UKH

Is climbing ever likely to be allowed again, or have the minority buggered it up for the rest of us?  High Rocks website says no climbing allowed!

High Rocks

Such a tragedy. Because I remember the owner being a reasonable chap, and a good relationship having been set up with him by the climbers at the time (1980s-90s, when I last used to climb there).

I think in this case it's more the landowners intransigence than climbers who are to blame. That's not to say there was never any bad behaviour but it didn't warrant an indefinite total ban.

But why did it happen suddenly after many years of it apparently working just fine?

I’m trawling a faulty memory here, but I think the ownership changed.

I hope someone can correct me if I’m wrong. It may still be a sensitive issue.

I've never climbed there - but geologically it looks like some of the Southern sandstone areas:

Sand Rock, Alabama: https://www.mountainproject.com/area/105905184/sand-rock

Rocktown, GA: https://www.mountainproject.com/area/106036120/rocktown

which are just great days out (even from Florida!)

I could easily see High Rocks getting a climbing ban if the business is a wedding etc venue. Climbers appearing in the background could ruin the mood. A shame indeed as it looks rather unique.  

Of course, when there's a wedding on, it's entirely reasonable for him to close it to climbers. He always had complete control over the times when climbers could use it.

Having been born and bred (climbing-wise) on UK SE sandstone, I am a massive fan of that. But I have to say that the southern US sandstone is (even) better. When I lived in New Orleans, I used to truck up the road for seven and a half hours to NE Alabama - where the skies are so blue. Sand Rock was one of our favorites - we used to camp on top of the rocks. It's the only place that I have ever won a prize in a climbing competition. It was a bouldering competition on a very cold day in November, which cut the number of entrants right down. The prizes were very generous and I was the only competitor in my age group!

The history of friction between the land owner and climbers goes back many decades, and a few years back there were some militant barely concealed left wing comments about the owner from some of the climbing community on this forum, about climbers "rights" to climb where they liked and venom directed at the owner for his "selfish land owner" behaviour. In addition to this some people were making holes in the boundary fencing and trespassing to climb, or jumping over the turn styles and entering without payment.  There were also instances of climbers refusing to move from the background of wedding photos.

It all got very heated, and I am not surprised that the owner has put in place climbing bans in the past. I don't know the background to the current banning but the situation with the owner always has been delicate since he owned it and temporary lifting of previous bans with conditions was only gained as a a result of long patient negotiations by some local climbers. It seems that sadly things have spiralled out of control again resulting in another ban.

What a lot of climbers never seemed to accept is that the rocks are situated on what is in in effect someone's private garden, and the owner has every right to invite or exclude whomever he likes onto his land, and the owner is running a business here on his private land for which the same applies. The fact that the rocks here are amongst the highest in the SE, and contain many of the best climbs in the SE does not give climbers a right of access, and the more people have ignored this fundamental principle, the worse the situation has become.

IIRC the entry fee to climbers was £10 a day, and the fact that this was greater for climbers than ordinary non  climbing visitors rankled some people. I never understood this selfish attitude from some climbers who would willingly pay an almost similar amount to go to an indoor climbing gym, yet balk at having to pay to go and climb on natural rock! Some people even argued that because it is natural, climbing should be free. Or because most natural rock outcrops in the UK are free for climbing, the same should have applied here. Why!? The owner isn't a climber himself, he is a business man with every right to use his land how he likes. Deliberately flouting concessions which had taken years of painstaking negotiation was just plain stupid and selfish, and look where it's got us.

I used to love climbing at High Rocks, as has been said it has some of the best  climbs in the SE, mostly in the higher grades from 5b and above, is in an idyllic situation (hence the wedding business) and was rarely crowded. What a sad loss another ban is.

I concur with absolutely everything you've said. £10 did not seem too much at all for what you got (particularly, as you say, compared with many climbing walls). The best climbs at High Rocks are as good as the best climbs on grit.

PS. It seems, from their website, that sadly, 'the Sandstone Volunteers Group' has become dormant (??).

I'm embarrassed to say that when I lived in Birmingham, Alabama, I hardly climbed at all (and then not in Alabama!) and it wasn't until I moved even further away that I realized what I'd been missing. 

Wandering around between towers of sandstone made me feel like a child again - a curious feeling of "all's well with the world". At least High Rocks allows non-climbing visitors, although sadly "children are not allowed in the Rocks area" - the owner likely has this as an insurance condition