there without rapping so i wouldn't be voting bolt just yet
> john
> there are 3 alternative ways (at least) to get off from there without rapping so i wouldn't be voting bolt just yet
> john
Second post on the thread and probably one of the most sensible responses!
1
In reply to Climbingspike:
A few tweaks to your post so it reads well and accords with what I think I said. My original sentiment was that far from the idea that instructors are some sort of maverick breed who are not in tune with 'climbing' they actually ARE climbers the same as everyone else. And that many accidents/incidents happen to folks who are just out there climbing and have made an error; they may, of course, equally be acts of god.
It's interesting that you know of two incidents involving well bred dogs. That is contrasted with exactly how many UK wide incidents involving lesser breeds.
And you must be aware that even the best bred dogs go 'feral' every now and again. It's so easy to forget that you are a Spaniel and just go out and do 'doggy' things. I'm a King Charles Spaniel but there are many times I do dumb things whilst at play. I would guess that your 'best of breed' incident didn't involve work but play? We all screw up at play.
And totally agree about the tree; the idea that 'instructors' are responsible for/want this is a straw man.
> Read this very carefully.
> MIA, (A climber WHO HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS COMPETENT to instruct) IS a cocker spaniel dog ( AND IS A climber by default ). All other dogs ARE DOGS WHO ARE NOT COCKER SPANIELS. So I think you are saying all climbers are dogs but those who have PASSED a test are cocker spaniels and not DOGS like the rest.
> I have considered accidents involving cocker spaniels, as 1% of all the dog population, percentage wise their accident rate is much higher than you might think. I know of two recently and one of them was best of breed ( a Guide )
> Just to keep on track with the tree, no to bolts, no to signs, no to tat, just leave it be, people will do what they want.
A few tweaks to your post so it reads well and accords with what I think I said. My original sentiment was that far from the idea that instructors are some sort of maverick breed who are not in tune with 'climbing' they actually ARE climbers the same as everyone else. And that many accidents/incidents happen to folks who are just out there climbing and have made an error; they may, of course, equally be acts of god.
It's interesting that you know of two incidents involving well bred dogs. That is contrasted with exactly how many UK wide incidents involving lesser breeds.
And you must be aware that even the best bred dogs go 'feral' every now and again. It's so easy to forget that you are a Spaniel and just go out and do 'doggy' things. I'm a King Charles Spaniel but there are many times I do dumb things whilst at play. I would guess that your 'best of breed' incident didn't involve work but play? We all screw up at play.
And totally agree about the tree; the idea that 'instructors' are responsible for/want this is a straw man.
1
In reply to andyathome:
And neither do I go climbing because it's handy. But if things have been made a little more convenient then I appreciate it, as most people would. Climbed on a sea cliff a couple of days ago, has a 40m abseil approach that is bolted (no natural anchors exist). Now we could have avoided using those very handy bolts and made the circa 1km swim, but we were just feeling slow and lazy so went for the bolted abseil option, slow suckers seeking convenience or what!
Tat is unsightly, and as May be the case on mfb, it can damage trees. Discreet bolting is less unsightly, safer, and isn't going to damage any trees, so therefore seems like a reasonable option to consider, walking down is of course another perfectly sensible option, but if you're about to miss last orders at the odg, the ab is going to be quicker
And neither do I go climbing because it's handy. But if things have been made a little more convenient then I appreciate it, as most people would. Climbed on a sea cliff a couple of days ago, has a 40m abseil approach that is bolted (no natural anchors exist). Now we could have avoided using those very handy bolts and made the circa 1km swim, but we were just feeling slow and lazy so went for the bolted abseil option, slow suckers seeking convenience or what!
Tat is unsightly, and as May be the case on mfb, it can damage trees. Discreet bolting is less unsightly, safer, and isn't going to damage any trees, so therefore seems like a reasonable option to consider, walking down is of course another perfectly sensible option, but if you're about to miss last orders at the odg, the ab is going to be quicker
In reply to Bob:
sorry for delay, been climbing
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=247925
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=247924
not pretty but show what the discussion is about
cheers
john
> Non facebook link please for those of us at work and with restricted access.
sorry for delay, been climbing
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=247925
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=247924
not pretty but show what the discussion is about
cheers
john
In reply to A Mountain Journey:
Actually you are wrong. The reason for putting in-situ slings round trees is to PREVENT damage that might be caused by folks pulling ropes down and damaging the bark. Surprised you didn't know that.
The idea we should bolt abseil an station on Middlefell Buttress to facilitate getting to the ODG is pretty laughable. And I know that you realise that.
> Tat is unsightly, and as May be the case on mfb, it can damage trees. Discreet bolting is less unsightly, safer, and isn't going to damage any trees, so therefore seems like a reasonable option to consider, walking down is of course another perfectly sensible option, but if you're about to miss last orders at the odg, the ab is going to be quicker
Actually you are wrong. The reason for putting in-situ slings round trees is to PREVENT damage that might be caused by folks pulling ropes down and damaging the bark. Surprised you didn't know that.
The idea we should bolt abseil an station on Middlefell Buttress to facilitate getting to the ODG is pretty laughable. And I know that you realise that.
In reply to andyathome:
Couldn't the bolts be used to anchor a zipwire, then we could please people who can't be arsed to walk off and those who are worried about making a late entrance at the bar.
Couldn't the bolts be used to anchor a zipwire, then we could please people who can't be arsed to walk off and those who are worried about making a late entrance at the bar.
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...