" Bowles Rocks will ban climbing if behaviour doesn’t improve":
Probably worth sharing here.
The longest you'll have to walk to the toilet block is less than 5 minutes, and that's assuming you're at the anchors in crippling shoes and take that long to hobble down. There's no excuse for not using the toilets unless there's a medical reason.
As for the dogs issue, yeah, there are a few who go there who let their dogs run around. I've never seen them being a problem, but I can see how it would be for some people at Bowles, especially if you're wary around dogs that you don't know.
Thanks for posting. The loss of Bowles would be a disaster for us locals. But I do wonder if they are exaggerating somewhat.
The dogs issue should be easy to sort with a few signs asking people to keep their dogs on leads. A threat of a ban for offenders. Bowles is a small place and is usually crowded. There are always groups of locals there who care greatly about their crags, so it would be trivial to identify the owner of a loose dog and request that they keep it under control or leave.
As for those who won't use the free toilets right at the base of the crag, WTF is wrong with some people? You could not possibly make it more convenient to use a proper toilet, it's a very busy place with families everywhere, and they still piss all over the place? Anyone I catch doing this is getting their photo posted on here and denounced in front of the crowds at the crag.
It’s a private crag, can’t they tell anyone they want to piss off (even if they’ve paid (put it in the small print))?
And ban dogs?
> It’s a private crag, can’t they tell anyone they want to piss off (even if they’ve paid (put it in the small print))?
That's exactly what would have happened in my days working there in the early seventies. The then no nonsense (ex RAF officer) warden would have had 'em out in a trice. That's if he'd let 'em in in the first place - not everyone waving his ten bob note (50p piece after Feb 1971) entry fee was welcome - he had to like the cut of yer jib!
Not a local, never climbed at Bowles, but sounds that the so-called owners are making a mountain out of a mole hill and are out to create trouble.
Even if that is the case continuing to give them reasons to make bigger mountains is unwise
There are signs all over the place in the Peak District asking people to keep their dogs under control/on a lead. It makes no difference. I was at a small crag yesterday, sheep nearby and a climber proceeds to let the dog off the lead. This over excited dog proceeded to rush around the sheep, try to take food (from the hand of the eater!) jump up belayers etc etc. Response when asked to put dog on a lead? He is a bit excitable but he doesn't mean any harm. This is not a 'one off', I see it often, even in places where dogs are banned! Dogs bans are starting to become imperative. And enforcement made punitive.
The dog, which bit my Mum aged 89 yesterday and tore the skin off the back of her hand was "only being friendly" according to its owner.
Don't get me started on irresponsible dog owners... I agree that somewhere public signs are going to be pretty pointless. The sort of responsible owners who read signs are not the problem. Bowles is different though. It's a small private crag, usually populated with people who have a strong incentive to maintain access. I think that the owners and regulars could enforce responsible behaviour. It needs the owners to define clear rules with signs though. It makes it a lot easier to approach someone and politely suggest that they put their dog on a lead if there is a sign to point to.
> It's a small private crag
Surely it should just be "DOGS NOT ALLOWED (except guide dogs)" or whatever the PC term is nowadays.
It's not exactly the countryside, it's not large, it's more like a small park. If you want your dog to run around, take it to a more appropriate space.
Well I don't like dogs, so that's what I'd prefer personally. However, I realise that some people like to have their dogs with them, so let's try and accommodate, yes?
Woah there, you do know where you are don't you?
Not like dogs? That's a bit strong, even from a Bowles climber.
I do now! You get likes for that post, and I get FA for suggesting that we compromise a bit.
I suppose I managed to piss off both the dog lovers and haters in one go, and there'snot many in the "I don't like what you're doing but I'm going to tolerate it" group.
Similar to when I worked on a sports ground some years back. An owner would come on to the field and let their dog (Mad)Max off the lead. It made a slavering snarling beeline for anyone who happened to be there and was downright vicious.
"he's only being friendly" she would say.
My mate hefted the spade he was using and replied, "Its okay love. I'll only give him a friendly tap if he gets close."
There's actually a wider problem here, which is the ease of access to the country by folk who may not share the same values as those who actually live in the country. In Scotland for example the Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park has had to declare the park a controlled camping zone but I know of a problem just up the A84 where the same people are coming at weekends in the summer, parking their vans in the same layby, partying then going home leaving litter, camping detritus and crap everythere.
> Not a local, never climbed at Bowles,
Then you have nothing to contribute, being, as you are, totally ignorant of the circumstances and history of the venue.
" . . . . but sounds that the so-called owners are making a mountain out of a mole hill and are out to create trouble"
There's nothing "so-called" (your derogatory description) about the owners. They (a charitable trust running instructional courses for schools, organisations and the general public) are the owners. End of.
Don't be such a tiresome old goat.
You were doing so well until your penultimate full stop.
The sort of person who celebrates an old crank not letting people climb unless "he liked the cut of [their] jib" is not doing well... Likewise, having a go at someone unnecessarily because "you're not from round here so shut up" is not doing well... And defending the rights of landowners... well... Add to this that my original comment made clear that I'm not a local and therefore I don't need to be lectured on "not knowing the situation". "Tiresome goat" is the least to be said.
But, it never surprises me how quickly people like to rally around a consensus, disliking my comment like stupid sheep just because some old crank had slated it, assuming for himself the authority to decide who gets to speak and what they can say. If these people learnt to think for themselves they'd probably do themselves an injury from the strain of it.
Someone should remove C Witter's spade, before he digs any deeper.
Actually, all he has to do is stop wittering.
With the five-mile travel guidance now lifted in Scotland, people are getting back to the hills and countryside in large numbers. At popular beauty spots, littering has again become a major issue. A number of organisations have made a joint appeal for more...