UKC

There is a nesting restriction in place on the whole of this crag until 31st May to allow a pair of Ravens to have the best chance of nesting successfully. This has been publicised on The BMC RAD and the Climbing area of The Fell & Rock website, with a pointer to these sites posted on this forum. Sadly some climbers have recently visited the crag and caused disturbance to the birds which is illegal.

We (the Lakes climbing community) have built up an excellent relationship with Natural England and The National Park Authority precisely because nesting restrictions are observed, let's maintain and strengthen that relationship. Raven Walthwaite is in a very visible location where infringements are clearly seen, it only takes one local person to object and our reputation is diminished.

There are about 800 routes in Langdale and Raven Walthwaite (which has ~40 routes) is the only crag in the valley with a restriction so there is plenty to go at elsewhere in the valley!

Sorry for the rant.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

There have been 5 or 6 folk logging things since late February there if you take a look at the latest ascents on the crag page  Raven Crag (Walthwaite).

Poor effort, folks

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Is there a sign at the crag? would be reasonably easy to arrange given the normal access. Not everyone reads bmc or frcc - I do and still get caught out occasionally, all the way to Nab to be confronted with a million pigeon feathers doh 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

That is remarkable given that the restriction is clearly shown at the top of the crag page!

In reply to John Kelly:

Rather like a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor the last sign vanished in mysterious circumstances. I understand that a new sign has now been placed.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Should we be properly "outing" people on a forum like this, their UKC ids are clearly on the logged climbs but should we be giving them some directed disapproval by naming and shaming.

I'm not sure, so at the moment I'll take a half-step with an example; the most recent poster on Route 2 (HS 4b) has been climbing for more than 20 years and should surely know better.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yes we should. As Trevor mentions, there are more than enough routes in Langdale that we can all leave the Ravens of Walthwaite in peace for a while longer.

A sign at the gate below the crag will be useful, I know it wasn't there a couple of weeks ago as I walked along the path there. Hoping it's back now.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Frustrating, it would be good to find out if the signage is in place, I'm a 40 mins drive away and will happily drive up to check unless someone is nearer or knows better. We would hope that most climbers would happily do an about-turn if confronted with physical bird ban notification signage, it's easy to place at this crag and pretty unmissable given the approach.  It's a blessing and a curse that Langdale is a mobile reception black hole and people are effectively offline for the weekend, I suspect many visitors will spot the crag in the paper guidebooks while in the valley and make a quick trip without even realising that there may be a problem.

In reply to DMOB:

Quite a few signs have been removed from venues over the years as a foolish tiny minority of climbers resent bird nesting restrictions.

It's nesting season, so lots of volunteers work hard to make restrictions public as soon as possible: with local signage, and BMC RAD page updates, which for some time now have been attached to UKC logbook pages. There is no excuse for someone logging climbs on UKC on a crag with a ban indicated on the UKC crag front page. 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/rad/view.aspx?id=309

In reply to DMOB:

All well and good but to then go and post it online, be confronted by the bird ban notice as soon as you load the crag page and not even a regretful remark as to how you were unaware/didn’t see some massive black birds hanging around/no signage in place etc? It feels as a third party like there’s very little care for the birds welfare given, which as part of a group of people who profess to love the natural environment, hurts.

I’m past the point of shaming individuals, but I would be fully supportive of any of those who have climbed despite the bird ban to come and tell us their reasoning for doing so. If for no other reason than to try and spread the word in another manner. We do after all, all make genuine mistakes.

In reply to Offwidth:

I wonder if it would be possible to stop logbook entries being entered on bird banned climbs between the dates listed? Like they were shut down over lockdown? A lot of work for one person to do given the amount and variety of dates and might be difficult to automate but crag mods should be able to do it quickly if the tools were implemented.

In reply to Thread:

Agree with most of what’s been said but a couple of things to note:

• You do not have to visit a crag page on UKC to log routes, so it’s entirely conceivable (even if not entirely realistic) that people have logged routes and not seen restrictions posted on the UKC crag page.
• If there are indeed no signs then that leads to the possibility that you could visit the crag, go home and log routes in your “diary” without ever coming across any form of publicised active restriction.

As for how realistic the above is I’m not so sure (especially for those that have been in the game a while and/or are local), but just worth bearing in mind that some people may not fall under the blasé “I don’t give a s*** about birds, restrictions, stakeholder relationships or owt else” camp.

In reply to tjhare1:

I agree it can happen but that still indicates laziness and selfishness. This is nesting season and checking for restrictions is vital if we don't want some sensitive crags with occasional limited restrictions to change to a total ban. Plus of course all the risks of nesting birds being disturbed. If you genuinely care about the birds and about access you take a few seconds to check.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Could be a good idea but would the UKC logbooks be able to keep up with the changes in restrictions, at times the RAD is pretty slow in reflecting changes on the ground. I have also noticed some people have now logged thier routes they did in lockdown as there is not restrictions now for logging routes in those periods so would it be similar with bird bans?

On a related note I assume there are not restrictions at Hen Cloud at present even though the link to RAD on the crag page says there. Or are lots of people are ignoring them given the number of logs in the restriction zone in the last few days 

The way the RAD is set up for particular crags also means some show restriction when there aren't any and some crags the other way round. For example Kinder is classified as a single crag on RAD but is split into 3 areas on UKC and therefore the restictions for the downfall area are listed in the text for each area but at the downfall crag page it says there are no restiction unless you click in detail. Sorry hard to explain but if you look at the individual pages you'll see the problem..

Kinder Northern Edges vs  Kinder Downfall

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

A new sign was placed a couple of days ago. Signage is an issue, someone needs to create durable signs and source robust ways of securing them, this costs money, who pays? There is also the need to have someone place the signs. 

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Thanks for confirming Trevor, it's good to know that it's back. I have just checked the Rockfax app guide for Raven Wallthwaite and for some reason the usual bright red "Access" restriction advice is not there for this crag. It's there for the other crags that I know are bird restricted in South Lakes, including Stonestar, Brantrake, Chapel Head, and Humphrey Head. I wonder how Rockfax are notified when it comes to updating their crag access guidance? 

In reply to DMOB:

Mobile signal much improved in Langdale these days, certainly at the Chapel Stile end. 

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Yes I understand completely, I don’t think there’s a completely foolproof method to be had, but even if it’s just changing the status of a route akin to the banned/fallen down ones with the little ⛔️ sign on the logbook for the duration it might make people more aware if they’re missing the main RAD one on the crag page. Maybe a little bird 🐦 or something! 

In reply to DMOB:

Hi, it's only Red for completely banned and since Raven Crag (Walthwaite) is linked to the RAD data it shows the same as that.

This one is kinda odd as the restricted routes actually covers the whole crag though so the RAD data should arguably be Red in this case.

We have an extra Blue colour on UKC for an Info state. It can be Orange on RAD but if it's for a bird ban that's non-current (eg 15 February - 31 May and you're looking in July) then the Orange turns to Blue on UKC.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I've looked at this before. We'd need to create a system where you can click a range of routes then select a time range for the ban and probably assign a reason for the ban. Then that might then need cancelling or amending if the ban ends earlier or later.

To make it easier to update you'd probably want to enable any user submit the data but crag mods should really be approving it. I think having this granularity to the access info would amazing but realistically, too much to keep up with. Just keeping up with climb additions to a crag is too much for some moderators to handle I'm afraid.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Paul, thanks for the info, do you know what the mechanism is for RAD being updated to reflect the entire crag ban and for this to ripple through to Rockfax? Rightly or wrongly I think a lot of people would just check out the crag on Rockfax and make a spontaneous visit without realising that there were restrictions.

In reply to DMOB:

You need to use the Report issue on the RAD page: https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/rad/view.aspx?id=309

This will then get approved by someone at the BMC.

The UKC server checks the RAD API for updates every hour of the day so when new data is on RAD then it should be on UKC at some point within the next hour.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

Glad to hear it’s been looked in to, and thanks for the info. You’re probably correct in the point of it being too much work given how long it’s taken for some of my own additions to be confirmed. I’m coming at it from a reasonably active mod, I guess! 

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

Some good points but they just don't apply in this particular case when the climbers should have checked access and would have seen the restriction if they did.

As Paul explained, the UKC end of reporting restrictions, from RAD, generally works well. UKC could help by choosing to to block publicising logs for permanently banned crags for environmental reasons (like say Yarncliffe Edge...an SSI with an agreement of no climbing where UKC doesn't even show a ban). I'd add there are important access notes on RAD on 'unrestricted' crags (for example approaches or group use) so it's best to check RAD.

Improving detail on RAD would take staff time. The BMC access staff have been especially stretched in the last few years. In my view they have been heroic in their efforts working with the reality of access issues alongside the covid restrictions, furlough and increasing aggressive government legislation that might impact access in England.

I'd prefer it if UKC had a facility to hide all logs on banned climbs: in my view no one should be publicising they have been climbing banned routes as it provides public evidence some climbers don't care about important restrictions. I don't think retro logs during lockdown is relevant in this argument, as climbing generally wasn't restricted, travel was.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

It's possibly worth pointing out to those removing signs ( who are probably still reading the thread) that the absence of a sign would not prevent a successful prosecution. 

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I had a look at the RAD page last night, all the info seems correct, a whole crag ban, the warning is coded yellow like the other crags I mentioned  (Brantrake, Chappel etc). The discrepancy is that the info isn't rippling through to the RockFax App which is how a large number of climbers will research and visit the crag, hence my separate post which is now closed for some reason. I have submitted an issue in RAD "The page looks fine but Rockfax App Access guidance for bird restrictions at this crag is missing". It's a bit of a cryptic route to correct something in Rockfax that could have fairly negative implications, I wonder if there could be a "Report an issue" link on the crag info page in Rockfax at the bottom near the weather forecast?

In reply to DMOB:

The Access Info that's available on UKC (whether that be the RAD data or the info set on UKC) isn't currently shown in the app. Some crags do show Access Info in the app but only when it's also in the printed guidebook.

Having live updates in the app from the UKC/RAD data is in development.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think the problem is that in this case if you walk to the crag(prior to a couple of days ago) there was no signage. If you go on the Rockfax app page for the crag there is no indication that there is any bird ban on any route(I've just checked it). So I can sympathise if someone has missed the fact that there is a ban. If we are going to publicly critisize people we need to make the information they need easier to find, not everyone checks RAD and if you think they do/should you are living in dream land.

Rockfax are constantly pushing the app and it gets used by more and more people.

As a side note the Raven crag page does usefully give the tide times, so no excuse for getting cut off by an incoming tide!

In reply to Martin Haworth:

The issue isn’t that the info needs to be available more easily, it’s readily available for anyone who cares to check. What needs to change is the mindset of all climbers.. if that’s living in dreamland then we’re going to be in a sorry place quicker than many think. If people can use the seemingly and currently inadequate (for the purpose of checking temporary bans, at least) Rockfax app then they can check the BMC RAD app too - but only if they know about it. ie, change of mindset. We are not the priority for access when it comes to crags, and everyone needs to realise this and make a concerted effort to ensure their visit is above board. 

Edit - ..or are these same people going to get angry when they get booted off moorland crags by angry gamekeepers who have legally closed the access to their CRoW land (as they can for up to 28 days a year for management) and they couldn’t be bothered checking? 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Surely that's education, not a change of mindset? I already mentioned this on another thread, the other weekend I chatted to two women at Stanage who were climbing next to where I was. One was Spanish the other Japanese - the Japanese woman had only moved to London a few weeks back. I didn't ask, and she may well have downloaded the RAD app already, but I doubt it. I find it easy to forget to check the RAD and I've lived in this area for going on 8 years and climb most weeks! You could say I need to change my mindset, but for someone new to a crag, an area, even to the country - I guess it's just as much unavoidable as possible information to let people know. 

In reply to TobyA:

I did actually mention education in the same breathe but then rewrote the sentence and forgot to include it again. You change someone’s mindset by educating them, was the point I was making  

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Fairy 'nuff! I guess it's pretty hard to change mindsets without education!

It's a tough one, the conservation and access info is in all the paper guide books, it's one click from the UKC logbook crag page. It's sort of there on the Rockfax app - not connected to the RAD so not updated. For example Hidden Quarry: clicking from logbook page says "Seasonal Restrictions Dates: 1 March to 30 June

Reason: Nesting Birds

The restriction applies to all routes on the Main Wall and Lower Tier buttresses, due to nesting Peregrines."

While RF App says  what can be seen in the snip below - not quite the same in either definitiveness or extent.

In reply to mrphilipoldham: Many climbers nowadays probably have never been members of a club or the BMC, many will never have heard of the RAD and may assume that with no signs and no restrictions mentioned on Rockfax app that they are OK to climb. I don’t think they are the problem, I think we need to find better wsys to inform them. As Toby mentioned, education would be a good start and also signs, and Rockfax need to get their act together with the app.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that everyone should check the RAD.  Obviously, they don't...

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I think it's quite legitimate to get angry about the fact that this is legal and about land management for shooting in general.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Indeed, you’re preaching to the converted on that matter. It wouldn’t help a days climbing ruined by lack of knowledge of the rules as they stand, however. 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Yes I agree with everything you say. I just find it hard to reconcile that there are people out there who take up a new hobby (or indeed been doing it ignorantly for donkeys years) that involves going on to other peoples land, and in environmentally sensitive places and don’t do every single bit of due diligence they can to ensure they’re staying within the rules which are largely there for good reason. I guess it’s a result of the ‘me me me’ generation, which at 36 I’m firmly part of. I’d be horrified and persistently apologetic to find I’d disturbed nesting birds, or otherwise put community access to a venue at risk, though.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

So do I

Not sure previous generations covered themselves in glory either, especially amongst  privileged men.  Wasn't the Jourdain Society a registered charity until the '90's even thought stealing eggs was made illegal in the' 50's

In reply to RobAJones:

Just a note about the availability of access restriction information The Lakes.

All the Lakes information is listed on a single page on the FRCC website, go to frcc.co.uk then look under the Climbing tab for Bird Restrictions. No need to search through log books or a database, just read a simple list of the restricted crags, reason for the restriction and the dates of the restriction.

Changes to restrictions are agreed by the group including Natural England, National Park, BMC, FRCC and John Muir Trust. I then update the FRCC list as needed during the nesting season. It should be accurate (sadly I am not perfect) as I contribute to the same meetings as Rob from BMC.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Hi Trevor, If you really want to encourage folk to visit that webpage you have to make it easy for them. *Always* include a clickable link. 

https://www.frcc.co.uk/bird-restrictions/ 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I don't use the Ap so wasn't aware it had different information to the logbook webpage. If so I agree Rockfax need to fix that.

As for climbers not being aware of the combination of problems relating to spring nesting restrictions, the organisations and the small army of volunteers who work on this, and the information sources they provide, especially RAD, .... I'm in dream land ....seriously?? It's in all the guidebooks, all over the climbing parts of the internet and social media and on pretty much every thread here about access issues. For almost anyone beyond those fairly new to UK climbing outdoors who lack experienced friends , that's back to being lazy and selfish. If you care about retaining access and you care about nesting birds, you should check. Given too many who know this don't check, I do agree the belt and braces approach with local signage is important.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I have been climbing for over a decade, and engaged with UKC for maybe 5 years. I had never heard of RAD before this thread, I have never been a member of BMC (or Scottish equivalent) or a local climbing club. I have never felt the need to check online for changes to access; if there is mention of a potential or seasonal bird ban in the guidebook then I would make different plans. If there was signage at the crag then I would go somewhere else.

For all that we like to think it is, climbing is not a community and none of us has any obligation to engage with wider issues than those directly affecting us.

I have not (as far as I know) climber on a crag with nesting birds, but I have climbed on crags where climbing is banned (and logged it). I am sceptical that access will ever be granted, so I don't believe I am harming the community by doing that.

Is this all selfish? Perhaps, but I doubt it is uniquely selfish and so if people here want to influence the behaviour of other climbers then they need to take realistic attitudes into account.

In reply to tlouth7:

Thank you for the honesty.

A question, if I may. How would you feel if you did inadvertently disturb nesting birds because there was no signage and the guide book didn’t mention occasional bans, and then were prosecuted for it? Imagining that the info was available online, and knowing ignorance is no defence. Would that change your attitude?

In reply to tlouth7:

Thanks for your honesty. Sadly I'd say you do appear to be as I described, as you are aware there are issues and you don't act fully on that. The BMC crag code (and equivalents) are widely published in most modern UK guidebooks, magazines, the internet and social media, and for the BMC crag code, access is top of the list and it says to check RAD. In access terms climbing is an affected community if individual selfish behaviour leads to more stringent restrictions or a total ban. Disturbing nesting birds is unethical and a criminal offence if done intentionaly. You are sadly in plentiful company but I would hope one day you (and others) will change and start to check RAD (or its equivalents), especially in the spring nesting season. Relying just on signage is not a good idea as sometimes such signs are foolishly removed. 

I really don't think it's a good idea to put climbing on crags with agreed environmental protection restrictions on a public viewable logbook, and in my view those providing a public log facility that allows that are partly culpable if access is subsequently affected. I have no problem with people climbing on banned crags if the only reason is an intransigent landowner (ie not a ban to protect important flora, fauna or some exceptional geological reason, like say The Winking Man) but even then discretion maximises the chances of other climbers in the future.

In reply to Offwidth:

Not to mention that his/her access to crags is largely down to the community of climbers in the past lobbying for it, hence inclusion as a permitted activity under CRoW etc. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Without wanting to put words in mouths, it probably would if it happened to me. The issue is again one of realism - I’ve never heard of such a prosecution actually happening in real life so thinking purely in risk/reward terms, would I take that slim-to-zero multiplicative risk of disturbing something and then subsequently being prosecuted for a good day out? Absent any other considerations I think 99% of people here would - it’s no greater a risk than many others we take (rockfall, speeding on the way to the crag, dodgy parking, etc) after all.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes, and in some cases a community working with the agreement of landowners keeping the crag in a more climbable state and clear of litter (especially broken glass). The significant work with the National Trust and RSPB on some Peak eastern edges being a good example, highlighting that good relationships are important (and in that knowing compliance with occasional bird restrictions are incredibly important).

In reply to tjhare1:

Disturbance prosecutions are actually reasonably common.. perhaps the reason that you haven't heard of a climbing related one is because 99% actually agree with bans and actively avoid disturbance? Nests of flagship species such as ring ouzel, peregrine and ravens are routinely monitored by the RSPB and other volunteers so chances of being caught are higher. On more than one occasion I've had someone appear out of the heather to warn me when simply walking past (well outside the signed zones) ring ouzel nests on the eastern edges.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Perhaps it is, and I’m very much in that 99% (please don’t suggest otherwise) - I would never knowingly climb anywhere banned for any reason and, if I thought it was a crag with a decent chance of nesting birds or if it were mentioned in the guide, I’d check in the various appropriate ways before visiting. I think that approach has been pretty successful - I don’t think I’ve ever disturbed anything more than a fulmar on the Old Man…

However, you have to draw the line somewhere on what you think is a reasonable expectation regarding “active avoidance”. Do you check all resources for every crag on every occasion? The 99% you mention that agree with bans etc certainly don’t. So, what’s a reasonable and realistic approach that isn’t going to be deemed overly onerous by the majority of climbers (not just those on UKC) but will maximise the likelihood of avoiding disturbances? I’m really not trying to dispute people using the various resources being a good idea (it’s great that they exist), I’m just sceptical that it’s usage is or realistically will be as widespread as the tech-savvy, generally younger UKC community might think.

In reply to tjhare1:

Glad to hear

Personally yes, I do check every crag. I climb daily (if the weather and work permit) and mostly at the same crags that either never have bans because they're unsuitable to host nesting birds or if they do, then I'm well aware of what, where and when so naturally avoid them anyway at this stage of my climbing career. Always check on CRoW closures etc but they're easier as they're done in advance so can check vast swathes of crags at once and months ahead. I had my first proper foray in to the Lake District for rock last week and being relatively unknown to me I checked every crag we mused as a potential for the day. Rather than being onerous, it's all part of the build up and excitement to a day out. Each to their own! 

It's a good conversation to have and I'm glad you've put yourself forward, so thank you.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I would be upset if I disturbed a nest, whether or not I was prosecuted. I imagine I would defend against a prosecution on the basis that I feel I have taken reasonable steps. Now I know the RAD exists I guess it could be argued that I would be negligent if I didn't check it in future, though it doesn't appear to cover Scotland so perhaps that is moot.

In reply to tlouth7:

https://www.mountaineering.scot/access/birds-and-nesting

https://www.mountaineering.scot/access/birds-and-nesting/disturbance

In reply to Offwidth:

I suppose this highlights to me where the problem lies. You are heavily involved in these things and yet you seem out of touch with the reality of what happens and how people get their information. I repeat my early point that if a crag has no signs and the Rockfax app gives no indication of any restrictions, then it is hardly surprising a percentage of climbers will go and climb at the crag, but you seem to want to say they are lazy and selfish. I disagree, I think they are badly informed. You are part of the problem because you think it is their fault. 

I don't check the RAD every time I go climbing, I do for certain crags particularly to check bird bans that change from year to year. Generally, I rely on signs and guidebooks/Guide apps and my crag knowledge experience.  

In reply to Martin Haworth:

The problem is is that if they are found to have disturbed a nest then the law says that it is their fault.. and that’s the bottom line. There’s no mitigating circumstances for being uninformed. We’re not talking about self imposed climbing ethics, it’s a criminal offence. Calling people out for flouting bans can by definition not be part of the problem.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

They are? How many a year for England are there? Do you have to go to court or is it an FPN? I follow a number of Peak conservation and recreation Facebook groups and accounts, including the Derbyshire rural crime team, and haven't heard of any that way so I'm just surprised it's reasonably common, in particular as the police seem to have a hard time investigating and prosecuting other wildlife crimes, like raptor persecution.

Did you see the tweets from the Tory MP from Dorset telling his local police that they had been wasting police time and resources investigating the poisoning of a sea eagle over a Dorset shooting estate?

In reply to TobyA:

Reasonably common as far as wildlife crime goes, I should have said. The problem with the Peak is that very few potential nest sites are used due to continuous human activity (both recreational and agricultural) throughout the year, it’s the busiest national park isn’t it? Therefore the ones that are used are monitored very well and generally well known about. The number of peregrine chicks fledged on town halls surrounding the Peak far outweighs those on the grit and limestone crags of the Peak.. which I think highlights the issue. 
 

Edit - yes I did see that. I think he was outed as having received donations from someone connected to an estate in his constituency too. 

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

We went to climb there Tuesday, saw the sign and went to Raven Langdale.

I should have checked RAD but just did not think.

I would suggest a sign should be the default, and everything else is to help people not make abortive trips.

If people chose not to look at the RAD, that's their look out.

If they chose to ignore a clear sign, they should be thrashed.

In reply to TobyA:

The RSPB web page has a section on annual prosecutions... mainly raptor persecution (illegal shooting, trapping and poisoning).

In reply to mrphilipoldham: Not really what the relevance of your post is, or that it helps to solve the problem.

I suspect if someone used the defence that there was no signs, and they checked on the electronic guide for the crag which gave no restrictions, I would be confident they would not be prosecuted. (This assumes they retreat if they do come across nesting birds)

In reply to Martin Haworth:

I don't think so. We might argue which group is bigger but both groups exist and anyone aware of the problem and not checking for current nesting information is lazy and selfish. Checking the Ap IS checking but it's not the best way, and it turns out from your information it doesn't update like the logbook web links do (or they might be the first to notice nesting, and report it).

No I don't, because they checked the Ap (and until this thread no one knew it didn't link properly to access updates)

Your understanding is what is faulty. The climbers at fault in my view are specifically those who are aware of access issues but don't try and check and climb on a crag restricted for nesting.

The only reliable information is that which is updated to inform us where birds are actually nesting. That's RAD or its equivalents or anything that links to them (as signs can and do sometimes get removed). Responsible climbers who check can still be unlucky and end up on a crag where an issue has just been notified but the signage and RAD (etc) update hasn't been done yet.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Up until last year, I would have agreed with you, but last time this very bird ban in this very crag was brought up on UKC I was shocked by the responses from some users, who were actively arguing against it. One person was saying that climbers and birds are "kindred spirits" and do not disturb each other.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Something I would say is that BMC sign could be improved with a clear symbol to show climbing is banned, possibly a picture of a climber with a red line through it.

If I was not an English speaker, it would not be clear to me that I was not allowed to climb.

In reply to Offwidth:

Agree with Martin, you are heavily involved so to you it is black and white.

I know plenty climbers who never bother with RAD or the BMC or RSPB.If birds are not your thing then I can easily understand why people do not look.

Continually surprised by how many do not know about  the the RAD app.

The  decent signage is often excellent and clear. Goddards Quarry where there is a good sign on the only path in or out.The ones at some of the buttresses at Trevor Rocks are very clear.

Stanage for example can be  a nightmare on signage. Its often easily missed if you access a buttress by a different way in.

There are a lots of climbers who do check.

And then there are climbers who just ignore.

In reply to Offwidth:

Surely this is an oxymoron? How can you be aware of access issues if you haven't checked?

In reply to Offwidth:

So why don’t the BMC employ some more access people? Andy Syme said the following last September when asked why the BMC was spending as much on GB Climbing as on A&C:

“If Access and Conservation need more money then they ask, and if at all possible it is provided. […] I have not heard anyone in A&C team saying we need more money for X and it being refused, though I'm probably lining myself up for a number of examples now.  I guess my bottom line is the %age shouldn't matter as from a logical point of view if we only needed to spend 10% on A&C and we achieved all our aims and needs why would we spend more?”

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I see this the other way round. The fact that there is an enforcement route through prosecutions means that there is no need for the climbing community to enforce these bird bans.

Indeed I find it rather odd that various people make claims to e.g. landowners that they are in a position to influence the actions of all climbers. The fact is that the BMC has no mechanism to reach every climber in England, so as we are seeing it is impossible for them to control access.

If we appreciate that climbers are varied individuals with varied motivations we will understand why they behave in varied ways. Claiming that all climbers are part of some cohesive, organised community makes it easier for us to all be tarred with the same brush.

In reply to tlouth7:

Up until now the climbing community has been pretty cohesive in its desire to see nesting restriction adhered to and to help in that through the BMC. Apart from it being the right thing to do (in almost all cases) there is a benefit to climbers when it comes to access etc as we are seen to have acted in good faith. I don’t see any reason to change any of that. 

In reply to tlouth7:

Nobody claimed that we are all part of a cohesive, organised community. Some are, those in the BMC (I’m not, at this moment in time), those in clubs, those in WhatsApp groups even, but as a whole we are not.

’Community’ is a cover all in that we all take part in the same activity, that’s as far as it goes. Purely as an example, as a trad climber I don’t have a single thing in common with a sport climber, other than the fact we both go up rock faces and both go to environmentally sensitive areas on other peoples land therefore have the same rules and considerations to live by. You won’t find me getting involved in retrobolting, rebolting, sport crag clean ups, discussing lower offs etc as I’m not interested. You will find me calling out sport climbers who flout bird bans, or lobbying for a ban on a sport crag where necessary because it’s the right thing to do no matter where disturbance occurs. We do all have a responsibility to behave appropriately, legally and conserve not only the environment and it’s flora and fauna, but also our permitted access to it.

In reply to Alkis: Well, that's a different point/aspect to this. I am more making the point about trying to make sure people know about the restriction. People who willingly ignore a restriction that they are aware of is another matter.

In reply to tlouth7:

Sorry I should have said aware of the need for access restrictions. Many new climbers are not and as Alkis says sadly some climbers are but just don't care.

In reply to Tyler:

The BMC do employ more access staff. A year or so ago a Wales policy officer was employed (whose role includes access policy work in Wales), alongside the full time Wales access post. Plus when Dave stood aside as CEO he then focussed all his time on access work. Still, the use of furlough reduced staff time that could be used during the peak period of the pandemic and delayed some plans (across all areas of BMC work). Some areas of work stopped (eg events and comps were cancelled) or slowed, but access work if anything increased.

When you looked at the BMC budget spend, on that earlier thread, I pointed out that that spend didn't include all the free time provided by hundreds of volunteers, nor any money spent from the internal access related charities: the Access and Conservation Trust, and the Land and Property Management trust (who provide independent accounts). Andy was right in what he said but he also pointed out that the pandemic really hit BMC income and delayed some planned improvements.

I agree with your post on the climbing community. It's remarkable that these nesting restrictions work so well, despite the BMC and Mountaineering Scotland having no authority over climbers. A large majority of climbers do care and act appropriately.

In reply to neilh:

You agree with Martin even though he got my views wrong? I wasn't initially aware the Ap had a problem (and I wasn't initially as explicit as I could have been on not grouping in those using the Ap to check access), so his error was excusable.

My entire point was really about what happens (as it did in this case) when someone removes the clear signage. It's why the 'belt and braces' of checking online is important. It only takes a minute to check online whereas relying on signage could mean an unnecessary walk there and back.

In reply to Offwidth:

I was also pointing out that lots of climbers do not use the RAD app and have never even heard of it.They would not even think to go to the BMC website and check.

In reply to Offwidth:

^This.

Instead of seeing it as a community, I see 3 groups of people:

1) those who know about and abide by restrictions. These people need a 'thankyou and well done'

2) those who don't know about restrictions. These people clearly don't get educated through the existing routes, so signage at the point of need (or asking those instagram climbers to mention it ) would be a sensible way forward

3) those who know about restrictions but ignore them. They're not worth wasting effort on, frankly - that's what the threat of prosecution is for.

In reply to neilh:

I don''t care where people check, during nesting season, but if they are aware of the issues they should check somewhere. I'm really greatful UKC widen the facility to check with their links to RAD etc. If you click to check on UKC, the BMC and RAD are part of the access information that opens.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

I'm only now replying because I've been on the naughty step for a while.

First, a mea culpa; I was part of one of (at least) 2 parties that were climbing on Raven Crag a week or so ago. Sorry. I haven't knowingly climbed on a bird banned crag in 50+ years and I'm not about to start now.

In my defence, there was absolutely no signage in place, (and God knows it would be easy enough to put on the main access gate), and there's also an elephant in the room which doesn't seem to have been mentioned yet... I use the 2019 Rockfax guide, which describes crags where there ARE bird issues, and also where there MAY be bird issues ... and Raven Crag isn't listed as either. So, reading the most recent guide there was no reason to investigate further. 

If the summary of this is that we should check ANY crag before visiting between March and June, whatever up-to-date guidebooks say, then this is new but so be it; the FRCC website will be really helpful in this regard, but until this thread I would never have dreamt of looking there.

As regards signage; surely a laminated A4 sign attached to a gate, or a small stake, is all that is required. If you want, I'm happy to volunteer to put them up, and take them down in June; just say the word.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Rob

There was a sign, it was removed by persons unknown, now replaced. The birds took up residence during Lockdown spring 2020 so all guides that pre-date then (Rockfax, FRCC Langdale and Lake District Rock) obviously have no reference to the restriction.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Thanks for outing yourself, and your explanation.

I think this highlights my point about a change of mindset. Guidebooks are great and all at conveying information but unfortunately they’re only correct at the time of print and wildlife being wildlife.. it does what it wants, when it wants and where it wants. We have the tools available, we need to be making sure as many people as possible utilise the more up to date sources of information as a matter of course.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Does the BMC have system for checking the sign is still in place.
From the BMCs perspective, which as a climber, is my perspective, the goal I assume is to prevent climbers climbing there, and upsetting the birds, which would upset the bird people, who would upset the climbers, by getting climbing banned at Raven, Walthwaite, period. Same applies at any other similar crag.
I would suggest that the only way to do this, is that the sign is checked every day, and if this is not possible, as often as possible.

In reply to Godwin:

...or climbers get into the habit of checking the RAD before going climbing for the day? It's not an onerous task (subject to having internet access, obviously).

In reply to tehmarks:

I think we have different goals here.

• Yours is to get people to use the RAD,
• Mine is to prevent climbers from being banned from crags for annoying birds.

In reply to tehmarks:

RAD even got a mention on a Countryfile Pembroke feature this weekend (thanks to Steve Quinton).

In reply to Godwin:

I don't have any goals; I'm just pointing out that the information is there, online, and very easy to access. Instead of expecting someone to walk up to a crag every single day to check that a sign hasn't been stolen by some 'head climber (because, let's be honest, it's almost certainly a 'head climber stealing the sign), it seems like a more pragmatic solution to expect that climbers will acquaint themselves with the full picture before going climbing. To save five minutes of your time, you're expecting some other person to commit hours of their time over the course of a year.

You wouldn't go sailing (or set off up a big alpine route) without checking the weather forecast, would you? It's the exact same thing. Take some personal responsibility.

The bottom line is, if climbers make checking for bird bans part of their pre-day planning, the only people risking getting us banned from crags are those who will ignore (or steal) the sign regardless.

In reply to Godwin:

I'm struggling to understand why encouraging people to use RAD isn't the best way to stop climbers getting banned from crags for bird bothering? We've already established that guide books go out of date thanks to Rob's post today and that signage goes missing so neither of them are the best method. Useful, but clearly not doing the job intended. If you can log your day out on UKC you can check RAD. I must be able to count on my fingers how many climbers don't have access to the internet on a daily basis, and most of those are probably in their later years.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I climb with some people, who never look at UKC, do not have a smart phone, would have no interest what a RAD is. They would not pass a BMC sign.

I remember when I first started climbing which is only about 20 +years ago, I was just told a place to go, I had no guidebook, to be honest, I did not even know about guides, certainly no idea what the BMC was. If I had seen a sign, saying do not climb, I would not have climbed.

People from abroad, would not look at RAD. When I go abroad, I don't, do they have one no idea.

People are fallible, its a lovely day, they ring a mate and say hey lets go climbing, and they are so excited, they just go climbing, without scouring the internet. Wild I know.

So using RAD is a great thing, and something I usually do, and encouraging people to use it,  is a a good and noble thing. But the signs are the catch all, if someone will walk past a sign, there is not really very much you can do, other than proactively report them to whoever. If they have walked past that sign, there is no point conversing with them.
Having someone go and check it everyday is not a huge deal. Climbers live in climbing areas, and love an excuse to mooch around a crag, and there are loads of people who are interested in Birds who would help, because the goal is not to disturb the birds. Just dish out a few signs.

Just because for some people the BMC is the centre of the universe, and everyone they know is super enthusiastic about it, do not assume that everyone else is the same.
I have not at any point said that the RAD is not useful, but it cannot beat the sign.

In reply to Godwin:

Clearly not. 

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The sign was not there. 

TBH its a waste of time discussing this with you, I have given you a few examples of why RAD would not work, and you are not interested. 
 

I have said the RAD is a good thing. 

What exactly do you want?

In reply to Godwin:

I've said signs are a good thing, but they're not guaranteed to be there.

What exactly do you want?

RAD will always be available, 24/7. Signs will not. Great if they're there.. but sometimes they'll be removed, sometimes they'll blow away, sometimes the laminate will fail and they'll get wet and streak. Sometimes your proposed sign checker will have a lie in and miss an early arrival and missing sign. Sometimes they'll be at work. TBH it's a waste of time discussing this with you, I have given you a few examples of why signs do not always work, and you are not interested.

The same people who go 'hey want to go climbing?' will also go 'I'll bring my guidebook' so arming themselves with information is going to be done in the overwhelming majority of situations, checking another source should be, and is, no biggie. 'Scouring the internet' is overdramatising what is a 30 second process, for a handful of months of the year. 

In reply to thread:

Question - does anyone go climbing on sea cliffs at breeding season without thinking "I'd better check access" (or have previously checked) - I should think very few people don't do this.

It needs people to extend that thought to any crag in breeding season.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

You’re in danger of coming across as very aggressive and also blinkered in this debate which isn’t helping, I think everyone wants the same outcome. I don’t think it is as black and white as you’d like to think.
Let’s all agree the RAD is great and more publicity is a good idea but in the real world not everyone checks it, not everyone has a clue about the BMC they look at their guidebook, or Rockfax app. and look for signage. I think increasing numbers of newer climbers have little connection to the BMC(purely anecdotal).

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think you are correct about sea cliffs. I often check to see if bird bans have come off early! This early lifting of bans are often posted on UKC before they appear on RAD.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

One of those people was me (27th Feb). I  do check RAD, always try to observe nesting restrictions and voluntarily avoid areas where birds are nesting even if not specifically banned (thinking Wallowbarrow where I observed lots of folk climbing last year near by a nesting pair of Kestrels). Also to confirm, there was no sign. It was a genuine mistake as I had mistakenly assumed that the restriction came into place at the beginning of March and didn’t think to check, in fact I wasn’t aware until I came across this thread and thought OH CRAP!!  Feel very bad about this but I’m certain that we didn’t disturb any nesting birds, nevertheless I will not make the same mistake again.

Sorry folks! 

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Indeed, and my point has repeatedly been we should encourage more people to use all tools that are available to them. That’s all. Not forcing anyone. Not calling people selfish or lazy. Just suggesting we try to spread the word that the information is available, and blaming a lack of signage isn’t a good defence.
 

Some other commentators have done nothing but whinge and whine about how it takes so long, isn’t conducive to spontaneity, so on and so forth.. completely ignoring the potential results of bird disturbance not only for our feathered friends, but also our own access. 

In reply to Offwidth:

According the the webpage (https://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmc-staff-list?s=5) there are three and half access FTE and five and half GB Climbing FTE although I understand there is a vacancy (but no advert?) for a replacement for the Welsh access post.

Despite this comps still took up the same amount of BMC expenditure as access in 2020

GB Climbing also benefits from volunteers as well substantial income from other sources, we're talking about how much BMC spends of its own income (subs etc) on each. 

This is not BMC income nor BMC expenditure, this would be like the govt claiming National lottery money as their spending or claiming they are fixing poverty because people are donating to food banks. If the BMC tried to do anything with the money, other than what people donated it for, they would be acting illegally.

From the annual accounts "£283k for access and conservation work including managed sites and rocks." 

If the membership wants the BMC to spend as much on GB Climbing as on Access then so be it but you should be honest about it otherwise it sounds as though you are trying cover something up.

In reply to Tyler:

The lack of advert for the Welsh access post is due to it having been filled from what I understand, I think the new guy is meant to start this week or next with a handover between Elfyn and the new chap.

In reply to spenser:

Brilliant thread, many more  excellent responses than I ever imagined.

A few points about signage etc:

There is a small and dwindling pool of members of the restrictions group (originally set up under the umbrella of LDNP iirc) who are able to check sites. This year we have only had  4 or 5 (dodgy memory) individuals checking sites so even weekly visits aren't possible. With the honourable exception of your truly the rest of the checkers have day jobs, it is fantastic that they are willing to commit some of their limited free time to the climbing community. A check involves more than looking for a sign that might be two minutes from the car, it also entails checking on the birds and the crag may be half an hour from the car, time mounts up. I checked 2 raven sites last week, quite close together as the raven flies but lakeland geography being what it is resulted in an hours drive and an hour of walking plus the considerable time checking on the birds from a respectful distance. 

The BMC is not responsible for the restrictions or signage. Perhaps local climbers could volunteer to help through the area meetings although I am not sure how many you would get who lived in the right parts of the district?

Some signs disappear with depressing regularity and the suspicion is that it isn't climbers doing the removal.

Signs do need to be durable to cope with lakeland's weather and someone has to pay for them. All the relevant bodies have had their personnel and budgets cut to the bone.

Finally, regardless of signs, if birds are nesting on the crag it is time to leave, let BMC know, and let the birds get on with ensuring the lakes has a next generation of magnificent mountain birds. The routes will still be there in the future but will there still be the birds?

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

A collection of thoughts on this.

The rspb is the largest member subscribed charity in the UK, it carries a huge weight of opinion. Of course there is common membership between bmc and rspb. Entering into any negotiations with them, collaborative or confrontational will leave climbers at a disadvantage due to sheer weight of numbers.

There are strong opinions in both camps, those who believe they should be free to climb anywhere and those who believe all cliffs should be closed to climbers.

On demand nesting restrictions will lead to a leak rate by their unpredictable nature. Not all climbers use ukc, are bmc members, are aware of rad. This is where signage is key. Blanket restrictions will have a lower leak rate as it is part of the culture. "Everyone" knows red wall is out of bounds until August, no doubts there. 

Those who raised their pitchforks up thread doing amateur detective work would find their time better spent volunteering to maintain some signage. 

Those who made the mistake may wish to do the same to make a mends.

The real focus on restrictions should be keeping a check on proposals. Increased restrictions in recent years have set Lundy  on a slow trajectory towards becoming a bird sanctuary, where next, Gogarth, Mingulay? 

Would broader full restrictions be a better solution ie climbers agree to sacrifice crag x permanently in exchange for unrestricted access to crag y. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Those restrictions on Lundy were the result of many more successful breeding pairs following the eradication of rats from the island.

Lundy is an incredibly special place, but birds are the priority there, if you want a less bird focused experience I understand Pabbay and Mingulay offer that experience? 

In reply to Tyler:

The website needs an update and the recent staff changes are as I decribe them.

2020 accounts are covid affected, do you mean 2019 accounts (published in spring 2020)?

I've just remembered we had the argument on the internal charities before as well. They are internal BMC bodies and the money is spent on work agreed by the BMC for BMC access aims. This includes ownership of a number of crags where access might have been lost and major initiatives like Mend our Mountains. You are correct that any expenditure has to meet the charity aims but pretending this is nothing to do with the BMC expenditure is dishonest. I know a few people who have donated significant funds to the charities to help support BMC access work.

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/donate-to-act#:~:text=The%20BMC%20Access%20and%20C....

The amount of volunteer input to access dwarfs that of comps. I do both and know the work well.

I'm not being dishonest, nor covering anything up. I'm just explaining what the current situation is and how things have changed since we last discussed this. The BMC is a democratic members' organisation and its budget is approved by a membership vote at every annual AGM and if members rejected it because they want an increased proportion in access funding (or campaigned significantly for that) the organisation would have to facilitate that.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

The BMC are in continuing negotiations with the NT and RSPB, on Lundy, and elsewhere: access would be worse without such negotiation. Climbers who think they should be able to climb anywhere anytime are beyond selfish and their proposed actions illegal and they risk access beyond current restrictions for the majority. There is no reason to respect such views. Some of those with such foolish illegal views are responsible for removal of signage. Local access staff can't be everywhere at once but do replace signage as soon as they are aware. The ethical approach for climbers during nesting season, given its very obvious signs do sometimes get removed, is always to check access online.

Like Steve, you are right that some climbers (especially first time outdoors) are unaware of negotiated access restrictions but I think you are both massively exaggerating their proportion of the total. You have to be a climbing hermit who never climbs on restricted crags these days to be a regular experienced climber completely unaware of the BMC (and equivalent bodies) and anyone using modern guidebooks or UKC logbooks must be wearing blinkers to miss access warnings (which always point back to RAD for current information in England and Wales). Two climbers have already admitted they were there, knew about access sources, and apologised (and most climbers don't use UKC forums).

In reply to Offwidth:

I find it odd that the main voice of the BMC on UKC is you. 

To most casual viewers you are anonymous, though I know you claim it's easy to find out you are.

Why does the BMC not make it own official statements.

It's as if Joe Bidens wife* was the main voice of the US government on social media, but calling herself Twinkles.

All most odd, and for me damages the reputation of the BMC

" No idea if Biden has a wife.

In reply to Offwidth:

It is important to understand the numbers here. The rspb has >12x the membership of the bmc.

For every self entitled climber wishing the freedom to climb anywhere there are 12+ self entitled birders wishing to keep all crags free of climbers.

I know the bmc worked hard on the lundy restrictions however I am pessimistic about the future, I can see all climbing being banned there within my lifetime. And then, where next? 

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

There’s no real magic bullet: guides, signage, ukc, RAD, etc are all fallible.

We all have a responsibility to spread the word and help out where we can. If there’s any kind of community, it’s as strong as we make it. Regular outdoor climbers are a subset of the people you  chat to at the wall. Some of the ‘outdoor curious’ have no insight into the ancient ways, or know how to find how or where you can climb on real rock. So we have to cover the bases. Local to me we have a lot of fragile sandstone that needs subtle insight into when it’s ok to climb. I’ve become a middle aged bore getting that message across. 
 

The quality of RAD data is minuted at BMC national level, but it’s too big a job for a handful of staff and motivated (sometimes ageing) local area reps. It’s everyone who cares job to get the word out where we can. There’s a million (and counting) places to climb in the uk, local areas need eyes and ears on the ground to help out. Thanks everyone that does a bit.

In reply to Godwin:

Hi Steve,

I'm not sure what axe you have to grind with the BMC, and would prefer to keep out of it, but some of the comments you've made feel pretty inflammatory and insulting - both to staff and volunteers. Whilst neither are beyond reproach, I do feel like some of your comments have displayed a level of ignorance about the time and effort required, as well as being pretty divisive.

Whilst I am aware the RAD - and the knowledge of its existence - is far from ideal, it is (alongside its integration into the UKC Logbooks + regular updates on the UKC Forums) the best solution we have. Whilst I get your point about signage, signs go missing and are often ignored. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have them, because I think we should, and - for the most part - they work; however, they're quite crude, and the best option (by far) is for people to be aware of restrictions before they arrive, as opposed to during or after.

This is, as Trevor says, quite a recent restriction and not one that existing guidebooks take into account. This is easily remedied on UKC, which has the RAD integrated within its system, and is something we're working on with Rockfax Digital. Were there to be a positive from this thread, it's the fact that it has raised the all-important question of where people get their information from and how to get it out there to those that aren't seeing it currently. For what it's worth, I don't begrudge those who have unknowingly climbed on the crag whilst the restriction was in place, because from the responses here on this thread - it was never, ever their intention to do that. If that was me, and who knows - it could be one day - then I'd be similarly gutted. If anything, the fact they climbed on the crag is an indication of how ineffective signs can be, because they need to be there and need to be seen. Prior knowledge, and planning, would have prevented that, although I acknowledge it's trickier to achieve (the comment regarding restrictions on sea cliffs being relatively ingrained within the climbing consciousness vs. those on mountain crags being relatively unknown is both an interesting and valid point). 

When it comes to why BMC members of staff don't comment on here more, it's because comments such as yours - and threads like this - take a lot of time and effort to respond to. Time that would, in my opinion, be far better spent by doing their actual job. I know you've said that the BMC isn't the centre of the universe, but from some of the demands and expectations you have of it, and it's volunteers, it feels inadvertently like you think it is, because you're asking a lot of them. Take your suggestion of daily monitoring of signs as an example. Imagine the time it would take to do this throughout the entire Lake District?! You seem to think this sounds like a small task, whereas I can't imagine anything further from it. I've been involved with Ring Ouzel nesting restrictions within the Peak District, which is far more accessible, and to even consider daily monitoring there - with a team substantially larger than the one Trevor has available - is absolutely unthinkable and a massive disrespect for the time that those volunteers already give. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes, the RSPB is a large organisation, but they're one we have a fantastic working relationship with them, which isn't helped by the doom and gloom 'them and us' analogy you've used which is both divisive, unhelpful, and (in my experience) completely at odds with reality.

In reply to tehmarks:

Just catching up with this thread after a few days.

tehmarks, I haven't got a clue who you are, but I simply don't accept this wild accusation, which you throw out with a nod and a wink, but no evidence whatsoever to back up your damaging claim.

I stand by what I wrote in the other duplicate thread (since locked) in reply to another poster who made similarly wild, unsubstantiated allegations.

That poster, 'lanky and weak', claimed "If people are climbing on (Raven Walthwaite), they’re either blind or don’t give a s***."

to which I replied

.... or they arrived there completely unaware of the bird ban and, because there was no sign to inform them otherwise, they went climbing.  From what I understand, that was the situation for at least some of the recent 'transgressions' and insinuating that fellow climbers are blind, should be called out, or don't give a shit in such circumstances seems completely counter-productive to me...

Judging by at least 2 recent posts on this thread, that speculative explanation (which certainly seemed the most plausible to me when I wrote it) was probably correct.

Neil

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

The only thing I would add is that if access is so volatile, (and I never knew that, though obvious with hindsight) then isn't there a case for removing ALL access information from printed guidebooks, and instead print instructions where the latest information can be found?

Otherwise others (like me, armed with the 'latest' guidebook) will continue to be lured on to crags that have suddenly become out of bounds for a few months. (Though not me any more, of course. I no longer have an excuse and wouldn't want one.)

In reply to Presley Whippet:

'those who believe they should be free to climb anywhere' Does anybody believe this? I imagine Jacob Rees-Mogg might, but I wasn't aware he was a climber?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Volatile is potentially a little strong, as the vast majority remain in place from year-to-year, but some come and go - and new ones crop every so often.

To quote steveriley's post above - there's no magic bullet. My take is that we're best having the most up to date information everywhere we possibly can, because that increases the likelihood of it being seen. Guidebooks are weak link within the chain, because the information within them is correct at the time of writing. It's worth mentioning that within Lake District Climbs there is, within the introduction, a section specifically on nesting restrictions and the RAD App; however, how many people actually read this is a question I cannot answer. The other option would be to include this information and the link alongside each and every crag, but it'd be redundant for the vast majority and would likely be ignored as a result. 

Whenever we do a new edition of Lake District Climbs, it will no doubt reference the possibility of this restriction - as it does with others crags. If this then encourages people to check out the live information, then it's done its job. If not, let's hope they see the sign...

In reply to Neil Foster:

I think you might want to read what I actually wrote again, perhaps after removing your combat hat.

I haven't said anything of the sort.

I'm sure that, for the most part, that is exactly the case.

I haven't insinuated that anyone is blind, and I haven't claimed that the majority of climbers don't give a shit either.

I've made no comment about people who have accidentally climbed on the crag. I've said that the sign 'going missing' is probably the work of a "'head climber". One of the subset of climbers who militantly don't care for bird bans, who unfortunately do seem to exist. I assume this, admittedly without evidence, because I'm not sure who else would have a vested interest in removing signage aimed at stopping climbers climbing? It seems like a reasonable assumption, and given that I'm not tarring anyone with this brush other than people who steal signs, I'm not sure why you're so angry about it?

I'm sure it is. I'm also sure that they haven't been removing signage.

In reply to Neil Foster:

Ultimately, my point is that people should avail themselves of the current information as part of planning their day, and that is best done by using the RAD. Because signs go missing, stolen or otherwise, and even if they don't is it not really boring to turn up to the crag to find out that you can't climb there?

I feel you've entirely missed the point that I was making.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

Both parties would foolish not to recognise that extremists exist within their communities.

As for my pessimisms we can check again in 20 years and compare. These things rarely go backwards. 

In reply to tehmarks:

Blimey, it's hard to have an intelligent debate when the person you are debating with reacts like you just did, when you clearly hadn't taken the time to read what I wrote.  Let me explain:-

The irony of that statement will become apparent, and no, I don't possess a combat hat.

In reply to this paragraph "I stand by what I wrote in the other duplicate thread (since locked) in reply to another poster who made similarly wild, unsubstantiated allegations. That poster, 'lanky and weak', claimed "If people are climbing on (Raven Walthwaite), they’re either blind or don’t give a s***."  you wrote

I know you haven't.  'Lanky and Weak' said it.  Which is exactly what I wrote.

At the risk of repeating myself, I know you haven't.  'Lanky and Weak' said it.  Which is exactly what I wrote.

I didn't say you had.

And that is the one statement which I was challenging.

I'm not angry in the slightest, nor could that be inferred from my post.  I simply said I disagreed with your unsubstantiated assertion that it was climbers who removed the sign.

No I haven't, because I have made no comment on the broader point.  I merely challenged one statement in one of your many posts on this thread, simply because I believed it was incorrect, damaging and had been presented without any evidence to substantiate it whatsoever.

Neil

In reply to Godwin:

You can do better than getting personal. For what it's worth I've been pretty consistent about my personal views on the BMC since these forums began, and long before I knew anyone important: supporting it's good work, correcting known mistakes in posts, campaigning for change where I felt it appropriate. Our posting histories are public so anyone can check.

The BMC, being a democratic members' organisation, has to be robust enough to deal with debate and disagreement. If too many people don't debate, don't vote and don't get involved in surveys, strategic drift can easily occur away from member preferences

For what it's worth my history in organisations has led me to particular sensitivity about openess and transparency (when not dealing with information that is formally confidential) because I've seen the corrosive influence of message control and the 'policing' of that in too many organisations (too often to hide bad decisions from public scrutiny). Given these views, if I'd stopped posting when I became more formally involved, I'd be a hypocrite. I prefer these forums, as more read them and contribute to them than say UKB, BMC watch on Facebook, or BMC website comments.

In reply to Neil Foster:

As an intelligent person wishing to engage in intelligent debate, I'm sure you can appreciate that by quoting something said by one person as justification of your reply to someone else, you are inferring some level of equivalency? If you're well aware that that's not what I said, why bother quoting it at length in your reply to something entirely different? You're just fogging your point.

But I'm going to bow out because there is zero benefit in arguing this.

Let me explicitly summarise my views just in case I haven't been clear enough: climbers should take responsibility for their own planning and use the RAD (i.e. the most current information on bird bans that exists) rather than relying on a piece of laminated A4 at the crag that may or may not be there, and may or may not be stolen by climbers who disagree with the premise.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

There are probably many who are members of both the RSPB and the BMC; certainly there are many who post on UKC (including myself) who are interested in seeing the wildlife in the UK - it's not a them and us.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Amongst all this it’s perhaps worth remembering that we, generally, climb for our own personal reasons whilst the bird lobby might argue their interest is the protection of birds/wildlife/environment. 

In reply to Darron:

Darron

Setting aside the fact that the law is 100% behind the 'bird lobby' I would just like to point out that virtually every member of the lakes group that meets to agree restrictions is a climber, regardless of which organisation they represent. I don't think anyone in the group would see themselves as part of a 'bird lobby'. The ethos of the group is to have the minimum restrictions consistent with giving the birds a chance. Legally Natural England or National Trust or National Park could just slap on blanket bans, but they don't because we (the climbing community) have a very precious relationship with them that has been built up over many years to the great credit of lakeland climbers.

In reply to TobyA:

Just to add - it isn't possible to download the RAD app on iOS if your 'home' App Store isn't UK, at least it wasn't possible not long ago when I tried. Another potential issue for recent arrivals, though obviously the website is still accessible.

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Why are you pessimistic about bird bans on Lundy? At a time when nearly 60% of the UK’s wildlife has shown catastrophic declines, 80% of lowland heath habitat has been lost shouldn’t you be optimistic that humans seem to be finally waking up to the fact that we cannot continue to destroy wildlife habitat?
There are literally thousands of different places to climb in the UK, Lundy is indeed a wonderful place for climbing but I’d be even happier to see the cliffs teeming with puffins, razorbills, guillemots and all the other seabirds which if entitled climbers think they have precedence over will no longer exist on our shores.

I can only presume you think you have a greater right to belay off a ledge when you want than a seabird has the right to nest on it?

Places like Lundy will end up with permanent bans because it’s actually a place where it could be easily enforced and if we as climbers continue to flout restrictions elsewhere then people trying to save the small amount of habitat left for birds, invertebrates, rare plants and all the other increasingly scarce species we have left will do everything they can to try and give them a chance.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Agree 100% with what you say Trevor. I’m involved with bird conservation (Peregrines) myself and, of course, a climber.

I remember reading a letter in one of the mags some years ago the author of which was equating climbers interests with ‘birders interests’ when, in fact, the more important interest is bird conservation. Fortunately both interests can be accommodated.

Hope you are well.

In reply to Trevor Langhorne:

Probably worth noting that the birding group aren’t exactly squeaky clean either, and a (thankfully) minority are more than happy to gather in their hundreds to see/bother rare migrants. Think the rather large visitor we had in the Peak last summer on it’s holiday from the Alps, or any other smaller bird that gets caught in a storm and blown here to find it’s bush surrounded by clicking cameras and what not. Quite often and not much unlike this thread you’ll see sensible birders ‘out’ poor behaviour from their own quarter on social media, and rightly so.