UKH

Several years ago D.Cronshaw,L Ainsworth and myself gained access to an old Lancs quarry were climbing had taken place during the 1970s,having been given permission to climb by the owner of this private quarry we spent several years cleaning the rock,trimming and lopping trees and tidying the place.The owner had intimated that as long as we kept a low profile,numbers low and! the main issue,put in place fixed gear and lower offs he would allow small parties in the quarry.Today June 16th2023 we discovered that 11 bolts had been chopped and the hangars removed.We would just like to congratulate those mindless morons.The owner informed us today16thJune that climbing is banned and he will prosecute anyone found in the quarry without his permission. Don't you prats understand the B M C. do not have any say so on peoples private land nor do individuals have the right to chop gear because they feel that Lancashire should remain bolt free.Should you be one of the culprits [name removed] ,then you.owe us 11bolts and hangars.l have been climbing for 56 years and never have had to put up with this kind of arrogance.G.Mason.

In reply to gordonmason: that’s such a shame Gordon, especially knowing how much work you, Les and Cronnie put into these local quarries.

In reply to gordonmason:

A real shame Gordon.

I would post something more fruity, but trying to be a bit less direct.

In reply to gordonmason:

Wow 11 bolts, is it a sport climbing crag now? I thought Winewall was a trad venue, didn't realise it has been retrobolted

In reply to gordonmason:

You can stick your bolts up your arse

"Bolts in Lancs. No thanks"

I don't have an opinion about this (I wasn't at the meeting, and have never been to the crag, and don't have a vendetta against bolts, or really care about this at all).

It would appear the BMC Northwest Area group discussed this, advertised and proposed the action, and presumably followed through with this.

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=3953

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=4001

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/north%20west
https://www.facebook.com/BMCNorthWestArea

In reply to tdobson:

Bit short sighted if the chopping of the bolts has lead directly to access being lost though...

In reply to radddogg:

Dumb comment. There are lots of bolts in the quarries if you know where to look. And this anti bolt 'purity' has just lost us access to an entire crag.

In reply to tdobson:

You need to attend a BMC area meeting, about 6 to 8 people eating chips paid for by the BMC.

Well meaning I am sure, but how representative they are of the actual climbing community, is debatable 

Thanks.

Having attended a BMC Area Meeting more than once, I'm of the opinion I have other priorities on those evenings.

Mainly cos I'm not interested in whether small quarries in Lancs have bolts or not. I don't have any desire to have an opinion or discuss it.

I would point out that the BMC NW Access Rep appears to be named in Gordon's post, and that Les was present and would have known about the voting for some time. (it was advertised in January as going to be voted on https://www.facebook.com/BMCNorthWestArea/posts/pfbid028Hp3qk723Bd9f9QJXhft...
)

I probably broadly agree with you about BMC Area meetings Uncle Derek, but I'm not going to turn up to one, even to vote about crags I've never heard of, and have no opinion about.

Also worth nothing that Gordon has about ~140 new routes in Lancs to his name.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

II would have assumed that the BMC would be duty bound to discuss the proposed action with the owner of private land wouldn’t they, particularly given that there was long standing approval by the owner for bolts to be placed on his land.

I’m the last person to support bolts on grit, but something doesn’t seem quite right here.

In reply to tdobso

A fair reply 

The issue seems to be, no one seems to turn up at BMC meetings,but a lot of people have an opinion.

Gordon et al have put a lot of work in at shit venues such as Noggarth and Winewalll and a bunch of zealot anti bolters, some of whom do not even climb anymore, though some do, feel they have a moral right to go chopping bolts.

I have a suspicion this may have roots in self aggrandisement on Facebook, but I may being a bit judgemental there.

In reply to Mikeb:

The removal of those bolts was approved at a BMC area meeting. 

There was no need for them. If you want to go sport climbing hop over the border to Yorkshire. 

In reply to gordonmason:

I removed the bolts. Existing trad routes (done in the 80's and mostly VS) had been retro-bolted with no discussion. It all cases the bolts were not needed with leader-placed protection available.  I could post a photo of a bolt placed 15cm away from perfect wire placements if folks were interested 😉

The BMC Area advertised the discussion on Facebook and at an area meeting. No action was taken until the next meeting when there was discussion of feedback and a vote taken.

Bolts were left on new routes that had been done with them for protection.

If someone wants their hangers and nuts back they can contact me; I have them.

I am intrigued that the 'owner' has declared a ban as when I spoke to him Les Ainsworth, NW Area access guru, said he didn't know who they were but had met them there once.

 If you can put me in touch with the owner I'll happily go and explain the situation.

Andy Say

In reply to gordonmason:

 Now the venue is lost will the bolt chopper please stand up.

A great shame Gordon especially after all your hard work.

In reply to Simon Jones:

It is neither a sport/trad crag as it is now banned.

In reply to Bone Idle:

Has it even been banned?? Your post sounds like a fake account to support one side of the situation............

Also the bolt chopper just stood up in the post above.......

In reply to LakesWinter:

That was after my post, well done that man.

In reply to gordonmason:

That’s quite unusual for the land owner to say that fixed gear is a condition of access. (I could understand them requesting lower-offs, as there are various reasons they may not want us topping out, etc).
 

What was their reason for only letting us climb if the routes had bolts in? It must be a big one if they have immediately banned climbing on finding that the bolts had been removed. 
 

Is the owner a climber too? They must have a reasonably keen level of interest in the routes to spot that eleven bolts have been removed, especially if some of the new routes had been left with fixed gear in. 

In reply to Tom Green:

Some good points raised there Tom.

In reply to Tom Green:

Looking at Winewall Quarry it seems a little odd to me as to why bolts were considered necessary/desirable? I've not been there but the descriptions and grades don't suggest unprotectable death routes. I could understand why somewhere like Noggarth might benefit from bolting but here? What's the rationale?

In reply to gordonmason:

Why did he want fixed gear and lower offs? Was he aware that he would have zero liability in case of any accident in his quarry or was there something else at play?

You say that the guy wanted lower offs and bolts as a condition of access, and yet not every route had LOs or bolts - many routes were fully trad. Do you know why he holds such a contradictory position? 

I was fully aware of the discussion around these bolts several months ago and I'm pretty sure Les was too - I think he was even at some of the relevant, well publicised meetings. It seems odd that the BMC access reps didn't contact the quarry owner/first ascentionists in relation to the debolting. There are several things here that don't really add up.

I hope this can be resolved as I was looking forward to climbing your routes. 

In reply to Godwin:

The minutes of the meetings are available for all to see and you might find there was more than "no one" at those meetings, although I appreciate that you probably don't turn up.

Your post is a bit ranty, full of invective and inaccurate generalisations and is the opposite of what's needed here.

In reply to Bone Idle:

Too bone idle to read the thread before replying

In reply to gordonmason:

There's one more thing in all of this that I don't understand, Gordon. In all the published interim guides referring to Winewall, which you and Les are named as authors/publishers, there isn't a single mention of access restrictions or requirements. Nowhere does it say that a low profile must be kept, and there is zero information about the landowner's apparent demand that fixed gear and LOs must be used to maintain access.

Why didn't you mention any of this in e.g. the Further Developments guide? All the routes listed in both interim guides are fully trad, many of which have your name on. None of this makes any real sense so an explanation would be appreciated.

In reply to gordonmason:

To Gordon,

We've never met. I don't actually consider myself to be a mindless moron, not a prat. Others may, of course beg to differ.

Id just like to try to set the record straight for the benefit of those following the thread. The vast majority of the routes involved were actually climbed first in the '80's, as trad routes. I have a copy of the original, handwritten guide if you're interested?  In 2019 they were cleaned up by your good selves, re-named and recorded in the first of the recent supplements as trad routes. Subsequently a few more lines were done, again by your good selves, and were recorded in the second of the supplements as trad routes or, in two (?) instances as sport routes

Subsequent to those publications the lines were retrobolted with no discussion.  

The process followed by the BMC Area has been documented elsewhere. Those routes that were 'trad' had the bolts removed; those routes that relied on bolt protection weren't touched. The lower-offs weren't touched.

I am rather surprised that you found out about the bolt removal on the 16th and on the very same day the owner that no-one knows pops up and declares a ban.

Les Ainsworth was a party to all of the discussion at BMC meetings so I'm surprised it came as a shock to you.

Finally (you will be glad to know) I too have been climbing for 56 years. In that time I have come across quite a bit of arrogance. But I'm scarcely a young 'Facebook hero'.

Andy

In reply to Andy Say:

It'll be interesting to find out why there's such an odd state of affairs at this quarry. There's no consistency in Gordon's post; in fact much of it is, as we've both pointed out, quite contradictory. I too find it odd that the owner bans all climbing with the threat of prosecution (quite tricky for the civil offence of trespass) on the same day that the highly publicised ex-bolts are discovered.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

if the owner exists, there’s always the chance he might view bolt cropping on his land (rightly or wrongly) as aggravated trespass which he probably thinks is a criminal offence. Who knows.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

I did think there was a whiff of “if I’m not playing up front as striker then no one is playing with my ball” about that bit. Even if this alleged owner is peeved that bolts on retrobolted routes have been chopped then unless you turn up tooled up to chop more then there’s going to be zero grounds for aggravated trespass to be applied. 

All seems very odd. Perhaps it’s just a Lancs/Yorks thing and someone is looking to manufacture their own “Attermire Controversy”?

It’s a bit depressing how people seem to regard the BMC area meetings. They’re really the only forum that can arrive at a formal “consensus” so you can’t just ignore them then cry “witch hunt. Kangaroo court” when you don’t like that consensus.