UKH

Looks like the bolting of The Old Man of Hoy is going ahead this summer and is going to be filmed:

https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/documenting-hoys-restoration?fbclid=IwAR3Ei...

According to Sam Percival (whose company, everydayclimbing.com, offers commercially guided ascents of the Old Man of Hoy) on Facebook: 'we made adjustments to the clean up and refit plan. The original plan was strops, but because they are unfamiliar to most climbers, hard to assess and have a relatively short lifespan they have been deemed inappropriate. The vast majority of the community; (reassuringly 90%+) are happy with titanium bolts for descent only. It is a stack after all, abseil is the only way off. We are assessing a route for a separate abseil line this summer which will be away from the original trad route.'

This plan (apart from using titanium) appears to be the same as the one proposed prior to the consultation: https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation

And possibly at odds with the results of the consultation: 'There were mixed views on what this should be, but generally to look at options other than bolts.' Found here: https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation-r....

I can't find a link to the raw data from the survey so can't say where the '90%+' in favour of bolts figure comes from, but I'm surprised that it is that high. 

In reply to dr evil:

I'm guessing they pulled it out of their arse. No-one asked me. The 90% figure is essentially meaningless, 90% of who? No reply from Robert Durran yet, I can only assume he either hasn't read this, or he's having an apoplectic fit.

You've been highly active in the Scottish scene for a long time, what's your view?

In reply to dr evil:

An abseil route down the stack on titanium bolts, away from the existing trad route, is fine with me. A safe and sustainable descent, without adding metal to the route or adding bolts to existing belay. The route stays traditional and can be thoroughly cleaned out of old crap, and the descent should last for 100 plus years if done right. Crack on as far I'm concerned. 

In reply to dr evil:

Why don't they stick a phone mast and a zip wire on it while they're at it?

In reply to Lankyman:

🤔 I could go for that.

In reply to Lankyman:

Ignoring the phone mast bit, you're not thinking this through properly.

Needs 2 zip wires, one from the higher headland to the top of the stack to get there, the other from the top of the stack to as high as possible on the headland to get off. Shouldn't be down to the platforms near sea level because then you'd have to walk all the way back up and we certainly want to minimise that.

Then all the tat could be stripped off because nobody would need to actually climb it or abseil off would they? 😁

In reply to Michael Hood:

You're over thinking the zip wire angles because the new escalator will solve the walk up problem

In reply to dr evil:

What a ridiculous sham that whole consultation bollocks was. And only now the people behind this make themselves known (so what a surprise - commercial interests). I'm guessing a sadly predictable fait-accompli from the start. As for the film, what a joke - it's almost as if the whole project was planned as a publicity stunt from the start.

The whole sorry business stinks.

Anyone up for a crowdfunder to chop the bolts? Or maybe to just blow the whole thing up and be done with it. It always was a heap of shite anyway.

In reply to aln:

The angle grinder that Robert has just ordered can’t come fast enough for him.

For me personally, I think Ti bolts, off the ascent line, is the best solution. I do however very much doubt the I’m in a 90% majority.

Sometimes the majority make the wrong call, sometimes right and wrong are indistinguishable. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

There we go! 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, this is disappointing after we were reassured that the proposer was only being public spirited and hadn’t a commercial interest.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That could create a super cool bouldering circuit.

In reply to dr evil:

Wow. That’s quite something. Just threw up in my mouth a little bit whilst reading all of that nonsense.

In reply to dr evil

Nothing there about a separate bolted abseil piste descent.

And I'm puzzled by the thing about not replacing the tat with strops. Does this mean tat is going to be left on belay anchors. Or nothing at all? All fixed anchors removed? Or does it in fact mean that belay anchors are going to be bolted too?

In reply to:

According to the crowdfunder they want 35 grand to fund their film about the 'clean up'.

Dear Mountaineering Scotland,

Do you feel like you've been taken for a ride? Because it certainly looks that way.

In reply to Tom Green:

Yes, beyond parody. Hard to know whether to laugh or cry. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

100% this.

And this.

The OMoH was always in my top 10 desert island must do routes (and a realistic one unlike some of the others) but for a number of reasons on many occasions the stars never aligned so I haven't done it. I have to admit that upon reading Grant's OP my first thought was, "This would be a perfect time for the f**king thing to fall down."

I will applaud any chopping.

In reply to aln:

Bits of the Berlin Wall still go on eBay for a fair bit, this could be the start of something.

In reply to dr evil:

Or alternatively.

Everydayclimbing have proposed this idea, they may or may not do it, but they're getting lots of publicity either way. It's not 'going to be filmed', it might be filmed if they crowdfund enough.

In reply to DaveHK:

Either that or they are complicit, which is worse.

In reply to Robert Durran:

This

Can we do anything to get DMM and Tendon to disassociate themselves from this.

The birds - Fulmars ok, but without having been there I'm 100% sure that no Puffins nest on the stack and I'll bet no Great Skuas do either.

And the main protagonist, Sam. If he's frequently guiding up the Old Man and he cares so much about this, then why the f**k is he not getting his knife out and sorting out some of the tat each time?

The whole thing just smells of commercial convenience - it sucks.

In reply to dr evil:

Am I correct in thinking the RSPB own the stack?

In reply to Robert Durran:

It’s clear they were complicit in trying to elicit the consultation outcome to be what the proposer wanted, by their support prior to knowing how the membership wanted to be represented, the wording of the consultation and by the fact they deliberately withheld the name and profession of the proposer.

Dave HK requested that information from them and they didn’t reply to him.

Their logo is on the crowd funder page.

Yes it stinks…..Mountaineering Scotland clearly no longer can be trusted to be transparent, truthful, honest and impartial with their membership.

In reply to dr evil:

I continue to be amazed at people advocating for leaving rotting disposable plastic tat degrading and polluting our mountains (and stacks). Regardless of whether it's regularly cleaned up (which it isn't), it's still unnecessary plastic waste that has plenty of time to break down and leech into the environment. 

In reply to dr evil:

Yeah, this seems to be nonsensical. Fine, something could be done (ideally led my Mountaineering Scotland, as a result of the consultation and ideally further engagement work), but to turn it into a film who’s rationale appears questionable and is presumably a commercial project doesn’t feel right.

In reply to midgen:

I've argued for that as the least bad option (in my opinion) in this case taking all factors in to account. I recognise that there are other perfectly good arguments and that there was a reasonable debate to be had.

What disgusts me is the way this has been pushed through in a deceitful way, with an apparently hidden commercial agenda, by Mountaineering Scotland in cahoots with a guiding company. 

In reply to dr evil:

This whole thing stinks worse than my broken septic tank after a week of very bad curry. What a load of boll*ks. I'll be cancelling my associate MS membership as a result. 

I totally agree the consultation was a sham. I completed it never the less and would have been in the "current status quo" minority. I'd be interested in a straw poll on here to determine just how far up the lower digestive tract that "90+%" figure came from.

I'm up for some bolt chopping, film bombing, just generally making a total pain in the arse of myself.

In reply to midgen:

Is that really an actual issue unless climbers chuck discarded tat in the sea?

And I'm struggling to see how this could possibly benefit bird populations, unless the hoo haa and film result in a seasonal bird ban (I actually hope so now). I would have thought that if anything the dumbing down would result in the passage of more climbers (including down a new abseil piste), especially guided parties (cynically one might suspect this is the whole point). 

In reply to dr evil:

Wouldn't surprise me at all if it is 90% in favour of bolts. The typical attitude of UKC forums doesn't align with the majority of climbers I have met. Assuming the 90% figure is correct the talk of chopping them against an apparent consensus is pretty poor. Would be interested to see where 90% came from though, and in BMC land this would be subject to a vote at area meet regardless, is there similar process in Scotland?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Assuming you’re an SMC member (I’m not) you could table a vote of No Confidence in Mountaineering Scotland at the SMCs next AGM.

A secondary motion if the above is supported would be for the SMC to not affiliate with MS for a year.

MS are not that bothered by dissatisfaction within the overall membership or most clubs; they know they can ignore.

The SMC is one of two clubs that from a revenue point of view they can’t ’brush off’.

Granted if the second motion passes it gives the SMC committee’s volunteers a huge amount of work regarding insurance issues.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I did get a reply but it didn't really answer the questions.

I dropped it because some posters on here assured us of the public spirited nature of this proposal and because I didn't want to be 'that guy'. You know the one I mean, the one being an absolute pain in the arse to a well meaning public body or other committee.

Right now I wish I had been that guy as it looks like most of the fears expressed here were well founded.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The only agenda that concerns me is this antiquated idea that endless piles of non-recyclable plastic waste is somehow an acceptable price for maintaining the status quo.

The sooner that is consigned to the same historical bin as hammering pitons into trad routes, the better. Surely won't be the last time we have to change things to clean up the mess left by previous generations. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I guess it's fine to just chuck it in landfill. Someone else's problem. 

In reply to midgen:

In the grand scheme of things it's, well, a drop in the ocean (or the ground). Just like all the other worn out slings and ropes we discard. A negligible environmental impact compared with all the other stuff we climbers do. 

I accept that some people think the visual impact is a valid argument, but the rest of the environmental stuff just comes across as an excuse for the bolting.

In reply to GraB:

I've not been up the Old Man but am I right in saying there are bolts already on it that are used on the belay/abseil points (I've seen pictures)?  Why have those commenters on this thread not felt the need to chop those?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sure, might as well toss all your litter off the stack while you're there, just a drop in the ocean after all.

In reply to midgen:

Obviously I am not in any way suggesting that. Stupid comment.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ok, we get that you don't care for the environmental impact. Why can you not accept that other people do care?

In reply to midgen:

I would have thought that any party doing the Old Man would have at least one sac between them (to carry their drinks and food ?) in which they could put any removed tat.

In reply to fred99:

Well I would hope no-one is just slinging old tat into the sea, but that is beside the point, it still unneccessary plastic waste that will end up in landfill, or at best incinerated.

I'm not sure why it is so hard for what seems to be overwhelmingly older climbers to accept that most climbers don't want their pastime to be associated with unnecessary littering of our outdoor spaces. 

If someone wants to fix it and make a film about practical ways we can change things for the better, I am all for it. 

In reply to midgen:

How on earth are you coming to that conclusion about peoples age? Ie how do you know? And what does it matter anyway ? That just smacks of prejudice and you wouldn't get away with making any similar link between somebody's response and their ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. 

In reply to midgen:

I think you miss the point, that at the time the tat is placed it has utility. It becomes litter over time when not removed.

Bolts have utility at the time they are placed and decay to become litter over time. It is clear that the timescale by which bolts become litter is longer but they are not objectively different with regards to our littering the natural landscape.

When people talk of the environmental harm caused by plastic based tat, they seem to be completely ignoring the environmental impact of the manufacture and placing of the titanium bolts. Are we just more comfortable with the environmental harm caused by the mining and manufacture of titanium as it happens out of sight and has been offshored as to only impact others. The use of batteries in the drills used to place the bolts also seems absent from the equation. Again are we happy with the impacts of lithium mining as it happens outside of the UK.

I did a back of a fag packet LCA of the carbon impacts of titanium bolts vs tat. Whilst he initial headline was that the titanium bolts were a lower carbon option, this changed when you consider that most tat usage is an example of re-use or recycling of old climbing rope. As such it is carbon negative!

The carbon impact of a specific trip to Hoy to place the bolts dwarfed all differences.

The visual aesthetics is a valid point but this is point of opinion as different people see the intrusiveness of bolts vs tat differently. 

In reply to GraB:

Most people have their age on their profile. It's not any great surprise that attitudes change over time (people used to think hammering pitons in was fine after all) and it's rather sad to try and paint that observation as some kind of prejudice. 

In reply to midgen:

I wonder if they'll manage to persuade someone suitably grumpy to appear and argue the case for tat.

To speculate wildly... perhaps the plan was always to film a bolt war. Just cleaning some tatty slings from the stack was never going to be much of a drama. Now we have the potential for confrontation with Roberta* and her angle grinder.

* name changed for security purposes.

In reply to midgen:

I am just able to keep the odd bit of tat in perspective. Do you use slings? Ropes? 

In reply to midgen:

General attitudes change, as does an individual's along with them. Your implication is that age is a barrier to change which I wholeheartedly disagree with. Its an irrelevant and ill informed observation at best.

In reply to dr evil:

For the £35,000 they are trying to crowdfund you could pay a couple of local guides to go and clean the old tat and replace it with some new(retired rope), twice a year for probably 40 years!

It would be safe(the tat), provide local employment, retain the routes traditional integrity, wouldn’t look unsightly.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm confused about the strops too, I've never found them to be confusing to use and I'd argue if you can't work out how to use one you probably shouldn't be there in the first place. 

In reply to dr evil:

I see bolts here as a positive and have argued my point on previous threads and can't be bothered to re run through the same arguments again. I do however find the crowdfunding of £35,000 to make a film utterly bizarre. 

In reply to aln:

If you read the article fully before responding you would see that far from "pulling it out of their arse" there was a survey carried out by mountaineering Scotland which they linked to here https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation

And then the results are summarised here https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation-r...

There were almost 1000 responders.  Sorry that you weren't one of them.

In reply to Martin Haworth:

No, the £35,000 is to fund the making of the documentary film. This is very made very clear on the website.

In reply to Iamgregp:

I suspect Martin understands that but was suggesting a better use of 35k.

In reply to midgen:

Do you own any ropes or slings? Assuming you do, how do you dispose of them once they come to the end of their useful lives?

In reply to onlyhalfwayup:

I pointed out in the older thread that somebody placing a permanent strop would, in a sense, be taking responsibility for a belay in a way that we are not with tat. They might then feel responsible for the actual anchor which might be dodgy and the probably inevitable result would be to place bolts. I wonder whether this is why they are avoiding strops. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've been trying to avoid strops too but I can feel a right one coming on about this.

In reply to GraB:

Age is 100% a barrier to change and always has been. It's not prejudiced to point out the extremely obvious. It can be seen across society. Climbing is hardly going to be special. But that's off topic. 

I'm perfectly comfortable predicting that the vast majority of those getting bent out of shape about this online are 50+ and almost entirely men, because that's a strong UKC demographic. It's not provable either way though. There will probably be lots of outrage on here, the bolts will go in, some half hearted threats of chopping will appear but in all likelihood it will be too much effort so they won't bother. The new result will be an improvement which is accepted by the community and everyone will go on with their lives. That's my prediction anyway! 

In reply to DaveHK:

Ah gotcha. 

In reply to midgen:

Bad news, only mildly OT: some people still do.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Haha, perspective! A commodity in short supply whenever the subject of bolts comes up.

It does seem that the perspective of maintaining the piles of tat is in the minority based on the consultation. 

£35k to make a 'documentary' might just turn out to be a nice little 'publicity' film for any company doing some commercial guiding.  Presumably, they are too miserly to fund their own advertisement.

In reply to general : plastic waste, particularly stringy stuff like rotting ropes and tat seems to have a magic way of ending up in seabirds guts, and that I think is a far real problem than the carbon impact.

Pick your least evil here.

In reply to dr evil:

Impressive level of ignorance/bullshit/greenwashing etc. in that guff, e.g.

Old gear is not only making it difficult for climbers, but it also affects the homes of beautiful nesting sea birds such as Puffins, Fulmars and the Great Skua. 

Great Skua are ground nesting birds and would be unaffected but it is disturbance from climbers themselves that is undoubtedly the biggest impact for nesting sea-birds from climbers. Something that will only increase in this instance.

Its one thing to propose bolts but dressing it up as environmental stewardship is complete crap.

In reply to wbo2:

Whilst there's certainly a debate about fixed gear to be had I really think focusing on plastic is grasping at straws ar best and very misleading at worst. Apart from Brown and his quick LCA above a lot of the handwringing seems to be pretty devoid of evidence. The truth is for almost all climbers the journey to Hoy, from the plastic coffee cup at the services, to the fule used, will dwarf the environmental footprint of any fixed gear.

I work in sustainability of materials and apart from the visual thing, I'm stuggling to see a meaningful issue here.

In reply to ebdon:

I've just had a great idea re the sustainability thing...

The guys looking to bolt could strip all the tat and upcycle it into Old Man of Hoy commerative gifts. Boom, £35k and circular economy done.

In reply to Iamgregp:

From the MS site, here are the headline themes of the responses to the survey:
 

• Overwhelmingly, you were supportive of the aim to remove the old and unsightly tat that had been left behind by decades of climbers. There was some frustration expressed as to why climbers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, take old gear away with them and leave little behind when they were able to.
• There was a clear majority view in favour of moving to a more long-term and low-impact solution for abseil stations and belays – being more sustainable without becoming a sanitised experience; not over-developing the rock and retaining the sense of history and adventure.
• There were mixed views on what this should be, but generally to look at options other than bolts, where it is possible; tending toward like-for-like replacement with modern alternative options - to provide longer term security of ascent and descent without reliance on old and decaying gear.
• The cultural and historical aspects of some of the gear was mentioned with a plea to retain cultural artefacts to give a sense of the history of the ascent. Care will be taken to differentiate between significant historical gear and old stuff that has been left behind, with significant cultural items remaining.
• There were of course views expressed that the rock should be cleared, and left as a natural trad adventure climb as much as possible, relying on the climbing community to police itself and remove old decaying gear. This has been the model for past decades. The current state of the stack suggests that this approach will produce the same result in the near future.

I don't really understand how that translates as "90%+ in favour of bolts". If you are unable to use a strop with a maillon on it, you have no business being on the OMoH.

In reply to ebdon:

How much do genuine Joe Brown rust pegs go for these days? I'm worried that the business wouldn't be sustainable after the tat runs out.  To be investable, you would need ensure the supply of tat long term. I'm not sure how that could be done.  For that reason, I'm out.

In reply to gooberman-hill:

Yes, unsurprisingly I've read the page which I linked earlier, and was linked in the OPs first post, but thanks all the same.  

I just objected to the phrase "plucked out of their arse" as people at Mountaineering Scotland have clearly spent time and resource trying to garner opinion on the subject, and gain insight into what interested parties feel about that matter.

And the result?  "Nobody asked me... Plucked out their arse" etc makes you wonder why they bother?

The visual impact came up in the previous UKC thread, at the time of the survey. People mentioned the negative effect of the tat on the OMOH on non-climbing visitors.

I really struggle to believe this is an issue. The amount of tat, its position, and the distance of the stack from the cliff top make it almost impossible to see, even with decent binoculars. I have a load of high definition photos that I took from the ‘mainland’, specifically aimed at the line of the original route, and even zooming in it’s impossible to pick out the tat at the top of the stack, or at either of the two main ab points. 

The only people who can realistically be upset by the appearance of the tat are climbers. Which may or may not be a valid reason to replace it with bolts, but I think the argument that it’s upsetting other people’s viewing is not valid.

In reply to dr evil:

I think stainless steel strops is an utterly ridiculous proposition. 

In reply to Drexciyan:

It's Schroeder's tat. It's both a problem because it hasn't been removed and a problem because it has been removed. Edit and is being eaten by birds.

I agree that the environmental stewardship argument is really weak and the main impact of bolting the old man will be convenience, accessibility, and the reduction of risk. These will all drive increases in the environmental impact from climbers due to increased numbers.

If environmental stewardship was the key goal the consultation could have looked at other fragile environments and how they manage fixed gear. Places like Arches National Park and Canyonlands NP in Utah have had no new fixed gear laws for decades and techniques have evolved to climb and descend desert towers or go canyoning without leaving fixed gear. The fact that it did not even consider these options, I think shows, that the primary goals were convenience, accessibility, and the reduction of risk (and commercial?) with the environment tacked on as green washing.

If reduction in environmental harm is the goal let's strip all fixed gear. 

In reply to JLS:

Well according to some of the text linked up thread there is approximately half a tonne of fixed gear on the stack, so that should keep you going for a while! 

(would love to know where this number came from but unfortunately no citation was given!)

In reply to Tom Green:

Same place as the 90% in favour, I would guess: The Dark Brown Mine (Orifice) of Favourable Numbers. 

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

I don't wish to go through the whole debate again, but, as climbers, we all know that there is a clear line between drilled and other gear. People's opinions will differ on whether that line should be crossed.

In reply to Tom Green:

Yes, that must work out at around 100kg per anchor. Surely has to be made up bollocks.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I think you agree with the 1st half of my post!

Yes I agree on not wanting to go through the entire debate again, I will edit my post to remove the 2nd sentence.

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

Not ridiculous (though I'd prefer to retain the tat), just unworkable (see earlier post).

In reply to Robert Durran:

That could be as little as just 166 ropes (50m) fixed to the stack.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I wonder what Bonington thinks about it. It would be interesting to hear.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

He might want some of his gear back if it's all being stripped out.

In reply to JLS:

Nice one! Like his famous bongs.

In reply to dr evil:

I'll repeat what has been mentioned above... It's already been bolted, that argument is over.

The argument here is about replacing existing bolts with better ones. 

So why haven't people been up in arms about the existing bolts which have been there for quite a while?

 

In reply to Robert Durran:

At the bottom of the crowdfunder page there is:

“Where possible and practicable, the aim is to replace hardware with like-for-like or removable equipment. Where this is not possible, old bolts will be replaced by modern and durable counterparts. The climb will be made less littered by removing old pegs, bolts, wires and threads from the entire climb. On the pitches themselves these will not be replaced. 

On Belay Stations: Nothing will be done at 'ascent' belays that rely on leader placed protection, other than efforts made to remove the heads of rusted nuts to open up the cracks again for placements.”

I haven’t climbed it so can’t pass any comment on the implications of that. 

In reply to timparkin:

In reply to timparkin:

Because they have slowly been rusting away to nothing and I, along with others, assumed they were relics of a less enlightened age.

As with Gogarth, we assumed that rusty peg stubs and bolt heads were for route finding only.

We never assumed that people would take the existence of decrepit aging fixed gear as an excuse to crack out the hilti and start bolting.

In reply to ebdon:

Distale  to know you think leaving a sh#tload of rotting nylon strong,  ready for birds to put in their nests etc isn't a real problem.   I disagree . 

In reply to Brown:

Given the backlash I now feel a bit sorry for the 2 people behind the documentary project!

I'm sure their intentions are genuine but seems like they maybe did not do enough homework and perhaps have taken everything the commercial company involved have told them, at face value.

I just find it really insulting/depressing when bold claims are made about making a positive change for nature/the environment etc. when it's clearly not the case. The only valid arguments for carrying out this work are human convenience/safety/aesthetics, and as this thread shows even those are not clear cut.

In reply to Drexciyan:

I do wish they hadn't felt the need to emphasise quite so many key words by spraying around the bold though.

In reply to Drexciyan:

My sympathy is suspended for now.

Maybe there's something wrong with my nose but I smell cynicism instead. MS don't seem to be covering themselves in pot pourri either. 

Positive environmental impact would be a valid argument, but it's clearly got nothing to do with that. Anyone who cares enough about the environmental impact of climbing the OMoH should follow the same strategy as anyone who considers the route to be excessively serious without a fixed ab station: don't go.*

*Residents of Orkney are exempt from the former point.

In reply to dr evil:

From Sam Percival’s website, guided tour: Old Man of Hoy:

„We simplify the process of accessing and ascending this most iconic of all British rock climbs, making your journey smooth and memorable. (…)

Our experienced guides break the climb into manageable pitches, ensuring safety and support throughout. Depending on your experience level, we can adjust the climb accordingly to suit your needs“.

Good to know that the climb can be simplified! And that it can be broken by experienced guides into pitches!

That the climb can be „adjusted accordingly to suit your needs“ is now obvious; don‘t know whether to laugh or cry at that.

In reply to wbo2:

Because there is zero evidence this happens. If birds can remove tat then climbers really do have a problem! Someone has allready coined the 'schrodingers tat' both simultaneously accumulating in never ending amounts and being spread across the environment. I don't see how it can be both.

In reply to dr evil:

This is sadly both predictable and depressing. The 'consultation' was poor from the start, and now they're just going to ignore it anyway and make up their own stats to fit the action they'd always planned on taking.

In reply to wbo2:

Suspect there's slightly more floating around in the sea/washed up on beaches than left behind by climbers and whilst I'm not a fulmar so can't speak with authority, my guess is that they are significantly more upset by the sweaty humans crawling over their ledges than a few bits of string...

Other than that usual shit show of pretending to represent a consensus whilst forging ahead with your own agenda...but as I said previously it'll all fall down sooner or later so keep it in perspective folks

In reply to Brown:

Maybe you already did this on the previous thread but have you got any links about these techniques? I'm not familiar with them and would like to know more.

Thanks.

In reply to dr evil:

I know I’m going to get a whole, whole heap of dislikes from this, but I guess I stopped caring what people think about me a long time ago, so here goes…

Just to be clear, I have no dog in this race whatsoever. I don’t climb trad at all, have no intention of starting and even if I did, I don’t like climbing on sea cliffs. OMOH is so far off my radar it’s not even a blip.  

Maybe I should just stay out of it on that basis, but let’s face it, how many posters of this thread are going to climb the thing? And I mean actually do it, not just have it “on their list” but never actually do it?  

I get it, we don’t like the result of the survey, to the extent you won’t even believe it. But this was an open survey for anyone who chose to respond, not just us climbers. Most people aren’t climbers. The landowners aren’t climbers. Pretty sure this thing will have gone round some bird watchers forums too. 

The accusations flying around on here paint us climbers in a pretty poor light - the guides who suggested the cleanup may well have a vested interest sure, but they also spend more time on the thing than any of us so that’s hardly surprising.  And rather than taking upon themselves to do what they want, they’ve raised it with the landowners & Mountaineering Scotland. At least give them credit for raising this correctly?

Look, this doesn’t affect me at all, but can please pay due respect to the proposers, the process and the the result despite how much we don’t like it?

Rejecting the result of a process because we, and none of our peers want the result is all a bit Trump supporters post-election mindset isn’t it?

By all means keep on calling the process a sham, Mountaineering Scotland liars and anything else you want, but the admins ought to keep an eye on this, particularly as some of the advertisers on the site have been mentioned

I'm not trying to be a dissenting voice here, just one of reason.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Yes you will, that first one was from me, not because your opinion is different from mine but because it looks like you've not really been following the story and have waded in to be critical of what others are saying without actually understanding the situation or the reasons why it has caused so much bad feeling. I also think you've mis-characterised much of what's been said on here, I don't think I've seen the word liar used for example.

Indeed.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Your post makes the mistakes of assuming the process wasn't a sham (it was) and that that the result is being respected by the guiding company (it isn't).

If a credible process had resulted in the same outcome, you would probably be seeing sadness rather than anger at it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

What’s the evidence for this being sham please?  
 

If you can back this up with fact rather than opinion and conjecture I’ll happily eat my words and apologise. I stand by what I say, hope you know me well enough to know that.

In reply to DaveHK:

Please, you don’t have to use the word liar to make it clear that’s what you think.

Sham, pulled out of their are and indeed, bollocks all make the implication do they not?

In reply to Iamgregp:

Have you considered that not using that word even if you're thinking it is evidence of restraint, rationality and respect, the very qualities you suggest some contributors to this thread are lacking?

In reply to people talking about strops:

From a safety perspective, strops are not straight forward. They would need to be made from stainless, most stainless rope is 316L. 316L is susceptible to stress crack corrosion and other forms of corrosion in a seacliff environment, hence why titanium bolts are are bolt of choice in that environment. So if you are going to place strops, then you need to come up and adhere to a schedule of maintenance which would ensure the strops are still safe. This means you need to replace the strops (which are not cheap) on a regular basis and organise that work, otherwise after a while, people will start place tat to back it up. 

You can't get titanium wire, I've looked.

So, I think it's highly likely that the rationale of the change from strops to titanium bolts is:

1) it's more sustainable long term from a materials, maintenance and work perspective

2) it guarantees the safety of the equipment for a very long time.

3) it's probably less unsightly than a strop.

Please note, I'm not advocating for or against, personally I think either you have to stick with the status quo or go the full hog with bolts. A middle ground of strops and a mishmash of kit, will I'm afraid end in tears.

In reply to DaveHK:

Fiddlesticks. Terrifying.

https://fatcanyoners.org/2018/08/29/fiddlestick-retrievable-anchor/

In reply to Iamgregp:

MS stated a position and then asked members for their opinion, despite MS actually being the members. This was the wrong way round (they should have consulted members first and then stated a position based on this). The dice was clearly loaded. Then there was the secrecy over who was proposing the changes, only after the event revealed to be a guiding company with vested commercial interests.

In reply to beardy mike:

Well it was pretty negligent of them not to have done their homework on strops before making their proposal then. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

This isn’t evidence Robert. It’s opinion on how you think the survey could have been run better. None of the procedure is extraordinary - seem to remember the government making their position on Brexit quite clear prior to the (disastrous) referendum.

Can you provide something more tangible?

In reply to DaveHK:

We can jump straight to the ultimate destination of so many threads here and get this on to semantics right away if you like, but it won’t make “bollocks” a more restrained and respectful term than “lie”.

Dishonesty and deception and underhandedness have been alleged, that’s surely undeniable?

In reply to Iamgregp:

I haven't called the consultation a sham, so I'm not going to try to defend that per se, but how do you square the following two quotes:

1. "The vast majority of the community; (reassuringly 90%+) are happy with titanium bolts for descent only"

2. "There were mixed views on what this should be, but generally to look at options other than bolts, where it is possible" 

The former is on Sam Percival's FB post, the second from the results of the consultation (both linked by the OP). They can't both be right.

I responded to the survey and thought it was of poor quality - it's a complex thing to ask the right questions so that nuance can be captured, and I thought that the survey left far too much room for drawing incorrect conclusions from my responses. This makes me distrustful of any conclusion from it (especially since I don't recall being directly asked in the survey if I would support titanium bolts as SP says in his quote above).

I think this is a weak argument. To paraphrase my girlfriend speaking about this earlier,  "I wouldn't climb the OMOH because I don't have the skills to do so, but that doesn't mean they should bolt it so that I could do it".

In reply to Iamgregp:

It's nothing to do with semantics, you clearly don't understand the situation but have chosen to wade in anyway then double down on your stance.

In reply to DaveHK:

There was an excellent article in Alpinist magazine some years ago that covered a range of interesting techniques.

The stand out one was the two by four descent system that allowed retreat from the top of desert towers with a final pitch chimney using an arrangement of 2x4 lumber.

I can't find the article but I did find a reference to this method on an old super Topo thread

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=72849&tn=20

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Do you jam them in a crack to make an anchor?

I think I’d rather take my chances with Bonington’s tat.

In reply to JLS:

I'm pretty sure I read that phrase in Roger's Profanisaurus.  

In reply to DaveHK:

Your past reply to me was literally about semantics and nothing else, and now you’ve been called out on it you’ve ignored it and instead chosen to repeat what you said in your earlier reply.

Now who is doubling down?

In reply to DaveHK:

I’m guessing you are supposed to use your rope and fiddle stick at the proposed strop location. Where are you having your strop?

In reply to Iamgregp:

And should have been better run. They should have said there was an issue with decaying tat and pegs, set out the options, including the status quo, without prejudice, and asked for members' opinions.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Ah, the boing flip. Classic.

In reply to DaveHK:

Still avoiding the point then Dave?

Your post literally had the word “word” in its first line, and you said it wasn’t about semantics? 

Damn. Now this post is about semantics. Guess we got there after all?!

In reply to DaveHK:

The only reason I'm posting is because I did so in the other thread. Film project aside, these are the facts regardless of who has proposed whatever.

The route has fixed gear of varying quality. The poorest of which is currently relied on for descent (dodgy blocks and old rusty nuts or old bolt, your choice).

The proposal is to strip the route other than abseil stations that can't be protected with threads. Ie two to four titanium bolts.

The route currently (and this is from rough recollection) has at least 10+ existing  pegs, spit bolts, rivets etc...

I'm not commenting one way or the other with regard to the proposal, but let's please actually stick to reality when discussing the pros and cons.

Finally, remember this could all have taken place without any consultation by any member of the climbing community if they had wished to do so. What would you.actually prefer?

In reply to McHeath:

If they can adjust the climb to suit my need to have it a few miles north of Birmingham with an easy walk-in that would be just great.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah I think that’s a fair point. It probably could have been better run, but as people have said it’s a complex issue and I think that makes it difficult to structure the consultation.

I think there’s a distance between what MS did, and a sham. Or indeed, bollocks

And look, I get the issue people have with the strops now being bolts, and why people may not feel comfortable with that, but I think Beardy Mike’s post was very good in that respect, but you’re right that it should have been researched earlier in the process.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well I pointed it out in the last thread. I think the presumption is that strops are solid as. At my local crag we had a near miss not long ago when one of the galvanised steel strops which had been exposed to the elements for maybe 5 years disintegrated in someone's hands. It had been down in the dirt getting wet inside the protective hose sheath and just rotted extra quickly. Whilst it's easy to say they should have done homework, unless you're into material science and know the effects of environments on those materials, it may not be entirely obvious. I mean to be fair, there are millions of 316L bolt hangers in the world because everyone seems to think they will be fine forever.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Interesting, but as far as I can see, this does little to avoid the need to create an anchor to abseil from, which remains in place. It seems mainly a way to avoid using doubled ropes, with the attendant issues of weight and friction when pulling through. I guess if you have a spike or thread large and smooth enough to use the ab rope itself to form the loop, without risk of jamming, then it would leave a clean belay.

In reply to pancakeandchips:

Interesting, but as far as I can see, this does little to avoid the need to create an anchor to abseil from, which remains in place. It seems mainly a way to avoid using doubled ropes, with the attendant issues of weight and friction when pulling through. I guess if you have a spike or thread large and smooth enough to use the ab rope itself to form the loop, without risk of jamming, then it would leave a clean belay.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Ultimately the issue with these points (all of which are fair, and sensibly put across unlike a lot of the hyperbole on this thread) is that drawing up surveys is really difficult and basically impossible to do in a way that covers every single base, whilst also being short enough that people actually bother to complete it. Professional polling organisations get critiqued all the time for the way they construct their surveys. Its a whole, enormous field of study. Obviously this survey had faults but the reality is that every survey they could possibly have designed would have, and at least MS bothered to actually try.

Re direct questions; we can't conceivably be asked our opinion on every single possibility every time we fill in a survey. In a way that makes the results less useful as it becomes too binary and harder to draw patterns out from. Is it not entirely possible that MS favoured putting bolts in, the survey results favoured strops, but upon further research strops turned out not to be a goer so the plan has reverted to bolts, but in a manner which keeps bolts off the route itself? It all seems very plausible to me and hardly a great conspiracy. 

In reply to Alex Riley:

Let me turn that around a little and throw it back at you. What would you prefer: A robust and transparent process that lead to the conclusion bolts should be placed (as I think it probably would have) or the current shit show of secrecy and conflicting interests?

Which of those do you think is better for the climbing community and which of those do you think is likely to lead to a sustainable solution?

Really, I've moved on from the bolt debate now, I've got my views on that and I've shared them but it's no longer the issue and really isn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread in my eyes is the mismanagement of the consultation. 

In reply to Darkinbad:

That was my first thought on them too.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Nobody has suggested making it a bolted climb. Replacing threads at a couple of points with bolts for the descent will not make it a sport climb. The hysteria by some is part of the problem.

Instead of threading a massive pile of rotting tat you will thread a bolt to get down.

In reply to Iamgregp:

Glad some people are prepared to speak up, the discourse on this stinks. A consultation hasn't gone the way a minority would like and they're just going round in circles convincing themselves it's a conspiracy and disregarding any arguments to the contrary.

There's a reason most of the actual climbers in this country want nothing to do with this forum. 

In reply to midgen:

That is a dishonest appraisal of the arguments here.

There are several details of this that are totally reasonable to question, such as where '90+% in favour of titanium bolts' actually came from, and the legitimacy of the claim of that removal of tat will benefit sea birds.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Yes there may be but it rather gets lost in the circlejerk of bile because someone that has the temerity to be a professional guide is involved, the dismissal out of hand of any other arguments, and the general cliquey We Know Best attitude on display from a very small minority of the climbing community that are very vocal on here. 

In reply to midgen:

It's not about a guide being involved, but their conduct. Not disclosing a (financial) conflict of interest and incorrectly mis-interpreting the results of a survey* would be enough to have your work rejected or retracted with associated professional disgrace in my line of work. 

"very small minority" -- you're just making things up to serve your argument, am I right?

* I see no reason why the anonymised full data of the survey shouldn't be released. 

In reply to Jon Read:

What financial conflict of interest? Is there an undisclosed shareholding in a bolt manufacturer at play?

The only interest I see from a professional guide is not having to say "You know that speech I gave earlier about Leave No Trace? Well you're going to have to ignore it and close your eyes for a few minutes while we use this rotting pile of plastic rubbish left here so we can rock climb".... which to me is an entirely admirable motivation for clearing up the mess. 

In reply to midgen:

You seem to have a bee in your helmet regarding people who 'have the temerity' to disagree with you, particularly those who you see as 'old' (and therefore presumably not worth listening to). Do you have access to the actual opinions of the 'majority' of the climbing community that never comment on here or is it just your opinion which you're being 'very vocal' about?

PS I'm about 20 years older than you so feel free to dismiss me as an irrelevance

PPS I have climbed the Old Man but it was nearly 30 years ago so can also be dismissed as totally irrelevant

In reply to dr evil:

Thank you Dr Evil, better than the tele

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

Yeah I understand that; sorry I wasn't clear in my first post - using my partner as an example again, I'm sure she would be fine with the actual climbing and placing her own cams on the climb upwards, but what she would feel is outside her skill set is the whole situation, abseils, checking anchors, and route finding etc.. it's (a part of) that adventure aspect which will be dumbed down if the bolted ab-line is installed. My post was in response to Iamgregp who was suggesting that you can only have a legitimate opinion if you are actually going to climb it. 

In reply to midgen:

The suspicion is that the ease and safety of getting clients up and particilarly down the stack is the professional conflict of interest.

In reply to Lankyman:

Overwhelmingly, you were supportive of the aim to remove the old and unsightly tat that had been left behind by decades of climbers. There was some frustration expressed as to why climbers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, take old gear away with them and leave little behind when they were able to.

There was a clear majority view in favour of moving to a more long-term and low-impact solution for abseil stations and belays – being more sustainable without becoming a sanitised experience; not over-developing the rock and retaining the sense of history and adventure.

There was a consultation and the majority consensus was to move away from the piles of tat. It may be not what some people on here wanted, but it is what the majority want. 

In reply to Tom Green:

That's an awful lot of commercial sponsors who somehow couldn't stump up £35K between them.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I fail to see how it is going to make any practical difference to a professional guide whether they are dealing with a pile of tat or bolts? It is a straightforward process for any competent trad climber and barely register for someone who makes a living doing it.

I do however see their motivation in wanting to clear up the unsightly piles of litter we leave out in the wild, particularly when there are better alternatives. 

In reply to Cheese Monkey:

You're so close to understanding the nature of the post's dodgy statistics here. Just a bit further...

In reply to midgen: And their motivation in having their “good works” recorded in a crowdfunded film 😏🤣

Oops, sorry, old man with fixed views adding to the thread 😏

In reply to midgen:

It has been repeatedly explained why the process was badly flawed. I suppose you are ignoring that because the outcome suits you. I am sure that, if the process had been transparent and unbiased, we would be far more accepting of the outcome even if we thought it was a sad day for British climbing.

I think it is very understandable that many people don't want to put their head above the parapet in these discussions even if they have strong views either way. Clearly lots might use the like/dislike buttons but won't post and I think this might give a better impression of where consensus lies. But obviously that is still only a self-selecting sample, as were the people who responded to the MS consultation. 

I think it is fair to say, though, that, even though the process was badly flawed, there probably is majority in favour of rejecting the status quo and having a solution without piles of tat but ideally without bolts. 

What I think is unacceptable is that the action now proposed was never, I think, hinted at in the original proposal - the construction of a dedicated bolted abseil piste. This is a very significant precedent to set in British climbing, particularly in such an iconic setting, and I really don't think it is acceptable as a fait accompli in this way. I get that it allows the climb up to be (in theory) completely free of fixed gear, but it has to be asked whether it is a price worth paying.

What makes stacks pretty unique in British climbing is that a significant part of the challenge is that you have to get down again and it is this which is going to be completely dumbed down.

In reply to midgen:

I was thinking that guides might be uneasy about repeatedly entrusting the safety of clients to decaying ironmongery. Maybe a bit different to an individual taking responsibility for themselves.

Guides obviously have different considerations and motivations from normal climbers which is why I'm uneasy with them having influence on this sort of thing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

This argument would hold a lot more water if the 'spirit of adventure' being discussed wasn't the thrill of threading a pile of plastic tat and pegs left by other people vs the thrill of threading a bolted anchor left by other people.

If there were natural features that could be used for retrievable abseil enabling us all to leave no trace, this wouldn't be a discussion.... but it is, and the discussion is between leaving man made anchor of decomposing plastic that needs constant maintenance and waste generation, versus a man made anchor that doesn't. 

In reply to dr evil:

If 90% of climbers are in favour of bolts, Mountaineering Scotland have forgotten to update this on their guidance on bolts:

Bolts are unacceptable to the majority of Scottish climbers on established (documented) mountain cliffs and sea cliffs, in both summer and winter

This also appears in their guidance:

Mountain and sea cliffs with a wild, remote character (also reflected in their surrounding environment) and adventurous nature are not suitable locations for bolts, either for the development of routes or their limited use in order to facilitate easy retreat: self-rescue and descent without fixed equipment are all part of the adventurous nature of traditional climbs

They are blatantly ignoring their own guidelines. If they really want to supported bolted abseils they need to fundamentally change their stance on fixed gear which will take a lot more than a crap survey, and I'm sure would be met with a lot more backlash (not that this hasn't been met with backlash).

https://www.mountaineering.scot/assets/contentfiles/pdf/Appendix-III-F-Clim...

In reply to midgen:

You're so close to claiming to be "the voice of the silent majority" here. Go on. Do it. You know you want to.

In reply to midgen:

I assume you are deliberately ignoring the fact that my point was about a dedicated abseil piste which can be engineered to make the descent as trivial as is possible, not the original proposal to replace a few piles of tat with fixed, possibly drilled, gear.

In reply to planetmarshall:

I'm not the one trying to discredit the results of a consultation that didn't go my way. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

You mean the proposal to make an abseil descent away from the ascent line so as to not have the bolts detract from the adventurous nature of the route? Now you're in favour of bolting the main line?

In reply to midgen: but you are happy to discredit the views of others on here.

One of the things I feel hasn't come up is that the environmental issues mentioned haven't so far taken into account (as far as I can tell) that increased footfall on the Old Man, likely to occur if it were to become more straightforward to get down, would have a negative impact on erosion of the stack, the number of birds disturbed etc.... 

Further to this, the fact the proposal was put together by someone who appears to have guiding intentions on the Old Man, (which will undoubtedly increase footfall and thus impact on the landscape/environment) and did not disclose this, means their arguments for preserving the environment through this consultation don't really stack up for me in the face of commercial gain.

Really, IMHO the Old Man should be bird banned at the times of year when the Fulmar chicks are about but that's a separate discussion. 

I'm not by any means wishing to exclude anyone from climbing the Old Man (and have no problem with the guiding community), but by having to attain the necessary experience to climb the stack, it naturally limits the number of people that do, and bolting the descent would greatly simplify this process. 

In reply to Neil Morrison:

I am happy to disagree. Just as I would be happy to disagree if the consensus was to maintain the rotting piles of tat, and accept that was the majority decision. 

In reply to James Milton:

MS have been doing this for a while. I raised it with them in relation to the bolting of crack lines at An Teanga and it was dismissed. I also suggested that it was perhaps time to revisit the policy as it's pretty old now and it's clear that opinions have changed but that too was dismissed.

In reply to dr evil:

Bl00dy Hell!

They've only got 10 days left in their fund raising and when I looked they raised "generous" donation total of £345

Although I've seen it from the ferry, I've not been up it (a bucket list item just not getting done) so leaving opinions on bolt versus drilling thread versus stainless strops versus whatever, to those who have been up it. I'm also neutral in funding a film about it, but come on people they're doing a cleanup FFS. This trip is going to cost them money, help a cleanup. At least chuck them a £10 someone!!

If they had a £1 for everyone reading this thread... etc etc etc

Copying link from original post https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/documenting-hoys-restoration?fbclid=IwAR3Ei...

Edit: noticed that when I looked there'd only been 10 people donating! Tight wads the lot of you (excluding those 10 people of course)

In reply to midgen:

A consultation that made no mention that the project had been proposed by a climbing guide with the intention of making a documentary film with several commercial sponsors which has either the direct, or indirect, effect of promoting his guiding company.

It doesn't matter what the intent was. This information should have been made clear to the participants of the survey. It's not an oversight, it's misleading and disingenuous.

Do you really not think that criticism of a consultation process this fundamentally flawed is reasonable?

In reply to midgen: neat swerve re the point I made. In fact you totally ignored it 🤣

In reply to James Milton:

Yes completely agree with what you say here and the lack of declaration of conflict of interest from the guiding organisation stinks too.

Also to those saying people are moaning that the consultation didn't go their way,  actually if you look at the results,  the vast majority of respondents did not want bolts on the stack.  

It looks to me like the guiding company have twisted the results to suit their own preferred conclusion,  which stinks. 

In reply to midgen:

As you know I am in favour of neither. But they are two different things and, if it has to be one of them, there are arguments either way. I think it is unacceptable that the abseil piste option is going to presumably be imposed when it wasn't in the original proposal; it would set a significant precedent.

In reply to DaveHK:

Despite having been a member of MS for a 5ish years now (always through other clubs) I have very little to no knowledge of their workings. What power do they have on things like this beyond whoever they side with getting to say MS agree with them? Have there been any incidents in recent times of them actually stepping in (whether right or wrong) to uphold their guidelines?  

In reply to James Milton:

The guidelines are just that and MS don't have any power to uphold them or force compliance.

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Surely the fact that conducting surveys is a well studied area gives MS even less of an excuse to screw it up to this degree. Let's try a brief experiment:

We are conducting a poll about removing garbage from your street. Your options are 

1. Remove the garbage.

2. Leave the garbage where it is.

How confident would you be in the results of this survey?

We are conducting a poll about removing garbage from your street on behalf of Gary's Garbage Removal. Your options are 

1. Remove the garbage. Gary's Garbage Removal will remove the garbage and make a documentary film of the process highlighting the services of Gary's Garbage Removal.

2. Leave the garbage where it is.

How confident are you in the results now?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Speaking as one 'normal climber' who also guides:

Nah, you can chuck that thought right out the window. You really think guides value their own lives less than clients'?!

In some situations yes, but taking this specific instance: abseil bolts instead of tat make no meaningful difference to the ease and safety of guiding the route. A bit of irritation spared at having to cut and carry unnecessary spangles of non-equalised cord and corroded carabiners which most climbers are too lazy to deal with, but even that's not really a guiding thing, it's just a conscientious person thing - the point of difference is that guides often do the same routes repeatedly, and are therefore more likely to be invested in such things.

The fact it wasn't stated openly from the start that the proposal was being made by a guiding outfit was presumably down to uncertainty about how it would be received, but was also incredibly unhelpful, because it has made the whole thing seem underhand. Not surprising that it's inflamed suspicion in people who were fully against the proposal in the first place. Dodgy justifications about protecting wildlife haven't helped, and the fact that it's also being used as an advertisement obviously doesn't do much to quell cynicism about 'commercial' motivations. It's a pity that all this has clouded the question of fixed gear on a classic 'adventure' route in its own right.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I am in favour of a solution that gets rid of the plastic tat, as are most people, but accept there's a good case for clarifying the exact solution, given the strong opinions. Ultimately though, there is no objective right answer here, there will be a difference of opinion and some people are going to be unhappy. 

Personally I hate seeing plastic waste in the mountains and do my best to avoid situations where I have no option but to leave some, which includes skipping routes where I know I'd potentially have to add tat. It made me incredibly sad in Morocco sitting at the top of a climb I'd just finished and packed up leaving no trace, seeing the plastic rotting in the sun on nearby pinnacles. That littering isn't a price I'm willing to pay for my hobby, I hope in time we as a climbing community can embrace ways to avoid it. 

In reply to midgen:

The alternative is littering with bolted abseil anchors. One of the things I liked about my recent trip to Morocco was the British style abseil tat. The lack of fixed gear added to the authenticity for me. Long may it stay that way.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Agreed. The thing about democratic processes is that they not only have to be done but they have to be **seen** to be done, transparently. That's why all those corporate training powerpoints that many UKC members have no doubt trawled through are always labouring the point about avoiding even the *appearance* of corrupt practices.

I have no idea if anything underhand went on, even unintentionally, but MS could have avoided even the suggestion of it by just being up front in the first place. What had they to lose? The result might well have been the same, and there would have been grumbling but nothing to this extent. And maybe someone might have pointed out to them at an early stage that having the person who proposed the survey *also* carry out the work and *also* make a film about it was maybe not the best way of encouraging confidence in its processes.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, the other alternative is not to climb it if you can't leave no trace! Which, incidentally, is an approach I would be in favour of. 

In reply to CantClimbTom:

I'll chip in on the condition they fit a Stannah stairlift for all of us irrelevant fogies to get to the foot

In reply to midgen:

I agree with this.  And, given there is already drilled gear in place, I don’t really get the objection to titanium bolts in principle.

If there were some magic solution using strops made of indestructible carbon nanofibres I’d go for that, but I’m prepared to accept this isn’t a safe option with the available materials, so thoughtfully placed bolts (presumably arranged to allow reliable recovery of the ropes) seem to be the logical way forward.

Are we assuming everyone now uses ropes long enough to get down in one, or will there be another bolted station at the second stance?

I’m not in favour of establishing a separate ‘abseil piste’, whatever that is, or otherwise dumbing down the technical complications of getting down.

I guess we could go with removing everything and imposing a ban on leaving any trace.  That leaves the fun of the long simultaneous abseil.  Perhaps someone with enough spare rope could have go and let us know how recovering it goes.

In reply to DaveHK:

I imagine the authority of MS and the effectiveness of the guidelines depends on whether they can transparently maintain the trust of climbers that they broadly represent a consensus.

If this bolting goes ahead (and I'm not convinced it will), it will be interesting to see what happens at other popular stacks and well used abseils.

In reply to Robert Durran:

No one looks at strands of tat and says; “ohh, that’s really improved the quality of my day.”

Most of the popular routes in Wadi Rum, as you’ll know, have bolted descents and it takes absolutely nothing away from the quality of the climbs or the sense of adventure of where you are.

I still don’t understand why the original project needs £35k though? How much is 6 titanium bolts with chains and someone’s time for installing them? 

In reply to Nathan Adam:

The 35k is to make the film about replacing the tat.

Edit: Having typed that I can't help but feel that this part of the plan hasn't received as much ridicule as it deserves. A film. About tat. Where can we go with this? The Tatminator starring Arnold Schwarzenegger? No Tatty for Old Man?

Over to you...

In reply to DaveHK:

Big wages, films ain’t cheap I guess.

Still makes no sense to me about making a film though, is it some sort of nod towards the 1st ascent or maintaining accountability for what’s been said will be done? 

In reply to Nathan Adam:

Of course not. Same with bolts. Just a matter of which is the lesser of evils.

But they would be an awful lot more adventurous without the bolts. And an awful lot less popular!

The £35k is for the film and actually seems quite low for that. I think it was actually made clear it was just for the film and not funding the bolting and so on.

In reply to Nathan Adam:

Have a look at the blurb. It's quite remarkable.

In reply to DaveHK: And depending on how wide a viewing it receives it may bring on a seasonal bird ban, for better or worse.

In reply to DaveHK:

Tatsy Driver

Tataouille

The Aristotats

Good Belay Hunting (starring Tat Damon)

In reply to Robert Durran:

Leaving a mess in other countries, I suppose that is quite authentically British.

In reply to DaveHK:

I think such an iconic location deserves the full Hollywood treatment with an appropriate megastar like Tom Cruise. What about 'Top Bolt Gun Maverick' where an ageing old pro clears the stack of rotting tat and rescues the arrogant young buck whose cordless drill has run out of charge?

In reply to Andy Moles:

Maybe, but perhaps less "colonising" than imposing fixed drilled gear.

Amusingly at one crag in Morocco it seemed the local goatherd had realised that whenever climbers visited there would be a couple of slings and krabs left at the two abseil points. He was clearly removing them on an almost daily basis and must have had an excellent collection of goat tethers. Presumably there must have been a non-abseil descent somewhere. I imagine he would disappointed if the anchors were bolted.

In reply to Neil Morrison:

This would certainly be the most entertaining outcome.

In reply to midgen:

I would definitely support this.

​​​​The obvious way to get down without leaving a trace is that you have to down-lead.

In reply to Andy Moles:

So is nobody at all nervous about the state of the decaying actual anchors? Would a strop even with its drawbacks ever be the weakest link? I'm pretty sure people eye up the rotting ironmongery in a way they wouldn't with shiny bolts!

In reply to Robert Durran:

How does any of what you just wrote differ for a guide compared to any other climber?

In reply to Andy Moles:

I suppose what I am saying is that if I am climbing the Old Man just once I might take my chances with a slightly dodgy abseil anchor, but I might feel differently if I were guiding it regularly with responsibility for clients and with the cumulative risk building up.

Same sort of thing with dashing under a dodgy serac in the Alps.

But if you consider the anchors reliable beyond doubt then fair enough!

In reply to Robert Durran:

From what I recall, and I admit it's a few years since I was on it, there is no need to rely on dodgy anchors on the Old Man. The problem is not that they're dodgy, because at the least they can be backed up - it's that they are a mess.

I wouldn't!

In reply to planetmarshall:

All this talk about Sam's company being secretive is contradicted by the fact he openly talks about being the person behind it on his own blog where he shared the MS survey. 

I presume MS didn't say "This isn't us by the way, it's Sam Percival, (plus six other people) behind it." because the survey should be run and seen to be run by Mountaineering Scotland. Otherwise it could be accused of being biased in supporting the organisers. 

As for the survey results, 962 responses with only 10% against suggests 96 people against. This would probably correclate with the number of likes/dislikes in this post. (I would imagine nearly all those that were openly against the procedure were disliking it here). 

in summary,

1) It was only a secret if you weren't bothered to look
2) More than Sam was involved but as he's the commercial representative, he's taking the flak as being "commercially motivated" (which is contradicted by the survey)
3) The survey might have been 'poor' but if you wanted to object, it wasn't rocket science to make that quite clear. 

How many people weren't recorded as objecting? I don't know but judging by the results, it wouldn't have tipped the balance the other way. 

This is always going to be divisive but I would suggest stopping making this personal, it's not a good look and doesn't really help make the opposing view attractive in any way. 

Personally, having climbed the route, I'd much prefer to see the tat and crap removed and replaced with a couple of clean ring bolts per belay (on the same line, or separate) and be able to see the beauty of the rock more clearly. 

In reply to timparkin:

How on earth were we supposed to know where to look? We were just told it was an individual climber. I've just spent a couple of minutes looking for it and can't find it even knowing his name and the name of his guiding company! 

In reply to timparkin:

They just said a climber was behind it and that they supported it. Isn't that equally poor? And less transparent.

In reply to timparkin:

"I didn't tell you the truth because the truth makes us look dodgy as f**k" is an astonishingly weak defence.

If the survey is vulnerable to being accused of bias, then that should be a red flag to the organisers that maybe it has not been well thought out. Not to casually omit the commercial interests involved and hope no one notices.

In reply to Nathan Adam:

Anyone asked the first ascencionists? Rustie Baillie is still alive and kicking, I climbed with him a few years back (I also sold him a load of bolts to develop a new cliff).

In reply to timparkin:

If this happens and there is also a separate bolted abseil line then this will increase climbers on the stack massively. Then there will be even more erosion (approach and climb) and bird disturbance. Ultimately it may get a bird ban. It's such a poorly thought through plan, and is/was very murky how it has transpired to this point. Yes - clean the tat and add the odd bolted stance if 'you' really have to so instructors can drag clients up with less risk.. but the future is bleak on this. Very sad times for Scottish trad climbing and the Old Man of Hoy.

In reply to Robert Durran:>

Ok... here's the solution .. I'm happy to crowdfund to make a film of me blowing the bloomin thing up...will solve all the problems in a oner...

I'll do it for £5k... guaranteed more exciting than a film of pieces of string being chopped

In reply to Elizabeth_S:

I absolutely support your suggestion of a ban on climbing here during Fulmar nesting season. That would be a significant - and real - environmental outcome. In contrast, the claims about the environmental effects of small amounts of climbing tat (in contrast, say, to the huge amounts of fishing nets lost at sea) are just pure flannel.

I don't suppose the possibility of such a ban was in any way the aspiration of the commercial operators behind this entire scheme - but their actions and publicity have now raised awareness.

Question: why has climbing not been seasonally banned on the Old Man (and similar venues) before? Such bans, for environmental reasons, are common practice in other parts of the UK.

In reply to abcdefg:

Completely agreed, it would be great to see a positive environmental outcome from this mess. 

I have no idea why it isn't currently bird banned during the nesting season, it seems a bit of a no brainer to me when compared to the excellent mostly well adhered to bird bans in place in the Peak etc...

When I climbed the Old Man about 4 years ago now, I regret to say we did it when there were Fulmar chicks on the stack. The accepted opinion then was (and I assume still is) that dodging the Fulmar vomit is just part of climbing it and doing our research pre-climbing it, there was nothing to suggest we shouldn't.

Reflecting back, accepting that you'll get vomited on as there are chicks on the ledges, is us causing stress to the birds. Whilst it was one of the best days I've ever had, we really shouldn't have been there at that time of year and if I go again it will definitely be outside of the nesting season.

(Just in case any conflicts of interest come up, as a nearly vet I'm on the side of the birds )

In reply to dr evil:

This thread is a homage to the UKC glory days of 'thin end of the wedge' threads. So much hyperbole. Superb stuff.

In reply to Elizabeth_S:

Thanks for the reply.

Quite.

We've reached a strange situation here. In environmental terms, it is very obvious that nobody should be climbing the Old Man during Fulmar nesting season. And I guess, traditionally, this has all worked out only on account of the relatively small numbers of climbers doing the routes. Yet we now have a commercial operation proposing to install an abseil piste on the Old Man - to their own obvious benefit -  which will only increase climbing traffic.

As climbers, we need to self-police. In this context, I'm a bit baffled about the stance of Mountaineering Scotland. Do they have coherent policies in relation to all this?

Some input on this thread from either Mountaineering Scotland, or Sam Percival at www.everydayclimbing.co.uk  (who I think is the person behind the proposal) would be welcomed.

In reply to Elizabeth_S:

In short, because Scotland is not England and Wales, and MS is far less well resourced than the BMC in this regard. There's more of an attitude of climbers taking responsibility themselves. Partly it's a pragmatic thing - golden eagles nest on Coir' Uisg Buttress and Sron Ulladale, for example, which are far more remote than any crags in England and Wales, not exactly convenient for an access rep to check in on - but there is also the broader context of the Scottish access code, which puts more responsibility on individuals (usually a very good thing, I would emphasise).

There's no question if some of the cliffs on Mingulay, for example, were in English waters, there would definitely be a ban in nesting season.

In reply to Nathan Adam:

I installed exactly this for a private company last year.  I charged just under £500 (time, expenses bolts and consumables).  Seems I need to up my rates!

In reply to Simonfarfaraway:

I really dont think it will "increase climbers on the stack massively".  The things that were keeping climbers away will still be there - distance from most of the uk's population, logistics of getting to and from Hoy once on orkney, grade of the climbing and quality of the climbing.

It may get a bird ban.  It may also collapse before too long (I'd place money on it significantly changing in the next couple of decades)

In reply to spidermonkey09:

Can you not at least see that putting bolts in the Old Man is a pretty significant precedent to set for British Climbing even if you think it is justified by the removal of the supposed visual intrusion of a bit of tat?

In my view, the hyperbole is from those making such a fuss about a bit of tat; it just seems out of perspective to me (so much so that I am inclined to suspect it is, for some, more an excuse than a reason).

In reply to abcdefg

I think the best thing MS could do for their credibility would be to come clean on the whole thing, admit that the consultation was misconceived and botched and start again without prejudice this time, setting out the various options including the status quo, then, if some sort of consensus emerges, arranging for someone to do whatever needs doing.

In reply to Andy Moles:

The everydayclimbing website does mention deviating from the route to avoid nesting birds, but in reality one isn't going to be able to get very far away and a guided party is going to create a fair bit of disturbance for a fair tine. If ring ouzels are found at Stanage, no one thinks it's acceptable to climb a route a few feet to the left or right - a section of the crag is placed off limits. My local crag,  Pontesford Rocks is shut from mid-March to mid-July to protect a pair of peregrines every year. Given that the Old Man is the property of the RSPB, you'd think they'd ban climbing on it during the nesting season on their own authority. Or do they not have the power to do this because of access legislation? Overall, I guess it's down to the climbing community simply not to climb on it during the nesting season. It would be nice for the pros to set an example though.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Absolutely it's worth debating, but some of the rhetoric on this thread has been risible. I think the poster who said this thread goes a long way to explaining why UKC forums have such a poor reputation among the majority of climbers was spot on. All my opinion of course. 

In reply to Andy Clarke:

Pretty much. A couple of summers ago we were pretty dismayed to see daytrippers' dogs running around unleashed on Mingulay, which is known for its ground-nesting bird species (puffins, skua, snipe), and contacted NTS about it (they own the island). The reply that we got was basically that they can publish guidance about dogs etc, but can't really take stronger action.

In reply to dr evil:

I just love the concerns about the "visual impact to other users" of the abseil tat.

This coming from a group of people who daub the cliffs white every dry spell.

Outside of the commercial interests, bolted stations make some sense. The twisted arguments and fund raising in the self interest of the guiding company/community are both abhorrent and hilarious.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I just googled it 

In reply to planetmarshall:

But there are multiple people, not one person. How do you differentiate between the commercial individuals working in a commercial capacity, commercial individuals working in a private capacity and private individuals, etc etc.. 

The easy answer is that it's Mountaineering Scotland doing the organising and a full bio and research into the individuals is probably outside their remit. If they don't need to show the people involved (and they didn't to make a survey) I can understand why they didn't. It might not be the best choice but to label it as 'secretive' is a stretch.. 

In reply to Simonfarfaraway:

Have you got any evidence of this? Will people come just to abseil on the new line? I presume most people climb the Old Man of Hoy for the ascent, not the descent?

In reply to arose:

You need to factor in the cost of an iPhone for the filming! 

In reply to timparkin:

I've just done so again. All I get is instagram photos and the everydayclimb website with no sign of it there (unless I am daft or blind!). 

And that's knowing his name and company of course.

Any chance of a link?

In reply to timparkin:

I agree that it will probably make little difference to numbers. The absence of in situ belays would probably be, if anything, more of a deterrent. Of course, no insitu belays would, I hope we can all agree, be a good thing (though it would be interesting to see how long that lasts), but comes at the cost of a sanitised descent (which is an integral part of the sea stack experience).

In reply to spidermonkey09:

There's certainly no shortage of people claiming insights into the opinions of the "majority of climbers". The poster who used the phrase "the majority of climbers I know" was on the money.

I couldn't even be that specific, since I've never asked them.

In reply to timparkin:

I know that the adventurous nature of it at the moment does stop some climbers from attempting it, and it's common sense that once it's known/ the film has done BANFF/ kendal festivals etc and folk know there are fixed/ bolted stances, and a fixed abseil line more folk will go to climb it. Removing the tat/ old rope is very positive,  but we all know that the only hardware if any that should be replaced is on one belay that currently only has 2 rusty old metal anchors. The rest of the route is fine. I'm not sure why it's gone beyond what's actually needed / sensible,  to a sanitation of the climb approach. Do you know why? And is it clearly noted anywhere what actually will be installed, or is it at the whim of the company/individuals completing the work and what they decide helps make it safer? 

Edit - if people know there's an easier way off without a free hanging ab it will make it more appealing to many. 

In reply to abcdefg:

How do you know this? I've wanted to climb the Old Man of Hoy since doing the Old Man of Stoer, about 30 years ago. I even made the pilgrimage a few years ago back to Reiff to finish a little climb that I fell off twice in the 90s when I lived in Scotland, but I have not done anything serious about getting to Orkney. It would take probably a week of holiday time to get there and home, quite a lot of expense, no one in my family is interested in going there so I would need a suitably keen climbing partner who could get the same time off from work and family commitments etc. etc. A bolted abseil piste (or not) is simply not an important factor in that equation. Guides already guide the old man now, and I can't imagine any potential client saying - "no I'm not going to pay several hundred quid for a guide to take me up it if there aren't bolts", after all it's totally understandable that people pay guides to keep them safe. Yes bolts would make the guide's life easier, but I don't imagine they will be rustling up much new business purely on the basis that theres a bolted ab route now. 

I don't think anyone in this or the original thread has said "I'll definitely go and do it once the bolts are in." Increased traffic just seems like another claim plucked out of thin air like some of the stats. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

https://www.facebook.com/sam.percival.56/posts/pfbid02FpVScAxzZq4hRchrqFdaJ...

I'm not sure it appears in searches now because of it's age perhaps? It certainly doesn't appear to be secretive about the proposition (see comments)

In reply to Simonfarfaraway:

I think the film about removing the tat would make it more popular, not the bolting itself. I think the film is a non-starter myself unless it's a very well done history of the stack. 

I would like to keep the abseil on the same line if possible and there are only two belays needed for that. I'm on the side two bolts to get rid of the stack of the other belay as well. 

There was a slack line... 

 

In reply to Lankyman:

Surely if a bolt gun is involved it should be called “Tathanger”?

In reply to timparkin:

How recent are those bolts? Are they from the aid/bolting era (ie  before the late-1970s)? If so, I would argue they are historic and should not form any part of a current bolting argument (it's a bit like saying the victorians chipped their way up the Cow at Ilkley, so we can chip now too)

In reply to timparkin:

And a BASE jump.

In reply to timparkin:

Absolutely not. Those bolts are relics from a previous era and we have long since moved on to a presumption against all bolts in British trad climbing.

Arguably. I made the case in the previous thread that tat has a sort of abstract beauty in the climbing contest of its own (which seemed to go down surprising well!). Bolts have their own sanitised ugliness.

But even if we were all to agree that tat is visually worse, the nub of the issue is whether getting rid of it is worth the precedent of putting bolts in the Old Man. 

As far as I can see, there was a preference to get rid of the tat but to avoid bolts if at all possible. I think most people would have assumed this meant strops as in the proposal. There was certainly no mention of an abseil piste.

If all options had been put forward (including the status quo and the abseil piste solution) without prejudice I have no idea how it would have turned out. And of course, I expect almost everyone expected strops to be part of any change to the status quo; we are now told they can't be.

In reply to TobyA:

Agreed, the only aspect of this that might cause slightly increased traffic is the publicity promoted by the film.

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Sorry but this isn’t right -  I said that in all likelihood I’m never going to climb OMOH, and I’m not alone in this as other contributors to the thread also won’t. I said this to fend of the usual “this doesn’t concern you” accusations.

I did not say my, or anyone else’s opinion was invalid.

DaveHK then said that I should stay out of the debate due to my lack on intention to climb it. Feel free to direct your ire towards him on the matter, but please don’t mispreprensent what I’ve posted.

In reply to timparkin:

It just says its not available to me for various possible reasons.

Maybe not secretive if you knew where to look, but given that there was much speculation on here about who it might be and nobody knew (or at least said) and MS were mysteriously not letting on, it certainly came across as secretive.

In reply to Iamgregp:

That's quite an assumption. 

In reply to 65:

Even if it is, it doesn’t really matter though does it? I’m saying all opinions are valid regardless. 

It’s other people on the thread who said it matters. 

In reply to Robert Durran:

This, as Robert has succinctly put it, is the heart of the argument, and why I (at least) am deeply uncomfortable about the proposal.

In reply to Andy Moles:

It doesn't sound a very interesting film though so far! I wonder if after the Climbing Blind film with Jesse Dutton came out there was an increase in ascents? That was seen relatively widely getting onto the BBC eventually. 

I get the sense that social media, YouTube and Instagram in particular, has led to an increase in participation in hiking and general outdoorsy stuff, but I'm not convinced single films even that get on TV really make that much difference. 

In reply to Jon Read:

I am personally uneasy about all of it. IMHO, I would rather someone go up the Old Man, chop out the whole lot, replace with tidy static, and leave as little trace as possible while still being able to get down.

Cuillin ab anchors are managed this way. On the whole they are kept tidy, and it all seems to tick over.

Is there a bit of a 'broken window theory' at play on the Old Man?

In reply to arose:

I installed exactly this for a private company last year. I charged just under £500 (time, expenses bolts and consumables). Seems I need to up my rates!

Could we all chip in to get someone to remove/replace the tat every other year? can't get that bad over the space of a couple years?? maybe it can?

I don't remember it standing out at the time, but that'll be about 8 years ago.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The bolts I saw last year were definitely from the previous decade or so approximately. They certainly weren't from a previous era of climbing.

In reply to kwoods:

Isn't the inpinn a perma strop? 

I think the broken window effect is evident in that if someone leaves some tat, the next person will as well. If we could get rid of tat without adding bolts that would be cool. Perhaps we should add signage and instructions on each belay.

Perhaps we could train the fulmar and puffin to remove the tat for us like the following video. 

youtube.com/watch?v=ZiIIK7TyQl0&

In reply to timparkin

I can't really recall what was there when I did it in 2015, but if bolts have been placed in the last decade they shouldn't have been!

In reply to Jon Read:

Agreed, though the issue of making an exception to a long established consensus (the ethic of Scottish trad* climbing, especially when it comes to tottering sea stacks) for the convenience of a commercial operation and the opaque (and that's being polite) nature of how we got here are equally relevant.

In reply to Iamgregp:

We'll have to disagree there. I don't think the opinions of people who haven't a clue what they are on about are valid. 

Perhaps the best solution in the absence of no other satisfactory one would be strip everything from the stack and agree that nobody climbs it at all and just leave it to the fulmars. It's only one historically important but otherwise overrated route and a handful of very rarely climbed others. The history would still be there and there's plenty else to climb. 

In reply to 65:

Well in that case I’d suggest UKC forum isn’t for you, there’s a lot of that going round here!

Also, just to note, I haven’t really given very much by way of opinion on the bolting or not matter, my comments have been more concerned with the hyperbole and bilious responses in this thread.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Is bolting so bad that you'd rather ban climbing completely as a preference? Sounds fairly radical

In reply to timparkin:

I'd rather the status quo, but yes, I'd rather it was just left alone than bolted. 

In reply to dr evil:

From the survey:

Overwhelmingly, you were supportive of the aim to remove the old and unsightly tat that had been left behind by decades of climbers. There was some frustration expressed as to why climbers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, take old gear away with them and leave little behind when they were able to.

There was a clear majority view in favour of moving to a more long-term and low-impact solution for abseil stations and belays – being more sustainable without becoming a sanitised experience; not over-developing the rock and retaining the sense of history and adventure.

I understand the upset, because there are many situations where I would not want to see bolts. E.g. I would have been upset if bolts were placed at Raven Langdale for a descent, given that this is unnecessary.

However, looking at this synopsis of the results, so long as we accept its accuracy, we can say that the consultation found that an "overwhelming" majority wanted something doing to change the status quo, and "a clear majority" supported new abseil stations.

If strops are not an option for technical/safety reasons and an overwhelming majority want to avoid accumulation of old tat, then it seems there is some support for bolted abseil stations where necessary. But... I also think the vagueness of this synopsis does not create trust, transparency or confidence that bolts is really what people want. Either producing a more transparent account of the results that shows this support or undertaking another consultation that is simply binary (this is the plan: yes vs. no) would perhaps clear the air on the legitimacy of this decision.

I do also think that it is hard to argue that there is any legitimacy to chopping the new titanium bolts, without attempting to demonstrate democratic support for this.

In reply to midgen:

You betray your youth. People used to think that hammering pitons in was, actually, pretty shit. And a lot of effort was put into doing routes without existing pitons.

And we called them 'pegs'.

In reply to C Witter:

Given that I think the consultation was clear that strops were an option and a dedicated abseil piste never mentioned, I don't think there is any legitimacy for placing them either. So, if they were placed, it could be argued that it would be legitimate to chop them. But I really, really hope it doesn't come to that; much better for MS to admit that it is all a mess and make a fresh start.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I gave this a like as I generally wholehearted agree with your stance on this issue except that the left alone vs bolted  debate would need another discussion and vote/poll !

The proposal for a separate abseil piste is not as straightforward as suggested on here. Multi pitch abseil points have traditionally followed lines of ascent for good reason. You know where the best belays are, you know the line and pitch length, most importantly if there is a rope hang up , you have a fighting chance of climbing back up safely to sort it. Also rope pulls are generally down lines cleared of loose rock.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I completely take your argument that the consultation's framing of the situation was not in line with this proposal. I understood it at the time as suggesting strops for abseil and supported the idea of strops (without understanding that these would also degrade quickly).

It could be argued that it's legitimate to chop them dlfor the reasons you mention, but personally I feel like that is just creating a lot of bad blood and inviting unilateral approaches to this sensitive issue, whereas what we need in my view is a more robustly democratic process.

In reply to C Witter:

I fully agree.

In reply to Simonfarfaraway:

That appears to be pretty much what they are planning. The below is from the crowdfunder page:

“Where possible and practicable, the aim is to replace hardware with like-for-like or removable equipment. Where this is not possible, old bolts will be replaced by modern and durable counterparts. The climb will be made less littered by removing old pegs, bolts, wires and threads from the entire climb. On the pitches themselves these will not be replaced. 

On Belay Stations: Nothing will be done at 'ascent' belays that rely on leader placed protection, other than efforts made to remove the heads of rusted nuts to open up the cracks again for placements.

On Abseil Stations: On the essential abseil stations, the intention is to install modern and durable options mitigating the need for climbers to add further, short lifespan climbing equipment. If there are solid, reliable, natural threads at abseil stations, and these can made so that they will not degrade quickly, then these will be replaced like-for-like. If there are no solid natural threads, then these abseil stations will be replaced with titanium bolted and chained rings.”

In reply to Andy Say:

Kindly explain then why thousands of routes in this country still have pegs in them. Clearly quite a lot of people did think that hammering them in was fine, and on the evidence of some routes only climbed in the past few years, some still do.

In reply to Andy Moles:

Because attitudes change. Check your history.

In reply to Andy Say:

Nope, doesn't cut it.

Extant pegs have been placed in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s, 10s and 20s.

You tried to belittle the claim that 'people used to think that hammering pegs was fine'. But it's true. People did.

In reply to Andy Moles:

'people used to think that hammering pegs was fine'. But it's true. People did

Some people did...

In reply to Rampart:

Sure. The original comment didn't say 'all people'. That it was done more in say the 70s than it is now, however, is not debatable. Attitudes to hammering pegs have changed, though maybe not as much as some might think.

In reply to Iamgregp:

You're quite right, you didn't explicitly say that, so I'm sorry I seemed to have misinterpreted you. However, since that wasn't what you meant I'm not sure i understand the purpose of you making this observation:

Like you, I've argued that those who aren't / are unlikely to do it are also welcome to an opinion, but where we differ is that I only think that is worth listening to where that person understands the nature of the challenge and the environment (i.e. has a trad background).

In reply to Andy Say:

Not in winter climbing at the start of the 90s when I started. They were still completely normal parts of a rack, and are still pretty normal today  Pegs have been used for hard routes in summer from time to time through the 30 plus years I've been climbing also. 

In reply to timparkin:

The Inpinn descent is bolted actually. The intermediate anchor for the descent from diabegs main cliff is also bolted, even though this isnt needed if you have 60m ropes. Though I personally would be against any bolts being placed on scottish mountains or sea cliffs. Just thought I would try provide correct information.

In reply to CharlieBanford:

Is it? They are well hidden. How did they manage to get the drill in under the Bolster Stone?

In reply to CharlieBanford:

Bolted? Since when? Or do you mean the chain?

In reply to CharlieBanford:

Curious why these two were bolted in the first place? Especially at Diabeg the combo of pegs at the top and bolts in the middle just seems a bit odd so would love to hear the story behind it.

In reply to Tom Green:

hmm perhaps im wrong, could have sworn I abed of a bolted anchor when I did it. Although after a quick google its looking like I am potentially embarassingly mistaken. Diabegs anchor howver is definitly bolted.

In reply to dr evil:

Seems all a bit sad and over the top. The absense of bolts is the one of the only thing that makes the climbing in the UK special. Let’s face it: in terms of quantity of quality rock, we’re not France, Switzerland or America!

The stack is currently a mess, but none of the 3 rap stations are unsafe. They’re not exactly textbook,  but climbing a 120m sandstone sea stack isn’t text book either. 

It would be great if everything was cut away and replaced with nice new static. 

It definitely doesn’t need bolting and it would be a great shame for British climbing if it does. 

I’d also be very surprised if they don’t get chopped. Does anyone know the best way to remove titanium bolts, in such a way that you can’t tell they were ever there?
 

In reply to Oscar Dodd:

I presume the bolts at the top were chopped (since they weren't needed in the first place) and pegs put in to stop someone walking off with an equalised nut anchor. The middle ones are another good example of unnecessary bolts, since, as you say, with 60s you can get down fine in a one-er.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I agree with this completely. Best reply for me so far. 

In reply to dr evil:

I’m not sure I can add value to this but I’m a professional filmmaker and have climbed the Old Man of Hoy.

From my perspective as a climber, I totally agree with what Tom Ripley says above - it would be a real shame to put more bolts in. I haven’t been up there is some years so can’t fully remember, but I know the descent felt adventurous - just like the climb! If that’s not what you’re up for, don’t climb it. I guess there is a reasonable argument for replacing old bolts and pegs that are used on belays.

From a filmmakers perspective. £35k is not a lot of money for a feature film, but this is not well thought through, researched or pitched so shouldn’t go ahead. It is full of unqualified statements and has been quite understandably picked apart. I’m baffled by the cherry picked info and exaggerations. Given the filmmakers experience (I read their bios) I’m suprised it’s not better researched or thought out. 

When I climbed the Old Man I was puked on by 3 Fulmars on the way up. I topped out on the last pitch and was overjoyed to be joined by two Puffins that then dived off towards the sea below. I’d never seen a puffin before.

Bolting the sea stack so it’s easier/safer to get off, and guiding people up it will increase the number of climbers. That’s surely what will have the biggest effect on wildlife - not the tat (I’d love to see some evidence on the tat thing though). If wildlife is important to you, perhaps you shouldn’t be increasing the number of climbers that go there?

Can’t someone just go and climb it and chop the tat off and whack it in the bin? Do you really need to make a film about it?

In reply to Land and Sky Media:

Haven't you read the blurb? It's all about 'care', 'inspire', 'celebrate', etc etc etc ... all in bold of course. 

And if you donate a £100 or more you get a piece of tat from one of the team's tacky little souvenir shop, for free! 🤣

In reply to Maggot:

That’s pretty harsh. I’m sure the filmmaking team have the best intentions. It’s just not brilliantly thought out and they don’t understand the ethical shitstorm they might step into… have stepped into.

Surely the climbing team should have warned them about that!

In reply to Land and Sky Media:

To be fair, this is quite a bit of effort and personal expense for someone, to go to Hoy and climb the stack especially for that purpose. There's a lot of junk on there, taking it down and getting it to a bin isn't a negligible task. Not defending this level of hoo-ha, but I think it's a reasonable idea to drum up some publicity and ask for a bit of funding to cover costs.

I'd chip in for someone competent to remove all the current stuff and install some neatly arranged lengths of reassuringly fat static at the top and middle abseils, which don't require any other gear*, and see where we're at in five years' time.

* I'll admit I'm not too sure about what's best for the intermediate abseil because I've never used it.

In reply to Andy Moles:

But if you're frequently guiding people up and down, you can get rid of the tat in small stages.

I wonder how much tat has been added and how much old tat has been taken away since the hoo-ha started.

In reply to dr evil:

It would be quite amusing if someone went and cleared up all the tat before the film..!

In reply to jezb1:

No! They'd have to put some back in to make the film look credible and then it would just be tit-for-tat.

In reply to Michael Hood:

It's a fair point, but to be honest I don't think anyone is guiding it frequently. Doing it piecemeal over years would probably be quite disheartening as more might accumulate than was being removed. You could also say that everyone should take away a little bit, but you've got to have something workable left and a minimal new setup installed. I think one big dedicated clean-up makes a lot of sense.

In reply to Land and Sky Media:

There has certainly, I think, been a whole lot of naivety going on despite no doubt good intentions.

It is really MS for whom there seems little in the way of excuses for the way they have handled the whole thing.

In reply to Andy Moles:

To be fair, I think Sam has already done a fair amount of cleaning and replacing with good quality static in years gone by. The tat build up and degradation happens surprisingly quickly (in my experience climbing the stack a few months apart).

People fly across the world to climb the stack so the carbon neutrality arguement about tat Vs bolts is a non starter.

There are two intermediates that could be used, one is a block equalised to a fixed nut placed between the block and the wall. The block itself is loose so not a particularly reliable anchor. The other is a combination of fixed nuts/old bolts/rivets/spits. There isn't much gear in the middle section and certainly nothing no logical natural features you could leave that on. I think with two 70m ropes you could get to the ground in two abseils, skipping the middle station (not tested this though!).

In reply to jezb1:

Yes, maybe this is the best way to neutralise the threat here. And bang a sign up  on the "mainland" making it clear when this happened and when any new static was installed (i.e. a date). Also if you feel you have to add something then leave the static but chop at least one piece of other tat.  Any of the given justification for putting in bolts goes away, at least for the time being.

There is always the much more murky commercial justification for bolts, but somebody taking on the clean up would force that argument out into the open..

In reply to Alex Riley:

You can do it in two abseils on 60m ropes, which is what I've done. I can't recommend this as the standard way in good conscience though because it's skin-of-the-teeth, too easy to imagine horrorshow scenarios. 70m ropes would certainly be fine, but who even owns two 70m ropes?

Fair enough. I would have thought good quality static would last at least a couple of years even in that environment.

In reply to Andy Moles:

I once tried this and the (overhand) knot got wedged just beneath the belay for the final corner. It would have been a proper pita if there hadn't been a team behind us coming down.