UKC

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

This does look an incredible boulder problem but there is something that concerns me, quote from the article..

"Jim first encountered the boulder five years ago, and spent multiple days getting it into a state where it was 'remotely climbable'"

The photos show a beautiful boulder that has a covering of what appears to be stunning lichen. The surrounding boulders in the photos are also covered in the same beautiful green lichen. I have no idea if this is a rare lichen or not.  Lichen is a pretty unique organism with a very slow growth rate. Without knowing what species of lichen it's impossible to say how long it would have taken to cover the boulders shown in the photos, but it could be significant. The quote above kind of implies the lichen on key holds was removed to uncover the boulder problem "getting it into a state where it was remotely climbable" the photos would support this. If correct what right do we have as climbers to remove/harm a slow growing ecosystem to facilitate a new boulder problem?

Maybe my concerns are unfounded, maybe there was no lichen on the climbable section of the boulder, maybe this is a common rapidly growing lichen, maybe it's not even lichen at all and just some common garden quick growing weedy stuff!

Concern logged and happy to be corrected or educated into this type of fauna.

In reply to InC:

Moss rather than lichen? And very fast growing at Cratcliffe. Cleaned problems are generally reclaimed completely there within a couple years if not climbed. 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Thanks for the information but I still feel something is wrong here. Okay so it's moss and it takes two years ish to establish itself, that moss probably supports an entire micro ecosystem. Is it right to remove that so one climber can climb something? There's a lot of dislikes for my original post but the impact climbing has upon the environment is an important topic. Climbing is becoming ever more popular and inevitably increases the pressure on the environment. 

In reply to InC:

I had the same gut reaction when I read it tbh. We’re always told in guidebooks not to engage in “gardening” to avoid damaging flora and/or risking acess

In reply to InC:

We should probably stop climbing on every crag in Britain then and let the ecosystems re establish themselves? Most crags were vegetated before we turned up and started boshing our way up them. Pretty sure all those cars we’re driving to the crags in aren’t great for the ecosystem either. Where do we stop with moralising? Checking for a friend as I pile my car up with pads to go climbing..!

Edit - to acknowledge the boulder problem looks cool/ aesthetic

In reply to InC:

Maybe go and have a look at this boulder surrounded by other mossy boulders that aren’t big enough or steep enough to offer climbs and make an assessment. There’s little or no established climbing in this country that doesn’t involve removing areas of ecosystem around mosses, lichens and plants. Unclimbed parts of Stanage, which most people would consider a ‘clean’ crag are covered with lichen. Should climbing there be banned to allow lichen to repopulate? 

In reply to Arms Cliff:

The last photo in the series breaks my heart, look at that and ask yourself are my actions as a climber benefiting the environment or are they a detriment to the environment? Truly wild nature is becoming rarer in the UK, my view is we should preserve what is left and not destroy it.

In reply to InC:

All climbing is detrimental to the environment ultimately, unless you’re walking to the crag and even then you are eroding footpaths, destroying what would grow back on the rock etc. Or just climbing on a woody in your garage, probably the only truly environmentally conscious type of climbing? I’m pretty sure this will see less footfall than most boulders so will go back to nature. Ultimately, climbing is a selfish activity and pointless in the wider perspective. By all means point it out but you should really be commenting on every ascent, every person who parks at stanage popular etc etc. Easy to point fingers. If I truly cared about the environment I’d probably have to comment on every destination article, question if every climber is eating meat or dairy etc. Maybe a thread split option on UKC would be good, as this is a slightly separate issue (I.e. what is ethical climbing in a time of environmental crisis?) to the ascent. Just out of interest, do you climb? How do you get there? Are you bothered by the erosion of the landscape and the damage you cause? 

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

The last sentence I wrote is the crux of my argument

"Truly wild nature is becoming rarer in the UK, my view is we should preserve what is left and not destroy it"

We cannot change the past but our actions today will effect the future

In reply to Arms Cliff:

but not necessarily with the same species (there are more than a 1000 spp of moss in the UK, several hundred spp of Lichen, plus around 300 spp of liverworts), some of which are very slow growing & do not recolonise easily. How many climbers can identify any of these spp ?

In reply to InC:

I do get what you're saying, I look at some of the places I once enjoyed climbing (Kynaston's cave area at Nesscliffe, parts of Churnet, most of Cratcliffe spring to mind) and do think they're in a sorry state. Then I remind myself that I contributed to that, we all in our own ways have to square what we do with the fact that we could be doing something less environmentally impactful. We can try to minimise it but ultimately in this case a young person has found, made climbable and then climbed a piece of rock. The same as every other piece of rock that we climb. The most venerated climbs in the UK didn't look like they do now originally. So you didn't really answer the question: cleaning moss is undesirable from an ecosystem point of view, but turning up in our hundreds/ thousands every weekend in car parks churning out tonnes of CO2 to pursue what is ultimately a pleasurable hobby on routes climbed decades ago is fine? Or is that not fine? Are you also a hypocrite or just happy to point it out when you see people being less than ideal in their behaviour?

In reply to InC:

Without saying anything either for or against the removal of vegetation to facilitate climbing...

I think a reckoning is needed on the subject, because at present the messaging on the subject is extremely mixed.

Guidebooks recommend a fairly hard line 'no gardening' ethic, while showcasing dozens of crags which are only climbable (or only good to climb) because of gardening.

The reality is that new routes or problems, especially these days when it takes a harder squeeze to get the juice in popular areas, often require some gardening and landscaping. If it doesn't happen, you don't get new climbs. If it hadn't happened in the past, you wouldn't have some of the climbs you have now. 

I don't know where the right balance lies. I guess in an ideal world we would all be botanists (and tasteful developers) and able to assess the impact of removing a certain amount of a certain species vs. the value of the climb that lies beneath. In the real world it would help to cut the hypocrisy between what is said and what is actually done and come up with a realistic code of practice.

In reply to Andy Moles:

The eventual re-opening of Symonds Yat could provide an answer as to what is deemed accectable from a non-climbing point of view as I assume that Forestry England will have an input into how much gardening can take place.
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/crag_access/symonds_yat_restriction_updat...

In reply to InC:

It's perfectly fine to be uncomfortable with obvious degradation of wild flora, and also uncomfortable, or at least considerate of the emissions and other impacts of climbing in general. People should be adult enough to engage in discussion without accusations of hypocrisy being thrown around.

Cratcliffe is an absolute mess these days, the amount of chalk plastered all over everything is ridiculous, clouds of it coming off when you brush it.

In reply to Andy Moles:

I agree with Andy, that developing a clearer code of practice and more guidance resources on this would be beneficial to the community.

I feel that removing common forms of moss and other common vegetation from rock on a line and at the base of climbs is fine, because human desires are important and climbing has a rich and precious heritage. Removal of some invasive or pervasive species, e.g. brambles and knotweed, can even be beneficial to biodiversity.

However, there are also rare species that need to be protected - even at the expense of not being able to climb good lines. It should be unacceptable to remove rare, endangered or vulnerable species. 

I also feel that leaving poor lines vegetated should be standard: flora and fauna is being squeezed out, and we should respect the natural world enough to give it some space on our crags.

One issue with the above is how difficult it appears to be to communicate nuance and ask people to act in nuanced ways. Another is a distinct lack of botanical knowledge amongst the community. Developing and disseminating helpful resources for education about cliff habitats could be really powerful in shifting the discussion forward.

In reply to InC:

Everything we do has an effect in some way. I don't think removing very common plants like moss from the odd rock will have a massively detrimental effect on the planet in comparison to what goes on in big industry. Nature is not selective so goes anywhere and everywhere; climbers are a lot more selective and there are plenty of rubbish rocks and crags which are left to nature. 

Not really relevant but I found it very interesting that they use crystallised calf urine on some iron bridges instead of grit salt (as that would corrode the metal). The high levels of ammonia act as a fertiliser and cause plants to grow at an accelerated rate (e.g.  Avon Gorge (Suspension Bridge Area) frequently requires the masses of vegetation to be removed).

In reply to InC:

Climbing's dirty little secret, best not to discuss.

I once did a survey of flora and soil fauna at the base of cliff, on the cliff ledges and at the top of a cliff. Those cliff soils, Rendzinas, very old and untouched, discovered a new species of Oribatid mite in them.

In reply to PaulJepson:

I don’t think this is true

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

In one of your earlier replies you wrote,

”Just out of interest, do you climb? How do you get there? Are you bothered by the erosion of the landscape and the damage you cause?”

 and in your last reply you wrote 

“Are you also a hypocrite or just happy to point it out when you see people being less than ideal in their behaviour?”

At it’s core my post is attempting to debate how our actions and responsibility to the environment today affects the future. 

"Truly wild nature is becoming rarer in the UK, my view is we should preserve what is left and not destroy it

We cannot change the past but our actions today will effect the future”

I think this is a reasonable view to have and I welcome honest debate but let’s keep the personal hyperbole at bay it is unwarranted and contributes nothing.

In reply to InC:

I’m not trying to be accusative, anymore than you have been to the climber of the boulder problem. As I said, I think these questions are interesting when we look at how places get trashed or how willing people are to jump on a plane to go somewhere nice. My question still stands though - it’s easy to point out the actions of others without examining our own. Cleaning moss off a boulder has a striking visual impact and some impact on biology/ ecosystem but why pick this one example, because a bit of moss is very small change in the big picture of environmental degradation and impact? You’ve made comments before celebrating ascents of burden of dreams/ alphane etc - all extensively cleaned! Just wondering what the bee in your bonnet is about this one in particular. Is it just the visual of it?

In reply to InC:

Apparently it's illegal to remove any vegetation in Scotland. 

"Gardening' or removing vegetation, including lichen, by hand, brushing or chemicals is illegal as all plants are protected by law. Consult the local SNH office if you have any questions."

https://www.mountaineering.scot/conservation/minimal-impact/climbing-boulde...

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Funnily enough I was climbing at  Chatsworth Edge last night - in the heart of the Peak, in a visual line of sight of Baslow, Birchen and Gardoms, and only a stone's throw from Curbar and Froggatt just beyond Baslow to the north. Some of the most regularly climbed on crags in the UK are within a km or two, but very few routes seem to see ascents at Chatsworth. I'm as 'guilty' of ignoring it as anyone - I think I've been twice in the ten years I've lived nearby. Compare that to twice I've climbed at Curbar already in 2025 alone.

Much of Chatsworth is really mucky with lots of growth of moss and lichen on it. We did a route called Broken Buttress Climb (VS 4b), Charlie putting in a bit of an epic lead having to clean lichen off the holds on the final arete with a cam (my cam I noticed! ) in lieu of a wire brush which is what was needed, had it not been for the fact that none of us had a brush and of course none of us would ever dare brush the holy grit with wire (even though that's what you need to get that sort of lichen off rock).

I also thought "that's a lot of brushing" seeing the pics of Jim's beautiful new problem, but stuff does grow back, and a lot of crags do seem to be greener than they were in past. I doubt it's only caused by less traffic, although of course certain crags and types of climbing go in and out of fashion, a lot of people around the Peak seem to be convinced that the reduction in acid rain has a lot to do with it. My climbing on Peak grit only goes back to the early 90s (and it was very intermittent and occasional for the next 25 years until I moved to the area) but I seem to remember Stanage and the like being less green in the 90s than it is now. So perhaps we seeing some crags 'rewild' in a way that hasn't happened since pre-industrialisation? 

So for Jim's new problem, I can point you to two VSs and one S we did last night that have all gone back to nature!

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

Fair points - the “bee in my bonnet” stems from the articles opening lines that I quoted in my OP

"Jim first encountered the boulder five years ago, and spent multiple days getting it into a state where it was 'remotely climbable'"

It’s the phrasing that implies multiple days were spent doing something, I know not what, in order for this boulder to get into a state that makes it climbable. When you combine these words with the photos, especially the last one, that shows a stunningly beautiful rich green natural landscape in the UK that now has, what a layperson would consider, graffiti art sprayed onto one of the boulders. I admit the words and visuals prompted my comments. I have no doubt this is an incredible boulder problem and an incredible achievement by Jim but, and here is the million dollar question, should we applaud the actions of a talented climber who has chosen to change the environment for their own endeavours or condone those actions.

As I’ve said above, we cannot change the past but we can, as a community, take actions to preserve valuable nature for future generations. 

Maybe you disagree and believe furthering athletic achievement should come at any cost.

Regarding, BoD and Alphane, there was nothing written or published in the photos other than strong climber scales hard boulder, so  the bees and bonnets stayed away from each other.

In reply to InC:

Well you've hit the nail on the head - this is what rock climbers do, and if you're opening new boulders/ routes then you will be cleaning holds, it's as simple as that. So the issue is where the balance is: you seem to be suggesting that any damage to nature/ brushing/ cleaning is unjustifiable? Yet all climbs at some point have had grass/ turf/ moss/ lichen removed. Modern boulders are cleaned extensively, just because you don't see it or it doesn't get reported doesn't mean it doesn't happen! So if you're going to call this out, then you need to call it all out - no hard boulder problem is in a natural state. In fact, no boulder problem is in a natural state, we all use brushes/ chalk etc. Saying that there are obviously ethics involved - no chipping or hard wire brushing to damage the rock itself. I totally see what you're getting at i.e. that focusing only on looking after the rock rather than the moss/ ecosystem is very tunnel vision. But that's what rock climbers do. I'm interested in where you'd draw the line with this? Is some cleaning acceptable, or none? If we accept that routes will start to recover turf/ flowers etc and are doing so on less travelled crags does that balance out some new cleaning? For what it's worth, I've been really worried about climate change recently and made a conscious effort in the past few years to limit car travel - I just can't justify to myself getting in the car and driving 200 plus round miles to North Wales even in this weather. Go back a decade and it wasn't an issue for me. I haven't flown since 2008. Despite this, I'm still a hypocrite because I drive a couple of miles three times a week to go to the climbing wall, I eat dairy sourced protein for nutrition, I'll travel 45 minutes to go to the nearest decent crag etc etc. I guess you're seeing this one striking example, whereas I'm thinking more structurally/ systematically about the whole act of climbing and whether it is 'sustainable' and where we draw those lines for ourselves.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I don't think this is literally true. 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Okay, "most climbs that involve cracks/ ledge shuffling/ slabs/ boulders in areas of woodland" - I think it's fair to say that most popular gritstone and mountain crags have been fairly well 'tidied up' over the decades..!

In reply to InC:

Are the only two options really to stop all new climbing development altogether or to disregard nature completely? This kind of black and white argument really doesn't help anyone, certainly not what I think is the great majority of UK climbers who would take a nuanced and balanced view as to where and when cleaning may be justified.

Taking either line of reasoning too far quickly becomes absurd; you end up either with greatly reduced flora and fauna, or with unperturbed outdoor spaces that can't be enjoyed without risking spoiling them? Or maybe just by keeping to concrete paths?

Debate of these issues is healthy and positive, especially when it leads to greater education and awareness, but we also have to remember that the outdoors, and national parks in particular, are places of recreation. This means many things to many people but definitely shouldn't simply be reduced to simply looking at nature without any practical interaction with it.

In reply to john arran:

I am 58 years old and was an extremely active climber for 30 years. In 2015 I stopped climbing and took up road cycling. In the early 90’s I climbed a lot in the South Lakes I remember Chapel Head Scar as a natural wonderland, with grass growing right up to the foot of the rock. In the late 80's I spent a few weeks at Ceuse before anyone had heard of it and it was pristine wilderness, there weren’t many routes and the routes that had been established had crazy long and scary runouts. If you go to either of these crags now all that wildness close to the rock has gone and all you see are eroded footpaths. In my local area, which I’m not going to disclose for privacy, I developed a lot of the climbing, establishing new routes and getting it all publicised. At the time I had no problem cleaning vegetation off crags, my drive and desire were getting routes done, promoting the area and pumping up my ego. Over the years, what was once a quiet backwater, is now a popular climbing venue suffering the same fate as Chapel Head and Ceuse above. I catalysed this, and with hindsight I regret it. That youthful, ego driven exuberance came with an environmental cost. I now realise pristine nature is quite scarce in the UK, a mossy gritstone boulder for example is extremely rare. With age I value that environment and to me it is extremely precious and worth fighting for. This debate started about a mossy gritstone boulder, others have expanded the debate which I welcome, but maybe in this case that mossy gritstone boulder in a stunning natural landscape should of been left alone and it's needs should trump those of youthful exuberance!

In reply to InC:

It's quite an extreme view though even so - I think there's a balance to be struck, and you're tipping right up towards one end of it essentially saying we all just need to stop climbing completely.

That couple of photos of Cloud Gate in the article are zoomed right in on the section of the boulder that's been cleaned and don't give you any kind of an overview.  I think you'd need to go there and have a proper look around to get a sense of the big picture, and get an idea of the balance of a sort of cost/balance analysis.  What is the impact of the cleaning, what is the line like that's been cleaned and was it worth it?

If something rare has been destroyed, if the ambience of the place has been changed, I'd have to agree.  And if it was a crappy line that had been cleaned anyway - I'd agree with you that it wasn't worth it.  But it's clearly a pretty inspiring line that's been climbed, verging on the visionary, and from what I know of the place I think it's very unlikely that any real harm has been done.

I certainly see where your first post is coming from and what moved you to stick your head over the parapet on the other thread, having taken some flak over it I think you've hardened your position in the face of opposition since and you're probably overstating it a wee bit now and chucking in a little hyperbole of your own.

"Truly wild nature" is certainly rare in the UK, biodiversity is certainly declining and the wildlife is under pressure.  I think it's less clear that wild nature is becoming rarer in the Peak District (depending on what you mean by *truly* wild - I doubt that's something that has existed at all in the English midlands for centuries.)

I don't know about Cratcliffe itself but the area immediately around it (and a fair bit of the Peak in general) is probably a good deal wilder and more natural than it was 200 years ago, when there were dozens of working mines and quarries and just about every bit of river with sufficient water and a steep enough drop to drive one was powering a mill or a grinding wheel.

Does the moss being cleaned off a bit of this one boulder at Cratcliffe represent a problematic loss of wild nature?  I'm not 100% sure but on the whole I think almost certainly not.

Edit to add:

From the above post:

Er.. really?  Have you been to Cratcliffe lately?  Or Rowtor?  Or had a bit of a mooch around Stanton Moor?

And I'm not sure about moss, but many lichens are considerably less rare now than they were 50-150 years ago, when the prevailing Westerly winds were bringing great clouds of sulphurous coal smoke across from Manchester, Stoke and the conurbations and industries inbetween, turning the rain into acid that stripped the rocks bare and stained them black.  (When the wind occasionally changed and an Easterly was blowing, the Peak got the full benefit of the Sheffield steel industry instead!)

In reply to InC:

What article are we discussing? There's no link and nothing matching the discussion that I can find.

On a broader point, pretty much all British climbing results from and in 'gardening'.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

Before the mods moved it into a thread of its own, InC's post was originally made in this thread: https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/ukc/jim_pope_makes_first_ascent_of_cloud_...

E2A: associated news article is here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2025/04/jim_pope_makes_first_ascent_of_clou...

In reply to InC:

So you were luckily enough to go to places before they were popular and are now are moaning because other people have gone to these places on the back of your generation populising them and traveling all over the world with little concern for the environment. 

In reply to Graeme Hammond:

nice try

In reply to InC:

Your view is not unreasonable and I sympathize with where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, your exact same argument could be applied to any number of human activities that have damaged the environment. The footpaths that criss-cross the mountains. The farmland that has destroyed the forests. The railways, roads, power cables, factories etc. which our modern life depends upon.

You mention that you are now a keen road cyclist, yet every even the smallest stretch of asphalt that you cycle on has had a considerable greater and more permanent impact on the environment than a cleaned boulder. The argument that "more people use roads" falls apart very quickly - there are a great many asphalted lanes, particularly in the UK, which are not really necessary and barely used (I have cycled on many of them myself); and who's to say this newly cleaned boulder won't be enjoyed by thousands of people in time to come?

As I mentioned earlier, I have sympathy with your position, as there is a good case to protect our wild spaces to prevent them from suffering further erosion. But equally there is a case for "checking one's privilege". 

In reply to Alun:

So is it worth protecting a mossy gritstone boulder and leaving it alone or not? Outside of Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire untouched gritstone boulders brimming with life are not common. This debate has expanded into a broader discussion of environmental impact which is understandable however just for the sake of brevity let's simply consider this mossy boulder.

Let's see where people stand.

If you are in favour of cleaning the moss and life off the boulder, covering it in chalk and opening up a new awesome boulder problem for climbers to enjoy please tick the like button.

If you are in favour of leaving the boulder as nature intended so it can be enjoyed by a broad church of people as a wild natural habitat please tick the dislike button.

In reply to InC:

I really don't see why people need to make this personal, by attacking the OP (or the FA).

Surely we can all agree that we should protect nature, but that we love to climb, and that those things are in tension with each other?

It's then a question of balance, strategy, resources and will - of how we achieve this. Given the global and national biodiversity crisis (e.g. just off my head, every UK species of bird is declining; pollinators are in crisis; some UK plants will not survive global climate change, particularly certain lichens and cliff-dwellers), I think this conversation is very timely and necessary.

In reply to C Rettiw:

It's personal in the sense that it is about the personal choices we make adding up to a much bigger picture. The OP has said as much i.e. where does one stand on cleaning a boulder, is that acceptable yes/ no binary. I think the point I and others are making is that there is a balance to be struck somewhere (again, which is personal) and that could include using tarmac roads that cut through the natural places of the country for cycling, driving (possibly?) on those very same roads in a CO2 emitting vehicle, flying (possibly) to sample climbing in other countries but not cleaning some moss off a boulder. My view is that trying to solve the big by looking at the very small is the wrong way round, I mean if we want to make climbing sustainable we'd be better off trying to dissuade anyone climbing under 8B to stay at home and leave the climbing to the elite who can push the boundaries and leave the rest of the places to be in their natural state! But I think John Arran pointed this out - extremism in this case solves nothing, especially when the OP has said he enjoyed cleaning routes, opening new places, flying about but now takes a dim view of others.

Having said all that, it's a timely conversation because I believe there is a reckoning coming on a societal and civilizational level and we all have to make peace with our part in that. For me personally, Jim Pope cleaning some moss off a boulder so he can climb a piece of rock might not be the best thing in the world for nature, but worrying about that when you've got drill baby drill going on is p*****g in the wind! 

In reply to InC:

Cleaning rocks for climbing is both unjustifiable and necessary. Either you live with that dichotomy or take up another sport.

In reply to InC:

Oh, now you're just being silly.

Inside those counties they're very common however - what proportion of them overall do you suppose have had some of the moss cleaned off?  Despite the comparative rarity of millstone grit outside of those counties there are plenty of mossy boulders of course, some of which consist of very similar types of sandstone.

Using up/down votes as a poll never works - yours is even more pointless than usual.

I've ticked the 'dislike' button because I think your poll is worthless. And it's worthless because you have no idea how many other 'dislikes' were from people who feel similarly.  Conversely, you might get some 'likes' from people who agree with you that no boulder should have moss cleaned off it, the diametric opposite of the meaning you've attempted to ascribe.

If you want a poll, start a new thread with an actual poll.

In reply to InC:

The whole of the climbing crags used to be covered in moss and lichen. More damage is currently caused by soil and rock erosion from overuse. If you’d seen Cratcliffe and all the Peak boulders 50 years ago you’d know exactly what I mean

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I agree to some extent, but also think your responses have a lingering odour of whataboutery. You're completely right that there are bigger fish to fry. I also agree with you that this shouldn't be about condemning X boulderer for Y problem. But... how we act in these fragile cliff ecosystems which are havens for biodiversity is significant and worth attending to.

I hope that makes sense

In reply to Philb1950:

Sounds made up to me. The impression I got (from older climbers than you) was polution kept lichen and moss off most of the rocks not under tree cover or heavily shaded. The Peak grit crags have never been greener in my time of prolific visits (since the  mid 80s). Cratcliffe boulders is as honeypot as grit climbing gets, and the situation is tragic,  but the worse damage there is to the rock itself (surface damage exposing the softer matrix due to overbrushing and climbing in dirty shoes... the chalk looks a mess but mostly washes off).

I'm glad climbers have become more ecologically aware as the decades have passed but the bigger cleaning issues were always on routes. I can't comment on this particular boulder until I looked again in person. The majority of boulders in woodland are untouched by climbers and problems of this grade are few indeed.

In reply to InC:

Perhaps you could suggest he rename it Mossgate.

In reply to C Rettiw:

I'm not disagreeing with you and didn't mean to be condescending. However, I think context is king in any of these situations and if you're going to call out someone's behaviour I think having a wider view is important - call that whataboutery if you want. Lots of behaviours damage ecosystems, so singling this act out in particular seemed an odd call. Especially when the OP has praised other boulderers (who will have cleaned their boulder problems in a similar way) and also done some of the things being criticised here (cleaning, new routing, opening new areas, travelling to areas now considered honeypots etc.). We've all got to make our own minds up on acceptable practice I suppose but also be aware that applying universal standards (as the OP suggested - is it ever okay to clean a boulder, yes or no) is not really going to work everywhere for everyone all the time in climbing. That's where your whatboutery/ context has to come in to play. Not sure if I've anything else to add.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

I remove a lot of moss from boulders I climb each season at my local gristone crag as a lot of the boulders are in the trees.

This year I went with the kids for one cleaning trip and we used the moss for the floor in a den we made. I cleaned one boulder that had never been climbed before so that the kids could try it.

When you clean a boulder, there are tonnes of insects in there. Worms, beetles, centepedes and millipedes but probably loads of others smaller critters too.

If no one cleans boulders at most parts of this crag, lichen and moss comes back pretty quickly and many boulders need cleaning each year if you want to clean them.

Also, I've experimented with removing only moss from the necessary holds for a particular problem. The issue there is that it then remains wet and sleeps even into drier periods.

Like people have said above, cleaning climbs to make them climbable is part of climbing and crag development. It's hard work and absolutely no one thanks you. Not that I would expect them to.

Personally I only clean boulders I want to climb. When I was in Ailefroide last year, there was a local older gentleman cleaning boulders meticulously. Removing any lichen from the boulder problems. I was chatting to him and he said he no longer boulders but likes to keep them in good order for others.

You have to decide on your own personal ethics.

Most people have little understanding of the amount of cleaning and preparation involved in rendering many areas climbable.

In reply to InC:

This is the anomaly which really isn’t getting discussed very much. 
 

Climbing, winter and summer, is no longer a niche pastime, large numbers of people participate. As climbers we’re generally an environmentally conscious bunch who consider our impact wherever we go, or are we? Do we just go with what is socially‘acceptable’ within our peer group?

There are ecosystems which do not exist because of us climbers, am I wrong? I think it’s an honest question, I don’t pretend for one second to excuse myself. 

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

My concern with cleaning boulders is not really to do with environmental sustainability at all. It's just ugly and detracts from the integrity of the little wildness that actually exists in the Midlands. 

I'm not condemning OP at all. I contribute to the ugliness. I don't like it though, there's a line somewhere, and I'm not sure where it is for me. 

In reply to InC:

I think we are all becoming more aware of what damage we do as climbers and its definitely a subject which needs discussing.

I found the attached photos after a quick search...

There's cleaning and there's cleaning!

Boulders often have a 'heathery top' so when this is cut its like someone having a 'bowl hair cut' which can make it look a lot worse than it maybe is!? We as climbers are sometimes a very conflicted bunch!

In reply to C Rettiw:

I was about to say the exact same thing (whataboutery)

In reply to InC:

I remember someone telling me about their experience new routing in Pembroke. They said the new route was totally clean and ready to climb before anyone had touched it. I was struck by how remarkable he had found that. In my ignorance I hadn't realised that most classic UK rock climbs have had to be dug out from vertical turf and ivy. It is only wave lashed sea cliffs etc that are naturally clean.

I totally agree though that wanton gardening not vital for doing decent routes (very subjective I agree), should be avoided. I've seen people slashing away at surrounding vegetation and I think that's out of order.

In reply to Petegunn:

The ladder constructed from saplings makes me remember the time one prominent local activist allegedly cut down a rare Lancashire whitebeam in an AONB to use the wood to "patio" the landing for a problem. That's the sort of thing that really needs to be avoided.

In reply to InC:

His comment is entirely accurate though

If you went and did loads of cleaning and publicised all the things you cleaned you can't be surprised that other people also do that now

Anyway my view is that cleaning the boulder was absolutely fine for JP to do, and it's a bit hypocritical for the climbing community to have a problem with it when they're going out and climbing cleaned rock all the time. 

In reply to stone elworthy:

There is no evidence to back this statement up. Crags in the UK vary according to their environment, altitude, aspect and so on. The first pioneers of UK climbing don't seem to have recorded any details of extensive gardening on many of the classics apart from on crags where the vegetation was an overriding feature. Bear in mind that many of the classics were climbable in boots before the advent of rubbers and rock shoes so the level of friction deemed necessary to Jim Pope on his latest top end boulder was not really a problem for Puttrell , OG Jones and the likes. Even reading the biographies of later generation climbers, there seems to be no mention of extensive gardening being commonplace. Where this was a very significant feature of an ascent it is often mentioned as being noteworthy. I'm pretty sure that many of the fifties and sixties classics were made in their virgin state. 

I think the notion that "most  classic UK routes have had to be dug out" is a bit of a myth.

In reply to Twiggy Diablo:

This whole thread is based on whataboutery though. The whole premise is: 
“I’ve just climbed some hard grit.”

”What about the moss though?” 

We then went from there!

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I guess I’m basing this on reading books like hands of a climber where cloggy was covered in tufts of grass before Great slab/ bow became popular, plus references to ‘the caterpillar’ of grass on other crags etc. I’d be surprised if crack lines on most popular Welsh crags like the idwal slabs weren’t chock full of heather and soil at one point? Can’t really comment on the peak stuff, I agree not all routes need extensive cleaning but I think the point that most crags have been  altered by climbers to one extent or another is true. Even just footfall/ erosion of base level soil is a massive issue regardless of cleaning. 

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

As I said, where you have read about gardening being a feature of making first ascents on a particular crag, that is because it was a significant aspect of opening those routes up. I don't think it was the norm on most first ascents  to cope with grass caterpillars and similar. It's fairly clear that climbers cause wear and tear on popular routes over time, even the ones that were on clean rock to begin with, but my point is that not all crags have required gardening and extensive cleaning as part of their development, as some people seem to think is the case.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

That's likely, especially for the ground up ascents of that era but it's not just the first ascent which strips a route of it's flora and fauna, each subsequent passage scuffs a bit off here, a bit off there, scrapes out placements and holds, tramples and loosens grass exposing soil to rain and wind until we have the barren rain lashed walls we know today, yet there was no 'gardening' involved. The honeypot crags are so far down that road now it's almost impossible to imagine they were ever different but the effect can be seen starkly even on lightly trafficked remote routes where some vegetation still remains.

That said, plenty of crags clearly have been extensively excavated from the undergrowth, that's evidenced as crags move through cycles of popularity, neglect and restriction.

jk

In reply to The Connor-Crabb:

Like I said above there is a balance to be struck and it is all subjective - but it sounds very much to me like this is unjustifiable tbh.

In reply to Wyre Forest Illuminati:

That’s not what Whataboutery (in debating terminolgy) means

In reply to Twiggy Diablo:

Thanks professor. So, whatabout the moss and impact on diversity of cleaning holds in this particular case - fine. Whatabout the fact OP has done the same thing (hypocrisy), the cleaning that goes on unreported on boulders OP has given a thumbs up to (naivety) and the impact we all have in eroding soil/ brushing holds/ driving CO2 emitting cars which all impact biodiversity even if not directly visible (collective responsibility) - not fine? Maybe you can let me know the legitimate scope of debate beforehand next time so I don’t break the rules..! PS - would do a smiley face emoji here but don’t know how to!! PPS not my dislike on your post btw

In reply to InC:

I’ve been a keen naturalist all my life, and well before I took up climbing. I’ve since done a lot of development of new routes and boulder problems, especially around the Peak. As such I’ve had plenty of time and reason to contemplate the question posed by the OP whilst cleaning boulders. Clearly I consider the practice justifiable to some extent or I wouldn’t do it. Many of the reasons behind this have already been covered by others. Here’s a few more thought though, some of which haven’t yet been touched on:

# Climbers can be very blind to rocks which aren’t suitable for climbing and don’t tend to notice the vastly larger number of smaller rocks around them which will never be of interest to climbers. Calling mossy gritstone boulder extremely rare entirely depends on how wide a net you are casting. In the Peak they are exceedingly common (most are tiny), within the context of a world where only the UK has confirmed gritstone they are obviously rare.

# Perhaps uniquely among habitat types in the Peak mossy rocks are actually something which human activity has hugely increased the volume of. As said in the previous point, climbers are just blind to non climbing rocks. These high surface area moss gardens humans have diligently installed and maintained over decades and centuries, and are such an intrinsic part of the landscape that no climber on this thread seems to have noticed them and considered their relevance. Drystone walls crisscross most crags and woods in the Peak. According to Google the Peak has 5,440 miles of them. In terms of habitat offsetting you could argue that humans have unintentionally bought climbers some space to temporarily remove some areas of moss from a subset of certain sized stones. This might sound a bit trite/contrived but I think it is highly relevant if considering the scarcity and vulnerability of the habitat type.

# I say temporary as this is exactly what it is. For every new line that is cleaned at least one disappears back under moss. This happens slower or faster depending on the environment and some problems stay clean if they are sufficiently loved and appreciated by climbers. Over time this creates a natural balance with climbs where the cost/benefit of gardening justifies the loss of microhabitat being the ones that stay clean and the less valued lines returning to nature. Without the allure of a first ascent being made the documentation of these poorer lines kind of protects them from further re-cleaning in many cases.

# Development should be viewed as a circular rather than a linear process with climbs coming in and out of a climbable state all the time. A halt on cleaning would not freeze what we have now it would mean that climbable rocks become an ever-shrinking resource. Obviously, this would have knock on environmental effects with the remaining climbs and their environs suffering ever greater user pressure and people being incentivised to travel further and further to find things to climb on. Access would also be damaged at both ends, by overuse at some places and under use elsewhere (use it or loose it is real).

# On the question of the amount of time Jim mentions taking to get this problem in a climbable state I think the OP may be misunderstanding the process. Some time will have been spent actually removing moss, but this alone does not leave an extremely slopey mantel like this in a climbable state. It takes repeat cycles of natural drying and light brushing/ragging for the loose surface grains to dissipate enough to allow marginal friction moves to be feasible. This will certainly have taken days in this case.

# As a climber of 35 years in the Peak I also have observed the greening of grit crags mentioned by others. Anyone doubting this is a thing should take a look at some old guide photo. Cleaner air has undoubtedly been beneficial for mosses and lichens. Is this whataboutery, I don’t know, I don’t really understand the pejorative, I think it’s relevant context though.

# Assuming you don’t take the radical line that all cleaning should be outlawed you are left with the question of what cleaning is worth the cost. I think most would see Jim’s new climb as of sufficiently high value in aesthetic and historical terms to make a good case to be worth the cost.

# On the question of aesthetics this is a very human consideration (at least I don’t think the roe deer and robins worry about what mossy rocks look like), in this case mostly a climber’s consideration as the boulder is in a hard-to-reach corner of woodland that non climbers are highly unlikely to ever see. This is very much an in the eye of the beholder question. To me the images of this climb are some of the most beautiful and inspiring gritstone photographs I’ve seen in a while and the climbing of the problem is an aesthetic net gain for the Peak. I may be in the minority but seeing the climb in it’s climbed state in the woods is also to see a thing of beauty which is not apparent before the line is climbed. Ultimately the cleaning and climbing of the rock is the expression and manifestation of a small part of the beauty of the universe. At least that’s how I see it and I fully appreciate I may have motivated reasoning as a developer.

I do think it’s a good conversation to have and for that I’d thank the OP. It’s nice to have a reason to share some of the thoughts I’ve had while bumbling in the woods and it’s always good to have your assumptions and justifications challenged.

In reply to Boy:

Top tier post - very productive and insightful, I enjoyed reading this. Much more focused than my thoughts. 

In reply to Boy:

Thank you for a well written and considered reply. As you quite rightly state in your final point, aesthetics is a personal and human consideration.

For you..

"To me the images of this climb are some of the most beautiful and inspiring gritstone photographs I’ve seen in a while and the climbing of the problem is an aesthetic net gain for the Peak. I may be in the minority but seeing the climb in it’s climbed state in the woods is also to see a thing of beauty which is not apparent before the line is climbed"

For me..

https://www.instagram.com/p/DHyzxFUtbjz/?utm_source=ig_embed&img_index=...

I find nothing beautiful or inspiring about this photo, I fail wholeheartedly to see how this is a net gain for the Peak or "a thing of beauty which is not apparent before the line is climbed" it is not, in any way coherent, with the natural environment. Sure the chalk will eventually wash off probably leaving a few stains behind, but if this problem inspires others to try then the image in the photo will be present for a long time.

For clarity, it is the last photo in the instagram feed that I am referencing in particular.

In reply to InC:

Surely you realise what you're saying is nobody should clean and climb a new route or problem ever again

If you have an aesthetic objection, fine. If you have an environmental objection, fine. But if you climb, you need to understand that everything was once different and has been changed by us climbing on it

If you eat sausages then don't complain about how they're made

In reply to Boy:

I've built walls in the Peak which show no signs of moss or lichen twenty years after being put up, maybe just a slight bit of greening. I've also built them to find half an inch of moss/ lichen on them within the space of a couple of years. I think the same applies to crags. It depends on the immediate environment, the aspect and even the prevailing weather systems. 

In reply to Andrew Wells:

Reading back through this thread, it seems there is little support for the questions I’ve raised. This may be due to how I’ve presented my argument—or perhaps how I’ve responded to the replies. Nevertheless, I’ll attempt to reframe the argument once more.

Imagine a mossy boulder that has sat untouched by human hands for centuries in a natural habitat. Covered in green, velvety moss, it supports an abundance of life and has a striking, timeless appearance. Then, in 2025, an inspired climber sees potential for a new, difficult boulder problem. They remove some of the moss and, through working and establishing the new line, end up covering one side of the boulder in white chalk. The boulder no longer supports the same biodiversity it once did, and its appearance has changed dramatically. It no longer looks ancient or wild—any observer can see that.

Many in this thread have pointed out that numerous crags have undergone similar transformations throughout climbing history—it’s a well-known dichotomy in the sport. Others have made a sort of “carbon offset” argument, suggesting that the damage to this boulder is balanced by human-made constructs like dry-stone walls.

We can’t change what’s happened in the past, but here in the 21st century, we claim to live in a more enlightened and environmentally conscious world. Climbing has grown rapidly in just a few short years—there are now countless gyms, Olympic competition, and an entire online world centered on the sport. As climbing has evolved, it has had to navigate a series of ethical debates: the use of chalk, fixed protection like pegs and threads, the development of fully bolted sport routes, and more. In each case, some level of consensus was eventually reached.

But in 2025, when a climber’s performance, online profile, and social media following are directly linked to monetization, there is a genuine risk that the drive for personal achievement and public recognition may come at the expense of the environment.

Yes, we are discussing just one mossy boulder and one new boulder problem. But did JP ever consider the broader implications of his actions before beginning? JP is an influencer. His actions are public, shared, and replicated. With no formal rules in place, such actions can set a precedent—and that precedent can inspire others to emulate them. Things escalate, and in the end, the only loser is our natural environment.

I shared a story of my own youthful exuberance and the regrets I now carry—only to have it thrown back at me without much thought.

I truly believe we are at a tipping point—the thin end of a wedge. From the overall response on this forum, it may seem like the cause is already lost. But I still believe there are a few enlightened individuals who understand what I’m trying to say—people with the reach and influence to help change the course we’re on.

In reply to InC:

This has been one of the most polite and thoughtful discussions I've read on here. I think people have understood your view, they just haven't necessarily agreed with it 100% and have politely articulated why.

In reply to InC:

But do you climb on things already revealed? Have you not already done the same thing yourself?

This is a boulder in 1) a known climbing area that 2) is out of the general site and 3) turns out to have a great, unique block on it. What should he have done? Not cleaned it? Why not? Whatever rules or consensus prevent him, and what established precedent there is says that within reason cleaning boulders is fine and acceptable 

If someone had cleaned it 20 years ago and he recleaned it, is that fine? If it got plenty of traffic? If it saw regular traffic? What broader implications do you want him consider?

I don't think you intend it, but to me this reads as yet another example of "it was okay when we did it, but now I'm older and I've changed my mind, and you can't"

You can't have it both ways. If you go climbing you climb on cleaned rocks. You yourself have said you cleaned and published things. Well you are the example that he is following then! Your objections to me ring hollow, yet more people talking about the thin end of the wedge and the tragedies of modern climbing when a great example of young, keen and strong does something cool and puts up a great new boulder

Your argument literally leads to no new boulders because they practically all need a clean. It feels pretty unfair to criticise the first ascensionist for doing something you yourself have done loads of times

In reply to InC:

I think there is sympathy for your argument and a general awareness of the fact that climbing paradoxically both appreciates and damages the natural environment. Your point about being more aware of our impact is one I totally agree with as any activity by humans will have consequences, so being thoughtful in the way we go about things is a good general approach. I think where we diverge is in our conclusions - you seem to consider this a huge issue, but I really don't see this as 'the thin end of the wedge' because for the vast majority of climbers, going out and spending the time required to find, clean and climb new lines just isn't something they're interested in. So I don't see this as a major 'influence' on most people's climbing. Another way we diverge is on the actual impact this will have compared to the majority of ordinary everyday actions we all do thoughtlessly as climbers. For me the tipping point, in an environmental point of view, is being pushed more my the actions of the masses of climbers - driving to crags, walking around en masse at the base of crags, buying gear en masse - rather than a bit of moss on one boulder. Having said that, as I've mentioned, I am very conflicted about climbing in the 21st century but in the grand scheme of things we really are small fry and I remind myself that getting some joy and feelings of peace are very valuable in these uncertain times and being a bit selfish is not always the end of the world: or maybe it is..!

In reply to Andrew Wells:

What is the legal position on removing wild plants from their natural environment? 
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 seems to suggest that removing moss from a piece of rock is effectively illegal.
I'm not suggesting that no cleaning should take place, but maybe more consideration should be taken before the extensive gardening of a new route, etc.
 

In reply to InC:

What causes you to think that responders have done so "without much thought"?

Is it because they have reached a different conclusion and therefore, according to your perception, can't have thought it through as well as you perceive yourself to have done?

Perhaps some of them have taken a position that's less militant that yours, that doesn't impose a blanket ban on all cleaning on the offchance there's some vital piece of flora that will be affected, or to appease those who once were kindred spirits but who now believe that looking at moss-covered boulders is preferable to climbing them.

In reply to john arran:

One contributor quoted the entirety of what I wrote and then said this 

"So you were luckily enough to go to places before they were popular and are now are moaning because other people have gone to these places on the back of your generation populising them and traveling all over the world with little concern for the environment."

From my perspective, this came across more as a personal dig rather than a considered response to what was written, hence my statement to have it thrown back without much thought. Maybe I am wrong and maybe this responder considered and thought about what was written and this is their honest and thoughtful response.  

In reply to Andrew Wells:

. If you go climbing you climb on cleaned rocks. 

Once again, I don't believe this to be true. I'm convinced that there are thousands of routes in the UK that never needed cleaning before their creation and the only erosion to them has been a natural consequence of the passage of footwear.

In reply to InC:

It wasn’t me that wrote it, but can you not see that what you’re saying comes across as a bit rich: “I flew around the world, climbed i  loads of honeypot venues before they were cool, cleaned new routes and made them popular, but I really can’t believe you’ve cleaned off half a dozen slopers on a boulder, thin end of the wedge.” Although no doubt well intentioned it sounds patronising and hypocritical and I’m no closer to knowing what you consider a sensible/ balanced approach mostly because you don’t respond to questions asked and just restate your shock and horror that a developer might clean a boulder.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Alright let me say it in a different way; no climber has ever not contributed to the changing of the "natural" environment by their climbing. Be that due to erosion, cleaning, polish etc 

I'm going to font tomorrow as I'm sure many here have... do we think those boulders sprang out of the ground ready to go? They were cleaned. If you're opposed to cleaning, you're essentially saying "don't climb new boulders"

Maybe Jim would be free to come and give laddow a bloody good brush and garden with me. 

In reply to Andrew Wells:

I've never said that I am opposed to cleaning. I am simply disagreeing with the notion that people keep promulgating on here which says "If you climb at all in the UK, you are benefitting from the actions of people who have cleaned routes in the past". I am saying that this is not necessarily the case and that in our rich history of rock climbing ,cleaning has indeed been a feature in some instances but is absolutely not  a universal activity when every first ascent is taken into consideration. It might be different in Font, I have no idea, but a bouldering area in France is not necessarily typical of UK rock climbing in the wider sense. 

I said in my previous post that climbers do contribute to erosion by the simple act of climbing itself but climbing is not the same as cleaning, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

In reply to InC:

I'm an enthusiastic seeker of unclimbed boulders - or, at least, unclimbed as far as the record shows. I get great personal enjoyment and aesthetic satisfaction out of creating new problems. But I am at the opposite end of the spectrum to JP. I've never put up anything harder than V4, and mostly they're V0/V1. Some have been in obscure or remote areas and have no further ascents logged on UKC, others have been in neglected corners of honeypot destinations. But all have required cleaning, some of it extensive. I see myself as a lover of the natural environment, but I think the loss of micro habitat is acceptable and looking with a climber's eyes I see the results as beautiful. I assume you feel my behaviour is unacceptable, but I'm still not clear about what you would regard as acceptable. Are you proposing a ban on all new routeing? If not, what are the parameters? Can you be more specific?

In reply to Various: The scale of the cleaning is important and rather being ignored here.  I develop new boulders now and then, and the majority of them require very little cleaning.  I saw Burden as an example earlier . I doubt that required more than a few minutes.  This line clearly needed a lot and I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with doing that.

Historically yes, some things have required masive amounts of cleaning, and I'm thinking particularly of vegetation removal on seacliffs.  Would I do that? Not sure

In reply to wbo2:

Thank you for writing this. In just a few words, you’ve captured what I’ve been trying and failing to express: “The scale of the cleaning is important.” This is the crux of the issue. In my view, the extent of cleaning Cloud Gate and the appearance of the boulder after climbing seem excessive. We need to strike a balance between the desires of climbers and the impact on the habitat.

Perhaps, first ascensionists, need to actively consider the impact of their actions on the environment and habitat before engaging in climbing. It’s a sort of cost-benefit analysis, if you will. I agree this can be completely arbitrary and personal. I would hazard a guess that if you surveyed current boulderers and climbers who are establishing new problems and climbs, this “cost-benefit” consideration is rarely taken into account.

In reply to InC:

But if you accept that each first ascentionist's cost-benefit analysis can be "completely arbitrary and personal' and offer no parameters as guidance, then doesn't that leave us in the position of having to respect each personal decision?

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Absolutely it does, and it's incumbent on others to flag instances where, in their personal view, a line may have been crossed. This is the path towards consensus. Importantly, as I said above, if the "cost-benefit" question becomes integrated into the mindset that can only be beneficial - would you agree?

I was thinking of an example of really clean rock for the first climbers. Almscliff sprung to mind. I imagine in 1900 it was as clean as it is now, thanks to the wind exposure and lack of seepage  etc. But 5000 years ago presumably Almscliff would have been overshadowed by huge oak and yew trees and covered in moss and ferns

My take from all that, isn't that we should only climb where no moss removal is needed. My take is that we ought to try and restore more land to natural forest. The benefits of a bit of woodland or wetland are vastly more than one mossy boulder. Displace sheep or lawns, not boulderers.

In reply to InC:

I do agree - but I still think you could usefully give an indication of what sort of cleaning you personally think is acceptable. I've made it clear that I personally think extensive removal of moss is acceptable even for the creation of a few low grade problems. I certainly understand that not all will agree and were there to be a well-established and clearly articulated consensus against such a practice I'd change my behaviour - but to arrive at such a consensus does require us to talk in specifics.

In reply to stone elworthy:

Well said. InC seems stuck in a micro obsession and missing the big picture. The way we are heading climate change will cause major environmental damage and voting, protest and lobbying on that seem by far the most important concerns to me. Close behind is serious looks at the politics of how we use land. Then we get to setting individual examples.

Removing rare plants is terrible (it still happens sadly) so cleaning shouldn't be undertaken by those with no experience. However, the cleaning of a few boulders in a wood full of identical looking moss and lichen by an experienced climber seems a totally disproportionate worry. Things that trash the rock are very bad and over use of chalk is a problem (alongside other issues).... all need strong advice and education.  I align with boy in that respect.

I also think enjoying nature and climbing movement are both important and we are lucky to get to do that together. I also see climbing creation and shared experience as an artistic endeavour.

In reply to Offwidth:

I think this is the problem a I see it. We're looking at one visible but low global impact issue whilst ignoring many, many more low visibility, high impact issues (how you get to the crag, what you wear, how you buy it, what you do on holiday, do you fly, do you support a government with non-environmental credentials, do you invest in stocks without thinking of the impact, etc, etc.)

The sum impact of everything you do is grossly more impactful than a single cleaned boulder. This doesn't mean it shoudn't be thought about but it should be addressed in context. The problem is that the context is too complex for most of us to address so it's often easier to point at a really obvious, visible issue and shout about that (either sincerely or in an insincere whataboutery session).


 

In reply to timparkin:

Whataboutery? What about your second sentence?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I don't think so Tom. That might be true if the small thing under focus was really damaging. The 'look' of the cleaned problem on a photo seems to dominating over the actual environmental damage done. Irrespective, the OP likely just has misguided good intentions and is probably 'thinking aloud' a bit (no bad thing). I've enjoyed this thread discussion, in contrast to Sav's and Gordon's threads (where pile-ons occurred).

Boy's post is a great resource to link to future threads on a similar topic.

In reply to Offwidth:

Failed attempt at flippancy. Apologies to Tim

In reply to Offwidth:

"Micro-obsessing" is an interesting phrase, but I genuinely believe there is a broader perspective to consider. As I mentioned earlier, we live in an era dominated by social media. Top-performing climbers have Instagram accounts, YouTube channels, and more. We are now in a time when first ascents and significant repeats are live-streamed. Athletes performing at the highest levels derive income from sponsors and face pressure to deliver impressive results.

Bouldering, for example, has transformed in a relatively short period. It has evolved from casually stepping off a beer towel to keep shoes clean into a high-tech sub-genre where platforms are built from stones and branches to create level fall zones for a complex array of crash pads. Climbers use battery-powered fans to cool their skin and specific holds on certain problems, and I have seen footage of large tarpaulins being used to protect boulders from the elements.

I am not condemning these tactics; rather, they suggest that athletic performance and success are the primary motivations for these climbers. When they succeed, they are happy, sponsors are pleased, and we, the pundits at home, are satisfied. It’s a win for everyone.

However, did anyone—climbers, sponsors, or pundits—pause to consider the environmental impact of all this? Until now, I have hesitated to open Pandora's box regarding high-end climbers flying to all corners of the planet to scale a few feet of rock that has been assigned some magical grade. Perhaps that discussion is better suited for another forum.

As I’ve said, we embrace it all—myself included—while sponsors revel in the profits, and athletes receive universal adoration.

I voiced my concerns about a new boulder problem at Cratcliffe because the written words and photos provided visceral confirmation of something that has been troubling me. The tactics I mentioned appear to becoming normalized. Cloud Gate is certainly challenging at 8b+, but it is not cutting-edge. If harsh cleaning and other tactics continue to filter down the climbing hierarchy, will we see this employed for the first ascent of a 7b+, a 6b+, or any grade? Has sufficient consideration of potential harm to the environment and habitat been made?

When I started climbing, I was taught to enter the natural world and leave it as I found it. In my youth, I strayed from this principle and now regret some of my past actions. Reflecting on this, I’ve faced accusations of hypocrisy while attempting to share my wisdom.

Okay, I’m an old man, a hypocrite, perhaps misguided, micro-obsessed, and likely more. All of that is fine. The future of climbing belongs to a younger generation, and all I am suggesting is that climbers—both elite and beginner—should carefully consider the impact of their actions on the environment and the habitats they enjoy.

In reply to InC:

A mighty fine construction on a few photos from Jim. The ecological issues were always abused by too many climbes but overall damage is much less now and remains very much unproven on that particular problem. Aside from wider access restrictions to deal with flora and fauna, many whole crags have been removed from modern guides. Old mattresses were occasionally dragged below routes in the mid 80s when I first visited Peak grit (alongside other jiggery pokery).

I'm also  a fairly old man asking climbers to carefully consider the impact of their actions on the environment and the habitats they enjoy. However it's far more important they vote and campaign for more general improvements and not get carried away on small things that are not seriously damaging. I'd hope we can celebrate the games we play in a respectful manner and try to ensure future generations can continue to do so as well.

Your thread has at least generated a good hearted discussion. Well done for that.

In reply to InC:

I agree completely. Though perhaps your success in communicating that thus far may have been hindered somewhat by coming across as a born again obsessive tree hugger!

In reply to Offwidth:

This!!

The reason O/P got a harder time on this thread is because A/ he's wrong and B/ IMO he's missing the whole point in these debates.

There is a 100% valid conversation to be had about UK biodiversity and the well being of UK Bryophyte's ... but a couple of climbers in the woods cleaning a rock with tooth brushes isn't the root cause of anything.  

Q:  Does the OP have a point re:  lichen in England?  Is it in decline?  Should we be concerned?

ANS:  See below - State of Nature 2023 - pages 158/159

"The distribution indicator for 1,437 lichen species, with England-specific data, showed a strong increase in average distribution of 80% between 1980 and 2021 (Figure 48C, UI: 60% to 102%). Within this average, 31% of species decreased, 6% showed little change and 63% increased in distribution. In many parts of the UK, lichens were very badly impacted by historic industrial pollution, England being the worst affected. Reductions in sulphur dioxide pollution are allowing some species to recover. However, ongoing high levels of nitrogenous air pollution mean that recovery is skewed towards species that can tolerate this."

It would appear that Lichens are in a state of steadily improving health in England (not the case for other species ... ).  Lichen's are also up in Wales ~ +13% over the same period. 

Ironically the same report also reports something I was unaware of:  "Scotland is the only UK country where lichen distributions are declining on average. Historical declines in lichens associated with heavy industry were less severe across much of Scotland330, which may explain why they tend to show less of a positive response to reduced sulphur dioxide pollution. In Scotland, the loss of lichens may reflect the decline of nitrogen sensitive species as the cumulative effects of nitrogenous air pollution have grown, plus the ongoing effects of habitat loss"

On a more general note .. I don't think Climbers/Climbing is a materially impactful group in the wider debates regarding UK biodiversity or climate change - there simply isn't enough of us and our actions aren't sufficiently impactful.  Focusing upon climbers/climbing draws attention away from where it should be.  In terms of UK biodiversity loss/impact - we should be focused on the following:  Modern farming practice/habitat loss, climate change, pollution & invasive species ... this is where the real biodiversity damage is being done in the UK.

Well done Jim Pope.

https://stateofnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/TP25999-State-of-Na...

In reply to StuPoo2:

Thank you for your comments and research, appreciated. The debate on this thread evolved much, like any discussion. At the end I wrote the following

”all I am suggesting is that climbers—both elite and beginner—should carefully consider the impact of their actions on the environment and the habitats they enjoy”

I’d be genuinely interested to know why you believe this statement is “wrong” or why it is “missing the whole point in these debates”

In reply to InC:

After reading through this post and spending some time thinking around the topic. I can only wonder what crags used to look like before quarrying. There are still areas of the UK with truly wild nature. You just have to walk a bit further away from the tourist track to find them. And if you find one don’t post it on social media as this rapidly increases traffic to desirable areas which in turn soils them at an accelerated rate over time.

The miles and miles of dry stone wall across the country is a reminder of just how much grit has been removed from rocky out crops. These walls now have a far greater surface area than the original lumps of rock they came from so therefore possibly provide more opportunities for flora and fauna to thrive across the country. A lot of rocks in these dry stone walls have old cup and ring and other markings created by our ancestors. In times when the rocky outcrops were used for shelter by humans. These rock carvings can still be found in many places in Font and Albarracin.  However, moss has re claimed many miles of these dry stone walls. These walls now provide shelter for various species of plants and animals. The human impact on our planet is becoming more and more apparent in modern times, however the root cause of the growing problem is human over population. I think discussions around reducing this root cause would bring by up some rather ethical issues much deeper than the removal of moss on a rock. There are opportunities to monitor the impact at these places, over a measured period of time, where climbing traffic is adversely effecting the nature and wildlife. In Font they don’t allow lamping so that the wildlife gets a break from the human traffic. I think this is a sensible measure considering the areas popularity with climbers. On the whole, I can see it can only be a good thing to be thoughtful of our impact whilst in these special places and do our best to minimise our impact and preserve them for the future generations. I am in favour of being respectful to our environment. I support crag cleanups involving the removal of rubbish from crags. I think we can all contribute to making a change by sticking to best practises and always being conscious of our impact. Most climbers I meet are very respectful of the environment in contrast to people that perhaps havnt spent as much time outside in nature. It seems the more time you spend in it the more your appreciation grows for it. It would be nice to see portions of profits from climbing companies going towards sustainability. Fundraising for the preservation and protection of these areas is a good way we can all help to preserve them. 

In reply to deepsoup:

New problem climbed by my eight year old today at the local crag (second ascent by Otto aged 5):

"Unjustifiable" font 2+

His buddy, also aged 5 managed a new problem too (pictures below). He can't quite decide on the grade yet and he hasn't got a name for it yet.