In reply to bpmclimb:
Ill recopy the process the BMC came up with...
The BMC position on fixed gear is as follows:
(
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-drilled-equipment-and-dry-tooling-position-sta... )
"retro-bolting proposals should be widely publicised prior to discussion, and agreed on a consensus basis.
In these discussions the following factors must be given careful consideration:
• Access, environmental and land ownership issues.
• The history of the area or crag in terms of the established climbing ethics.
• Existing drilled equipment policies and agreements in place.
• The views of the first ascensionists.
• The level of importance (i.e. local / regional / national) of the area or crag in question.
• The nature of the rock (i.e. natural or quarried) and the availability of natural protection.
• The aspirations of current and future generations of climbers.
In the case of substantive and potentially controversial proposals to use drilled equipment, wider consultation should be carried out through National Council, the BMC Area structure and the BMC’s media outlets prior to agreement. The document provides further guidance to the BMC drilled equipment policy 1992."
Neil moans about traditionalists (some of whom are very young in fact) so he aware there is opposition then canvases in a way that makes the outcome one-sided and makes a big public splash about it. He isn't an idiot so must have done this on purpose. I've still not been able to find the question he canvassed on Facebook with yet (the one from Aug 2013 was about sport routes)... I'd probably have been neutral on retrobolting from the details so my beef is really he is inflaming arguments by not attempting to follow a fair process. Like Adam on the other channel I'm not fussed about where it's done but it should have been done before the action, in public (UKC would be fine)... now though we are clearly having the proper argument after the event, that didn't occur in the canvassing.
Post edited at 10:54