UKC

No more "dirty weekends" at the low rocks of high rocks?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 RobertHepburn 05 Jun 2015
Hi Southern Boulderers,

I guess many you will have seen the new access agreement at high rocks:

http://www.rockclimbingstore.co.uk/high-rocks-access/

Basically no bouldering Friday, Saturday or Sunday - a real shame for those wanting to do hard bouldering in the south-east!

The agreement seems a bit odd, and I am wondering if a boulderer swore at the owner/slept with his wife or something? Can anyone shed any light on why boulderers have been singled out?

It will also be interesting to understand more detail abut the agreement:
1. Are roped climbers allowed to use bouldering pads to protect the starts of climbs and stop erosion of the ground under the starts of routes? If so, does that mean can boulder as long as we put a rope around our waists?
2. Will roped climbers be allowed to solo to put top ropes in e.g. at the isolated boulder at the back? If so, does that mean we can effectively boulder without crash pads?

For me there is huge cross-over between people doing routes and bouldering - I have done plenty of both in my time, and pads and ropes are just how you protect different climbs. I am really struggling to understand why you can climb a route with a rope on, but cannot climb the same bit of rock at the same time without one or with a pad underneath you?

I am not expecting to change the decision, but a bit of understanding of the reasons behind what might look like blind prejudice would be nice? I would like to believe that the owner is reasonable?

Rob
 Durbs 05 Jun 2015
In reply to RobertHepburn:

I particularly like the quote at the top of that:
"Never to be said unto your shame that all was beauty till here you came"
 ian bryant 05 Jun 2015
In reply to RobertHepburn:

> I am not expecting to change the decision, but a bit of understanding of the reasons behind what might look like blind prejudice would be nice? I would like to believe that the owner is reasonable?

your perception of the former seems accurate and, on the latter, i think you might be disappointed ....
 jsmcfarland 06 Jun 2015
In reply to RobertHepburn:

> I am not expecting to change the decision, but a bit of understanding of the reasons behind what might look like blind prejudice would be nice? I would like to believe that the owner is reasonable?

> Rob


you clearly don't know the owner! :P

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...