UKH

A sport route in Dovedale has had all it's bolts removed and the studs chopped by person/s unknown. The route in question is Resurrected, a high quality 7c put up last October by Mark Pretty. It didn't affect any other routes and with virtually no gear coupled with insecure climbing will likely never been done as a trad route. Unless the culprit/s come forward to explain their motives this is nothing but a senseless act of vandalism with no purpose. As the bolt hangers have not been returned it is also an act of theft.

Bolts were controversial when sport climbing first started in the mid eighties but that was 35 years ago. Even back then only handful of routes ever had their bolt's chopped. Those responsible had the courage to step forward to explain their motives and would typically reclimb the routes without the bolts. None of that is apparent here. This looks like the act of a deeply misguided individual completely out of touch with the times and with zero respect for the climbing community.

If anyone knows anything it would be good to find out more. I also know Mark would like his hangars returned. Thanks

Hi stp,

These bolts were placed without consent by the National Trust and the NT were not happy for them to stay in. To avoid jeopordising access to the rest of the dale, and to maintain climbers' relationship with the NT in Dovedale, they were removed. I am almost certain that Mark was made aware of this at the time. You can be assured that the decision was not taken lightly and the individual who volunteered to strip the bolts was doing an act of altruism.

If Mark would like his hangers back I'm sure that we can arrange that - just ask him to email me peak.area at thebmc.co.uk.

Cheers, Andy

BMC Peak Area chair

This looks like another reason for me not to renew my NT membership. I've been a member for many  years but have recently become more and more disenchanted with them. EG they recently closed access to a woodland  track which has been used for decades with the excuse that there were unsafe trees, this follows on from a closure 4 years ago of another part of the estate because of a fallen tree and access was promised to be restored after the tree was removed. The tree was never removed. IMHO those running the NT have got their priorities wrong (eg position on fox hunting until forced to change) and are increasingly hindering access by the public to areas which always have had public access. The governance appears to be led by a group of people of a certain class and age!

They should be enabling access in an environmentally friendly fashion rather than obstructing it. I cannot see a bolted 7C damages the environment. If, on the other hand, Dovedale was being grid bolted then I could see that being more of an issue. Whatever, they should be discussing how best to manage access with the BMC and taking advice from them rather than laying down dictats. One of the most significant aspects of Trust ownership is that since 1907 the Trust has the unique power to declare its land inalienable, meaning that it cannot be sold or mortgaged, thus ensuring that land acquired today will forever be held in safe keeping for the nation. This does not mean putting the land into cold storage but means that they are custodians holding the land for the nation which means allowing access whilst minimising environmental impact.

I know I'll be slagged off for this post but that's how I feel.

Remember, the rocks, and outdoors generally, aren't ours to do what the hell we like with them.
Just because there are other bolts there doesn't justify putting any more in, otherwise, it would just be a free for all.  Not a good option I can see.

I’m not suggesting that. Read my post properly 

And then there's HS2.

I didn't realise it was going through Dovedale.

What grade is that......

Slightly harder than HS, but easier than VS

😂😂

Good on you. Can't say fairer than that.

What baffles me a bit is why the NT are so bothered - I can understand the impact of outdoor companies bolting 5s in Dovedale, but a 7c bolted by local legend type? Suppose they have a sort of blanket policy maybe "this will not be developed as a Malham-type place"? I don't get their perspective tbh, because if you understand the thing, there's no danger of Dovedale being anything other than...Dovedale. Still, stp's post is quite comically emotional, get's the old bolt-war ball rolling.

Have fun!

Jon

I could easily be wrong, I'm just conjecturing, but it seems unlikely to me that the NT either know or care about the nuances of rock climbing development, not themselves being an organisation that have any direct connection to rock climbing. With that in mind, what is the difference between bolting 5s in Dovedale and bolting a 7c? And what's the difference between local outdoor companies bolting lines versus local legends? The end result to non-climbers is that bolts have been placed in the rock.

I'm not saying I personally disagree with your view - just that it might be asking a bit much for the NT to care about the intricacies of our niche hobby and weight it heavily against any pressures from other stakeholders.

There you go again  youtube.com/watch?v=7Oxqf_15k0w&

The impact. If 5s were bolted, the already busy destination would attract the same climbers who go to Horseshoe etc. 

I'm saying that they don't get it, that they've basically got the wrong end of the stick about the impact of a bolting a 7c in Dovedale. I don't buy the "damaging the rock" thing, ever. No one except climbers ever know or care when there are bolts in rock. 

Moronic comment.  The likes it garnered even more moronic.  Pretty sure it is obvious, even to the meanest intelligence, what point Mark was making. Still, this is UKC - the last bastion of the forelock tugging serf.

I don't think so, and one would have thought it was the BMC's remitt to make them.care.

Oh FFS.  You ever been to Dovedale?

it’s funny how just the other week a dovedale aid route was covered in the local paper that was done on new bolts, in dovedale.....

As far as I see it, if you want to place bolts, you go through the process of getting permission from other climbers and relevant parties via the BMC or else they get chopped. That should become the process across the UK, with the bonus for equippers that in doing so you may get support from bolt funds to help cover the costs.

Yes I read your full post.

So what is the difference between bolting 5s and 7s? 

Why does Mark need you to state his case? If he can drill a bolt hole surely he can log on to UKC to put his arguments forward.

Having seen this thread so far I can understand why he wouldn't!

The number of people likely to climb them. Easy sport climbing is rare in the UK yet the number of people who want to climb low grade sports route is high. 

If you bolted a dozen 5's at venue it would significantly increase traffic at the crag which has knock on effects of parking issues, footpath erosion, litter etc. A dozen 7c's on the other hand appeal to a far smaller audience.

The NT clearly knew...

I like the way he expects 'his' property to be returned - which he freely left on public display for the good of the masses. I wonder, if one of 'his' hangers failed disastrously if he'd be quite so keen on claiming ownership?

It would be useful to post the full facts regarding an agreement made between the National Trust (and the BMC) which I personally discussed with the then leAd for the NT officer at the time, and presented in full by myself to the BMC Peak area meeting, and minuted and agreed in public by that committee, regarding the replacement of rotting belays on John Peel, Yew Tree Wall, Brutus and the clearance of areas of vegetation, signed off by Natural England, with them in full consultation, for clearance of vegetation on Raven Tor as well as Beeston Tor..this also included replacement of rotting belays on Majolica, Faience and Solution Pollution as well as clearance of vegetation at Ladyside crag (aka the Chimney) as well as other agreed work I was prepared to  personally do, which I did over a very cold winter a few tears a ago  with all the expenses and effort out of my own pocket!

I assume now that the National Trust are not going to renege on this agreement now or in the future? I have a full copy of this documentation, as does the BMC, which was only done as an altruistic gesture on my behalf: it therefore disappoints me that the BMC instigated this issue after a request from the National Trust and not negotiating with them considering past agreements. Mark shouod not only get his hangers back, but also an apology from the BMC for igniting this row still further:

I worked really hard on behalf of climbers, regarding the access to these crags as well as putting in massive personal effort..freezing my arse off whilst cleaning and monies into doing these things and it really annoys me that the BMC has coalesced with the National Trust in this way..so much for the respect of my efforts? 

I am quite radical about access rights and consider that we should have much more access such as in Scotland etc, to walk, climb and wild camp, however bolting a crag goes against the leave no trace ethic, so falls outside this.

If I wanted to bolt a crag I would ask the Landowner and see what they said, if they said go ahead, I would see no reason to ask anyone else, if they directed me to another party, such as the BMC, I would consult them. But if I just went and put a line of bolts up someones crag without asking, and  some person came and chopped them and chucked the hangars in a bin, well I would consider it a risk I took.

Unless there's some extra detail behind this that hasn't yet been mentioned on the thread, I don't totally understand your point here. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between what you did, getting an agreement with the NT and then doing the work to maintain existing lines, and what Mark apparently did, bolting a new line with no prior agreement.

Presumably the debolting was an effort to maintain a good relationship with the NT rather than something that would ignite disagreement. What am I missing that makes you think the BMC are disrespecting your efforts? If anything, it seems to me that the removal of unapproved bolting is likely to protect the existing status quo rather than put it at risk.

It’s not that obvious. I’ve neither liked nor disliked either post, but I’ve no idea what point was being made. I was curious though, so feel free to share. 

You don’t understand my point because the previous agreement has not been published, that’s why I asked for it to be published. 
Personally I don’t think the BMC should be policing the crags on behalf of the National Trust, we should be negotiating with them, which is what I said in my message, I think?

My main point was also, that if the new National Trust officer doesn’t agree to past agreements, will the BMC support that, hence ‘renege’

Thanks for clarifying, that's much clearer.

So to clarify are you saying that the NT told the BMC to remove the bolts or else climbing in the whole valley would be banned?

And why this particular route? There are around 50 other sport routes in the valley. This route is one of the furthest from the tourist track and thus least visible. Are the BMC also going to remove the mess of old aid bolts that litter the caves of Doveholes, straight off the path for instance? That would surely be a much better gesture.

After 35 years of sport climbing in this country this is an unprecedented action by the BMC. It appears to me the BMC's role is becoming more about policing climbers rather than defending them. In a similar vein in Hidden Quarry a BMC person recently tried to stop people climbing there in a misguided attempt to protect nesting birds. The presence of climbers actually protects birds by acting as a deterrent to egg thieves. The birds have been nesting there for years and are well away from where the climbing is.

No, just a gently humourous reply to a daft bit of what I believe some people call "whataboutery". 

Yes, of course, and it seems most saw it the way I did.

You really are now looking a bit desperate in your attempts on here to provoke me into posting something which will get myself banned again aren't you? Probably about time you gave up and directed your bile elsewhere. Or even better just go away.

Well in practical terms Mark does not have internet access but that's not the main reason.

I don't see this as an issue between Mark and the BMC. It's an issue between the BMC and the climbing community. Routes are there for the enjoyment of everyone, not just the first ascentionist. In fact the people who have already climbed the route are least affected by the BMC bolt chopping.

This particular action was done without consultation with climbers and may never have even been admitted to had it not been brought up publicly on here. Incidentally the claim by Andy Reeve above that Mark had been contacted by them is untrue.

If the BMC's role is evolving into a police force for landowners, which is exactly what it is here, then that is matter of concern for the whole climbing community.

NT, like many similar charities have been financially hit very hard by the pandemic, so now is not the time for a knee jerk reaction of cancelling or not renewing membership. They do a great job in preserving our heritage, if you feel so strongly then lobby from within as a member, by using your AGM vote or even put yourself up for election if you dislike the way the charity is going but please don't just abandon them at this difficult time.

Hi Gary,

We definitely discussed the agreement you had with NT for the work you did replacing lower-offs and clearing vegetation in Dovedale when we were speaking about this issue. The current NT ranger for Dovedale believes that this agreement expired in 2018, and I understand that it applied to replacing bolts, not new bolts, as in the case of this route. Clearly this is not your understanding of the agreement, but in access negotiations we can only work with the current ranger, not one who is no longer in that position.

For clarity, the decision to de-bolt this route had nothing to do with devaluing your selfless efforts in clearing vegetation and replacing lower-offs that you did in Autumn 2017. I was there at the BMC meeting (before I was chair) and heartily applauded your efforts.

Andy

No, they were not that blunt. But access negotiations are more subtle than this. The decision to de-bolt in order to preserve the relationship and maintain a chance of reinstating these bolts or requesting permission for bolting in the future was a question of balance. I am certain that our access reps got it right in this case.

The bolts were spotted from across the river: they were zinc plated and I am told they were very visible. Also, these were new bolts; the NT are not asking for existing bolts to be removed.

I agree that removing defunct bolts is a public service and I would be in favour of that, personally. But this would not have helped negotiations in this specific case, which were about a specific route that the NT were concerned about.

I do not know anything about the Hidden Quarry incident so I won't comment. But I disagree that the BMC access reps in the Peak are trying to police climbers. These people are a dedicated bunch who have worked hard over many years to build relationships and mutual trust with a variety of landowners and others, many of whom hold the actual power as far as making decisions about how the land is used. They are also all keen climbers and walkers. Indeed, from a personal perspective a number of us wanted the bolts to stay in because it sounds like a good route - a long technical 7c on good rock? yes please! But in this situation pragmatism dictated that this was not the best decision. As ever, these decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes we have to accept that this means making sacrifices in one place or time to benefit at another. That is how access negotiations work.

Andy

It's an interesting idea though in practical terms I think it would never work. There are tens of thousands of climbers in this country and no easy way to canvas the opinion of any meaningful proportion of them. UKC must be the most widely read UK climbing discussion forum yet on here I'd guess that there are no more than a couple of hundred regular posters, if that. Then there is also the question of whether everyone's opinion is equally valid. Should a climber who's only been climbing 6 months, and mostly indoors, carry the same weight as someone who's climbed for 3 or 4 decades? How would that be decided and by whom?

Even if such practicalities could be overcome I think it would introduce a horrible level of bureaucracy that stultifies development and would be a complete anathema to the general spirit of climbing.

The way things work is that new routers have a astute idea of what is and is not acceptable. Natural grit is a total no go area for bolting whereas on limestone it is widely accepted. There are grey areas to be sure. But this route does not appear to be in one. Sport climbing has taken place in Dovedale for decades now largely without issue. The route has no chance of being climbed as a trad route and there has been zero interest in it by anyone. It does cross another line at one point and Mark went out of his way to make sure the new bolts could not be clipped from that route.

Well, yes. And I trust that the BMC do that to the best of their abilities, but clearly there is still some work to be done! 

Yes. 'FFS', did you understand what I actually said?

Seems like a sensible decision to me.

 I've got a (only slightly) off topic query.

 These things like you say are best dealt with case by case with access reps /landowners. 

At WCJ when vegetation was removed last year and the route Coot retro'd and a new line of bolts put in to the left by Stp and Mark was this done with any consultation with climbers /area meeting/DWT?

Got no axe to grind, just genuinely curious.

How did this agreement expire in 2018? As that Was Not written into the agreement, nor was the policy about replacing bolts but replacing rotten pegs and slings one of which my brother snapped onJohn Peel and some of which were an awful mess on Beeston Tor: I know this is semantics but the BMC should not be policing this issue but you use the word ‘altruism’ which is ‘selfless act for the benefit of others’ it in this case only for the benefit of the National Trust: it would also have been be to be remunerated for the cost of all the equipment I bought as well as some form of thanks

we will have to agree to disagree over this and I doubt I will put myself out again

Maybe the NT don't like the physical act of bolting, hanging around with a big noizy drill in public display ?  In any case if people are placing bolts without a general  consensus (again) and without landowners permission, I'm glad someone has taken the initiative to remove them.

If it helps maintain access to Dovedale then it is of vast benefit to all of us who want to continue climbing there.

In the real world, I don't think the defence could be truly effective without some limited element of policing at times. Clearly there's a balance to be struck but I reckon that on the whole the BMC walk that tightrope quite well.

That’s why I said it should have been about negotiating with the National Trust, not just policing the bolting and acting on their behalf. I have done my fair share OF access work and negotiating myself over The years both in climbing and in my professional job to know the law and consequences in an absolute sense

The request not to climb on the main wall and lower tier is still on the RAD https://www.thebmc.co.uk/modules/RAD/View.aspx?id=5648 Are you saying you know different and you think it's fine to climb there? It seems like a completely standard time-limited request not to climb on certain routes or sectors to allow birds to nest and breed. It seems like the type of thing that the BMC has been doing for ages. 

And the original transgression was ? You are having a laugh with this bolters hard done by stance.

This needs sorting out down the Moon with a few pints and a punch up.

This crystallises a debate we’ve seen on here repeatedly.

1. Landowners own their land. Whatever we think of it, that’s the legal situation we all have to start from.

2. The National Trust, a charity, isn’t perfect but as landowners go is about as benevolent and public-minded as you’ll find.

3. The NT owns Dovedale, also a National Nature Reserve and SSSI. Their sole aim is to preserve it and make it accessible to as wide a public as possible.

4. Someone drills industrial fittings into a bit of this land. Without asking. When the fittings are removed (partially) , apparently that’s the “vandalism”.

As climbers, sometimes we see things through climbers’ blinkers. The bolts aren’t clippable from another route- so everything’s all right!  To anyone outside the climbing bubble, this must look like silly, self-entitled behaviour. 
It sounds like the NT are being reasonable, allowing status quo bolts to remain. New lines is clearly a different matter. 

I’d be up for that! The route is a direct on Destots Gap. I made the mistake of chatting to Zips about it a couple of years ago with a view to trying it with him as a trad route so feel somewhat betrayed. The bolts presumably retro the upper section of Destot’s so he’s been a [insert expletive] doing that and all the other infringements and presumably using non-stainless as his wont. Still love him though.

I am thinking "Celebrity climbing death match" in the carpark.

First round I hereby nominate;

" Big G " v Andy " The Thinker " Reeve.

Let the games commence! 

Aah, finally, just think how much of this could have been avoided with the use of better quality matt finish gear! 

It wasn’t that visible, I myself couldn’t see them and I knew what iI was looking for! They became visible only when they were pointed out to the National Trust by certain’offended’ climbers?

?

Sorry but this sounds like Kafkaesque nonsense. You've taken out the bolts so you can re-negotiate putting them back in the future? What!!? If you'd left them in you could've saved yourself the bother. And when is that going to happen? Probably never is my guess. If that is really was the plan then were the studs left in? When Mark looked up at the route he couldn't see them. If the studs have been removed then the whole route will need to be redrilled. Is that part of the BMC's plan?

If the concern is that the bolts were too shiny then they could have been daubed with some matt paint or had the hangars replaced with stainless ones. That would have been a balanced outcome - where both parties get something from the deal.

The BMC's negotiations have resulted in losing a fine route in exchange for nothing as far as I can see. Less of a negotiation and more of a capitulation. Having good relations with the NT is worthless if the cost simply giving in to their every demand. And having good relations is easy if you just give in to their every demand.

Finally why have the BMC not said anything about this before? If I hadn't raised this on here no one would know anything about it. Maybe because they feel guilty about it? If this is the BMC's attempt at altruism next time please don't bother.

But that's a very big, a very dodgy if. The NT have the land donated to them to look after for the public - of which climbers are a part. Andy Reeve has already said they weren't about to ban climbing there. So if wasn't about to be banned then that's a straw man. Access would be maintained either way.

And yet here you are.

So what exactly is the issue? Why are new lines any different to the old lines? The shininess of the bolts? The worry that tracks will be made to the bottom of the cliff? We still don't know. Or is it just biased old tradsters stirring the sh*t?

No this is the first year they've done or said anything about it. People have been climbing there and happily co-existing with the nesting birds for 4 or 5 years at least. As I understand it the nests are at least 100m from where the climbing is.

There are also peregrines in Darlton 1 too. You can't climb there at the moment but not because of the birds. A film company is building a train tracks so they can crash a train off the top into the base of quarry.

I struggle to believe that anyone outside the climbing bubble is remotely bothered. Apart from, apparently, the NT ranger whose interest I still don't really understand. Apparently the shininess was the issue...?

I agree entirely that no one's got the right to bolt any given crag, that it's ultimately the landowner's call whether to allow it or not. I understand why some climbers don't like bolts (sometimes their reasons are good, e.g. spoiling a trad route, changing the experience/vibe of a crag, etc; whereas other times it's just bolts-are-bad bollocks aka "damaging the rock"). What I don't really see is in this case, what got the goat of the NT ranger, I'm guessing it's some kind of thin-end-of-the-wedge thing, where they believe that if this route is tolerated, then before long the Dale will become like Chee Dale, and no one wants that to happen, obviously. It seems that some people think that some kind of 'principle' has been violated, but I'm not really sure I know what the principle is.

Given what Dovedale is like, with its unpopular existing sport routes, unfashionable thrutchy trad, fixed gear, and old aid routes it seems like a funny place to get upset about someone who obviously knows a lot about what they're doing bolting a line that only a handful of the cognoscenti are ever going to climb. But, climbing in the UK wouldn't be climbing in the UK unless it involved some people chopping bolts and other people arguing about it. Shame it's not on some legendary, futuristic trad line that two fierce rivals were rumoured to have designs on - that'd be loads more entertaining.

Deal? But the NT is the landowner. They don’t have to do a deal.

 Having good relations with the NT is worthless if the cost [is] simply giving in to their every demand. 
 

On your account of this, only one route has been removed. All pre-existing routes remain, I think?

I’m struggling to get my head round the thinking that says, I’m a climber, I can do what I like with someone else’s property. I can drill in a nature reserve protected partly for it’s geology. And all that matters is “it’s a good route “. 

Disclosure: I’m a climber and a member of the NT. And of the BMC, who sound as if they’ve handled this carefully and with tact.

Or people hanging around in primominent public view with noisy drills ?  Maybe people object to that.  All in all, it's a bit "me, me, me" , isn't it ?

As Reeve said the shininess of the bolts attracted attention. As a general rule attracting the attention of landowners is rarely a good thing. Attention avoidance allows us to get away with quite a lot. In fact many landowners (especially large ones) would rather turn a blind eye than having to deal with a troublesome issue. The do-gooders who originally started a UKC thread (subsequently pulled) about this route last year replete with pictures is the sort of thing that forces the NT to pay attention. 

Errr...this doesn't seem to have been the problem does it?

I agree, from a climber’s point of view. But we shouldn’t underestimate how much the place means to other people- anglers, art lovers, botanists etc. 

I don't see what the impact on them is.

I’m flattered if I’m the old tradster - thanks!

The old I’ve-always-done-it-so-why-should-I-stop-now argument? Maybe times have changed, maybe even it was never really ok, just tolerated?

Biased old tradsters seems a bit rich when we are talking about the actions of old men bolting stuff.

Don’t get me wrong, I like climbing, including on bolts. But I can imagine that brightly dressed youths(of any age) dangling off a cliff, swearing, might spoil the peace and quiet Izaak Walton had led me to expect.

More seriously, I think the geology and ecology of the outcrops and the slopes below are part of the reason the dale is so highly protected.

Oi! You’re no spring chicken these days

I know that, but there WAS a voluntary bird ban in Darlton last summer until July, because of the peregrines. Is it that vital that you climb on main wall in Hidden over the next couple of months? I want to get back on Spirit of Ecstasy and do a better job than last year! But I can wait until midsummer.

Same way as the owners of Cheddar do, presumably.

jcm

You seem to be forgetting that we're talking about a valley that's already got plenty of sport routes, fixed gear, aid routes, etc, and that the line in question was a 7c that only a handful of those in the know were ever going to climb. 

If protection of the Dale from the ravages of climbing was the intention, well, that ship sailed many many decades ago.

I think we agree you wouldn’t really want to make a test case out of this, from a climbing perspective. That might explain the BMC’s low-key approach. 
I’m trying to see it from the non-climbers’ perspective. Existing bolts don’t automatically justify new ones, do they? And if bolts are ok, what does the NT say to the tenant farmer who wants to diversify with a via Ferrara?

I think we agree you wouldn’t really want to make a test case out of this, from a climbing perspective. That might explain the BMC’s low-key approach. 
I’m trying to see it from the non-climbers’ perspective. Existing bolts don’t automatically justify new ones, do they? And if bolts are ok, what does the NT say to the tenant farmer who wants to diversify with a via Ferrata?

Various bolt funds exist - certainly in my area. If not, they can be set up. With encouragement, people will contribute. I know you've historically done a massive amount off your own back. Few other people will be prepared to do the same in the future - nor should they be expected to. Climbing is bigger that it ever has been before, and with that should come collective effort - and greater democracy and accountability. That would be my view for the future, anyhow.

Bolts and climbers are not synonymous.   Not by a long way.

Democracy doesn't mean asking for everyone's opinion. In this case, the BMC should do a quick review based on existing agreements and state whether or not it is feasible. They should then facilitate a discussion at an area meeting and - in my view - post a notification on their website, giving a reasonable deadline for objections and asking people to donate to the relevate bolt funds. People raise any issues or merrily contribute - perhaps even help with the work. Bolt funds should also become places where others can learn to bolt well and safely to spread the load.

I'm not sure where you are getting your info about Hidden Quarry, but I can clear a few things up. I have been monitoring the birds myself for the last couple of years, and have the records going back further.

It's true they have nested there for many years, but in the last five years since the main wall has been developed and increased in popularity, they have failed to fledge young in four of those years. That's not all due to climbing necessarily, but the nests are right next to the climbing - certainly not 100m away. It couldn't be more clear that a restriction is necessary here to be honest. I asked climbers to leave recently after witnessing the birds being disturbed.

They are not nesting in Darlton where the filming is taken place, though ravens have nested there in recent years.(As an aside the restriction on the RAD last year for Darlton was actually an error, as Hidden Quarry wasn't on the RAD, and was a bit of miscommunication between me and the BMC, sorry about that).

Re earlier comments about climbers being a help in deterring thieves - I agree, hence the restriction only covers the necessary areas - so chunky and sit down buttresses are not included.

I can give you a bit more info if you want it, but would prefer to do so by email - you can get in touch via my profile - see also in there my recent article about the difficulties in communicating restrictions where both birds and access are sensitive.

I'd ask everyone to continue to respect the restriction at Hidden Quarry please.

I haven't been involved in Dovedale so can't comment on that.

Kim Leyland

BMC Peak Area Nest Monitoring Volunteer

For info, this was discussed at the November 2020 BMC Peak Area Meeting. Minutes available here 

https://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=4239

NT ranger: "Excuse me, you seem to be installing a via ferrata. I refer you to our contract which, although it doesn't specifically mention via ferratas, is pretty explicit that this isn't on."

Tenant farmer: "Yeah, well you didn't chop the bolts on that 7c in Dovedale, did you? So therefore I can install a via ferrata and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it."

NT ranger: "WT actual F? Are you mental?"

I'm not convinced your slippery slope argument will really fly. 

Ironically that is where the new NT officer is from

So in summary..

The BMC have made a massive cock up by removing the bolts in an established route. Not only have they failed to protect the interests of climbers - their whole raison d'etre - they have actively worked against them. Unwilling to admit this and apologize the only alternative is to try to weasel their way out of it with nonsense and bullshit that doesn't stand up to a minute's worth of scrutiny.

For anyone who really thinks the mere sight of the glint a distant bolt in the sunlight is problematic or upsetting for anyone other than aging, misguided trad climbers you only need to go to Malham. Malham gets thousands of visitors every year. The first and only part that most tourists get to close to is the bottom of the cliff, a section known to climbers as the Catwalk. This section of cliff is literally strewn with bolts. The bottom 40 feet is climbable everywhere and every possible line has been climbed and bolted. Yet somehow the tourists to Malham manage to bear the sight of all those bolts without getting upset or traumatised or anything.

If the BMC want to help protect the interests of climbers then I'm sure all of us welcome their efforts with open arms. But if they are unable or unwilling to do that then the next best thing they can do is to stay out of it. We are not powerless and not unwilling or incapable of fighting our own battles. Maybe next time there is an issue you should consult with the climbing community first, the people you are supposed defend, to fight alongside and not against. And if ever that feeling of altruism comes over you again, next time please just forget it.

Finally for anyone who still has doubts over any of this I'm willing to wager £50 that says the BMC won't be the people who replace the bolts in Resurrected.

A couple of things.

I am trying to glean where this route was in relation to Dovedale? Raven's Tor (Sport) or a more trad area

Secondly Limestone isn't the free for all claimed. Quarried Limestone is by and large okay for bolting (I know of no particular issues) but natural limestone is very much a grey area with some being trad only for various reasons.

No.  You keep saying working against climbers, but what you really mean is a a few climbers who just want to do what they like, where they like and irrespective of anyone else.  In this instance, and as a member, I think the BMC is acting on my behalf.

You keep mentioning aging trad climbers.

I think you need to check your prior assumptions. The generation who brought sport climbing to the UK are now old men. The protagonists in this bolting are not repressed young kids being put upon by the aging climbing establishment.

There is an epidemic of old men bolting questionable sport routes. These are often of low quality and climbing the lowest quality rock and features. In other locations they are retro bolting or basically retro bolting existing routes by climbing eliminate lines that are barely independent.

This is old people f*cking up access for the rest of us, in a quest to convince themselves they are still relevant.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case - the route was bolted after agreements were obtained which pertained to established route bolt replacement, not new bolting.

Ha! Fair cop - I knew as I was writing that someone ought to call me out on that.

But my point is to try and imagine how this looks to all the people who aren’t climbers but have their own reasons for caring passionately about Dovedale and places like it. (I realise that for the OP their views count for nothing.). Maybe to them metalwork is just metalwork, and has no place in a SSSI/NNR (points the OP also doesn’t care about.)

It did, it even says so in the description on here! I sat on an old peg to take one of the bolts out too, and removed a stuck wire. Tell Zippy I'm sorry if he's pissed I took them out, but I defer to the judgement of the access reps (on whose request I did it). 

I've got the hangers and nuts in my attic - can leave them down the school or something? PM me, or Moon has my number and email.

Alex B

Hang on, what's all this about fighting, other people have a right to share the outdoors, in our crowded isle it will always be about compromise. Problem is single issue groups such as the RSPB or NT get some hard line looney starting some ideological fight and everyone loses, and thats the route you appear to be going down.

For better or worse, the BMC is as close as we have got to a representative body, and though I do take issue with them on occasion, when it comes to access and bolts, I think they do an excellent job.

 

Keep banging on about it and someone at the NT might start to think it's a good idea to remove all the metal work.

You spout about the BMC like it is Amazon or BP. This is a local issue dealt with by local volunteers who are themselves Peak activists who more normally put up new routes, clean old ones and replace bolts. They are using their discretion to find pragmatic solutions and preserve good working relationships with landowners recognising that the solutions might not be ideal or consistent as if often the way with diplomacy and compromise. 

As a volunteer access rep I took a day to go and look at this line. People are entitled to disagree with the actions taken, but ought to consider some of the details first:

• The BMC and access reps had nothing to do with the NT becoming aware of this route. That was a product of Mark carrying out the bolting at a time when he would be and was observed. Coupled with a previously mentioned ‘do gooder’ reporting this to the NT. So arguably two thoughtless and deeply unhelpful actions from opposing camps. Leaving a mess that had to be resolved in some way by unpaid volunteers (AKA BMC thought police).
• The bolts and hangars were large and shiny and there were eleven of them. They were highly visible from the main path even in dull light (I went for a look).
• They were not stainless steel. They looked like 12mm yellow zinc passivated through-bolts, mismatched with silver zinc coated hangers. This more than anything pissed me off as an access rep… Why place mismatched crap gear that wont last? It suggests a disrespect for both the place itself, the public and for other climbers.
• Fewer, better, more discretely placed bolts may well have gone completely unnoticed. Who knows.
• However one views the arrangement made with the NT around 2017 one thing is clear. Whilst it allowed for replacing insitu gear, it in no way offered any permission for new bolted lines without consultation. Whatever agreement might have existed, this route was unarguably in breach of it. Being party to the agreement, what other good faith choice had the BMC got when the NT pointed this out?
• Technically it’s not within NT’s gift to grant a general bolting agreement given the SSSI status of the dale, this power belongs to Natural England. Obviously climbers ‘get away’ with bolting in SSSI without express NE permission on a regular basis, but this very much relies on treading carefully and knowing when to back off quickly and with maximum grace.
• Just because the NT may not have banned climbing in DD based on this route, that doesn’t mean climbers would have come out better off in any way if we’d chosen to dig our heels in. Neither does it mean the bolts would have stayed in place. There are plenty of cases of landowners hiring contractors to remove bolts, such as the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust stripping bolts from Thirst House Cave in Deep Dale. Given the strength of feeling expressed by the NT I very much believe this would have been the case here. Pushing them down that road seemed unwise at the time, and still seems so now.

Um..... Remind me, who was consulted before the bolting happened?

I mean, the one overarching golden rule that stands above all others in the UK is that if you place bolts where they're not welcome you're not allowed to be surprised when they get chopped. Everyone knows and understands that.

And yet bizarrely, the weight of opinion on here doesn't seem to be with you. It's a strong statement you make but the majority of the community don't appear to agree, just based on a straw poll of likes and dislikes.

But he's using alternative facts for his summary.

Yes.  One member one vote.

Does an 18 year old who has never worked have any less say in elections than somebody 65 years old who has contributed hundreds and thousands in tax and NI?

I know this was a rhetorical question, and I agree with you regarding the difficulty of bringing this procedure in, let alone the bloody admin, but I just want to make it clear that I feel the BMC needs to value all of its members opinions equally.  The older generation are the history and the tradition, but the younger generation are the future.

I think that people are getting the age and traditions thing all backwards here.

What we are seeing is a group of aging climbers who can no longer climb as hard or as boldly as they used to attempting to de-risk climbing so they can convince themselves they still have it as they move into their dotage.

It's part of a wider trend. I'm a generation or so younger than these bolters so it grates to be categorised as an old reactionary.

I'm part of a generation who grew up climbing on a basically peg free Gogarth. Recently some old guy, wanting convenience climbing starts retro bolting Gogarth. 

This is not a backlash of the young. It is bored retirees trashing the future.

With the benefit of hindsight I'm not sure it seems so unwise now, it's just inflaming the bolt wars.  Next time try pointing the landowner in the direction of a company that will make good the damage to their property, and let them know where to send the bill.  If the bolter is so sure they are in the right then they can refuse to pay and argue their case in front of a judge.  Just let me know when and where so I can sit in the public gallery.

Oh I know that, although I'm not sure I'd refer to Zippy in such terms!

What I'm saying is I'm fundamentally against one BMC member's opinion counting from more than another members, based on their age or experience.  

Frankly, if a bunch of older generation climbers want to bolt up an easy crag, and there's was a huge weight of support from a younger generation of climbers who started off indoors (and therefore more BMC members support it than don't) I can't see what the problem is? 

I know that's not what happened here, this is a harder route and done without consultation etc... 

Re. Gogarth, as I understand it they just replaced a couple of rotting old pegs with bolts.  That's not really retro bolting is it?  Or has some more bolting happened since then that I'm unaware of?  Try not to use the phrase "thin end of the wedge" in your answer

Please (surreptitiously) video it in case I can't make it 😁

It was routes that had been climbed by a younger generation, without the need for any fixed gear, having drilled, glue in bolts, placed in them by older men who wanted to have more convenient accessable climbing.

What happened about the dodgy belays?  I do recall the belay on John Peel being an accident waiting to happen.

To be clear, I think there's a world of difference between a discreet bolt on a stance and a conspicuous new bolted line in an SSSI. 

Thank you for this post. I have no real input here except to say that rubbing landowners up the wrong way isn't a good idea especially where they are trying to juggle various public interests.

Where in Dove dale was it?

I'm pretty sure that all of the bolts that were drilled and glued in were in the site of old rusty pegs, some of which had corroded away to nothing.  That's not retro bolting.  There are no sport routes on Gogarth.

Peg stubs that had all been climbed past by a younger generation.

Hence my comments that this is an problem associated with older gents trying to make climbing safe.

Yeah I know, but replacing an old peg that has been climbed past by a younger generation is not retro bolting though is it?  

Saying " Recently some old guy, wanting convenience climbing starts retro bolting Gogarth." 

Is a really misleading summary of the situation, and I don't think that's helpful, nor is the reference to people's age.

Do we know what the tourists think of the Malham circus? My guess is that they would prefer the Cove if it wasn't there.

jcm

Of course it is.

jcm

It's not though is it?

That's when a trad route gets put up and then get bolts put in later. 

These are trad route that had pegs in which got old and rusty, got climbed without them, and now have bolts placed where the pegs were.  

Or are we saying that if someone climbs a route and ignores the in situ gear we can now remove all the protection as someone has proved they're not necessary?

If that's the case someone has got a long job on their hands de-bolting all of Freerider...

This is an important thread about Dovedale. Can we not deflect onto the ethics of what constitutes retro-bolting. A worthy topic for sure, but it deserves a thread on its own rather than derail this one.

Alan

Apologies for the divert.

I hoped to make the point that this is not a situation with elderly trad climbers trying to restrict the activities of the up and coming youth as suggested by stp.

Yeah fair play.

I tend to agree. I think it is more a reflection of the increase in the pressures on land use which has certainly been brought even more to the fore by the Covid crisis. The free-for-all fairly anarchic approach of the 1980s doesn't work anymore and we as climbers need to realise this.

Alan

If we don't agree rules to play by, the next generation will suffer.

We are all likely to suffer if access gets restricted. 

So specifically, when I referred to ageing old trad climbers, I am referring to a guy who saw the route being bolted. He shouted up them and saying they shouldn't bolt and use Dovedale for training for France. This suggests he is or was a climber and his ideas are from the 80s (although even then bolting was never a means for training for France). When they asked "Who are you?" he turned away and walked off.

I suppose I'm also using age in terms of mindset not just physical age. Some people are still stuck with the 80's mindset and seem unable or unwilling to move forward and accept changes to the sport. And perhaps this is only vaguely correlated to physical age.

A working hypothesis is that it was this guy who went to the NT and started off this whole controversy. His comment suggests his motives were because he is anti-sport climbing and nothing to with the visibility of the bolts which he never mentioned and were only just being placed.

Irrespective of who exactly? Hikers, parents of young children, handicapped people? As I said above this route doesn't even affect the other trad routes on the buttress. The only people who I can think of are those who don't like sport climbing at all.

No, my view stems from the fact that this route will have no negative impact on those people at all.

I also strongly disagree with the implication that climbers are somehow of lesser worth, or due less rights than others. We have as much right to be climbing in Dovedale as walkers have to be walking there. Climbing is not an inferior activity. The environmental impact of climbers is much less than walkers because we are a far smaller group.

I'm not fond of screaming kids and such like. But its a shared resource and I accept I have to put up with that. I think it is only reasonable that we expect courtesy the same in return.

Finally in my experience I think for many people climbers, far from being a detraction, actually add some interest to the day out. It's hard for us to imagine but for many of these city dwelling folk they've never seen people climbing before.

Maybe he was just anti-bolted routes on natural limestone and old in the sense that he can remember the ancient agreements that it should be restricted to quarries, and required the permission of the landowner.

You keep saying it, but you're clearly contradicted by the person who removed the bolts and the routes description, which clearly describes joining an existing trad route.

No match for climb id:599710

Are you sure it was this guy who ‘started off this whole controversy’? Are you too blinkered to see that an event occurred prior to his involvement? Given that this is ‘working hypothesis’ I think you may be inferring too much from a long distant conversation between the bolter and the observer. Regardless, it is an irrelevance, the landowner does not want them and risking their ire jeopardises access for others. Why not just play by the rules rather than considering that the unilateral actions of the bolter are more important than established precedence?

Well currently we don't even know what the problem is so how can there be a solution. As Gary said he could barely see the bolts and he knew what he was looking for and the fix is to simply change or paint the hangars. This particular buttress is one of the furthest from the trail.

Abarro is now saying it interferes with a trad route which a completely separate issue.

You say the BMC want to preserve their relationship with landowners. Maybe they should work on trying to preserve their relationship climbers too.

You are comparing the BMC to Amazon and BP not me. But thinking about it, yes it's a good analogy. This whole thing has been dealt with in a secretive, underhand and dishonest way, just the way a powerful corporation works. The BMC have not come forward to tell the climbing community what they've done. They haven't even bothered to inform Mark, the first ascentionist who put days of work into establishing the route. But just like an Amazon floor worker his views, his feelings don't count. He is not important. He just does the hard work  establishing new routes from which we all benefit. But at the end of the day, f*ck him. He's a nobody. He counts for nothing. Seriously how much more disrespectful can you get?

To ordinary climbers it seems that the BMC care far more about their cozy relationships with the people that really matter them, the powerful landowners. They seem more than happy to bend over for them even if it means screwing over ordinary climbers.

The BMC shouldn't need to be brown nosing with the National Trust. The NT exist to protect the land for public use. And guess what, we are the public. They should be serving us. We have every right to be climbing there and shouldn't need to grovel.

Now I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss things if problems arise but in this case there doesn't appear to be one or if there is, after 100 posts it's not clear what it is.

A working hypothesis means no I'm not sure. It seems to be the only plausible idea thus far but maybe more information will come to light.

Except that's not true. The BMC have already said they weren't about to ban climbing.

Well what are the rules? No one seems to know. 

Could you not arrange for UKC to interview Mark Pretty, and get his views.

For an outsider looking in at all this, the fact the main contributor is anonymous and wears a Gas Mask, looks a bit weird.

 

Hi Steve. Are you sure this isn't just one guy? It doesn't really indicate a movement of "ageing old trad climbers", I mean most of the older climbers I know are really into sport climbing.

To me, this looks more the other way round. A 1980s new route gold rush mentality trying to hang on to the free-for-all that existed back then placing poor bolts aimed at a first ascent without consultation. Back in those days the access lines were less clearly drawn and the concept and technologies for sustainable long-lasting subtle bolting didn't exist. They do now and we have a responsibility as climbers to move with the times and accept that we are just one of a group of interested parties that want to use the land. We also need to have a responsibility to other climbers in the quality of gear we place. No-one should be placing bolts that aren't long-lasting. 

Alan

Your theory is the bolting was grassed up by one individual snitch and this has caused the problem. 

My theory is the bolts without consensus caused the problem.

Better be caught now and have things fixed ASAP than for this to have carried on for a bit and get caught 6 bolted lines down the road and for a real access problem to be sparked.

We (those of us with vested interests in climbing at Dovedale and on NT land) have got away with this lightly and chopping the bolts seems a reasonable response.

Simple rule: reach a consensus before you drill. I rather suspect the reason no one tried the consensus before bolting was because they suspected the answer would be "please don't". If you haven't reached a consensus for bolting before you bolt then do not be surprised or complain if your bolts get removed.  Expecting to get the bolts back is bloody cheeky - an invoice for the cost of removing and making good is more appropriate.

Personally: this natural limestone crag, in a beautiful place, with many visitors, in an SSSI, with a long trad history and moderately sensitive access is no place to go bolting and definitely no place to go bolting without seeking consensus.

Really?

Where do the erudite responses from the BMC volunteers Andy Reeve, Jon Fulwood and Alex Barrows fit into this analogy? 

Alan

I know that your message here was in response to Simon, but you make some statements which are incorrect.

As stated above in his (very comprehensive reply to you), Jon could see the bolts from the path even in dull light. More importantly, the NT ranger said he could see them.

Actually, all the BMC access reps are BMC members. Simon made the completely correct point that they are Peak area activists themselves. Your sentencce suggests that there is a 'them and us' between climbers and BMC access reps. This is a mischaracterisation.

This was discussed at a public meeting, hardly secretive. The minutes for this were kindly linked to above by Becky. Yes, a decision was made by a group of access reps before the meeting, but if we waited until the next area meeting to sort out every access issue landowners would most likely stop even bothering to contact us and the meetings would be filled with discussions attempting to make decisions too late for when they were needed.

As I said above, I thought we had contacted Mark. I'm still confident that we at least tried to get his contact information. However I'll take your statement that Mark was not made aware of this at face value, and so I send my apologies to Mark. Doing this without his knowledge was not our intention.

The exact problem has been made abundantly clear, but it's a long thread so maybe you missed it. The NT - the landowner - stated that they did not want the bolts there.

You have repeated what I said about the NT ranger not making an explicit threat to ban climbing in the dale unless the bolts were removed. Sorry if I was unclear, by this I meant that they did not make an explicit threat but that does not mean that we could just ignore their position. As Jon makes clear in his post, the NT actually have to ask Natural England if a bolt can be placed in an SSRI. Because not prior consultation with the BMC nor NT was made, this was a contravention of the expected procedure. The NT were completely in their rights to ask for the removal of the bolts.

You have mischaracterised this as the BMC not standing up for climbers. As an analogy, if I turn up late for work without my boss' permission, they may say to me "Andy, don't be late again". They have not told me that they will sack me if I continue to be late, but they don't need to say that for me to understand that they still, ultimately, have this power. My desire is to maintain a good enough relationship with my boss so that they will turn a blind eye to other minor transgressions and are more likely to do me a favour when I ask. Pushing my boss to being within an inch of firing me - just over one issue where I am in the wrong anyway - would be completely wrong-headed.

Finally, for what it's worth, I actually have a lot of sympathy with this statement. However, simply, the NT have different responsibilities and priorities to weigh against access.

I got the impression he, metaphorically, had his fingers in in ears and was humming for those.

It's not really the key issue here, but as I pointed out, it does. 

I take it you didn't read Boy's post above? See Andy's too. 

Given that it sounds like it was discussed at a BMC meeting, and it was discussed on the FB group for the peak bolt fund, it's hardly that secretive, underhand or dishonest. The "powerful organisation" was reliant on me having steroid injections and being off climbing for a few weeks to unleash its megalomaniac plan on the world. I'll code up the bot farm right after I've done my Kilnsey project.

Am I not an ordinary climber? Are Andy, John and the others on this thread not ordinary climbers? I am a bit bourgeoisie. 

There's an entire post from the local access rep addressing this question. And now one from Andy. 

Just so that stp doesn't think this is all a BMC conspiracy, I should point out that I'm not really a BMC volunteer I just has a spare day. 

It is worth pointing out that whilst our rights to go climbing are quite well enshrined under CROW legislation these rights don't extend to installing fixed gear.

This reliance on some form of acceptance by the land owner of the fixed gear inherent in sport climbing must mean that one needs to work towards a compromise solution where the gear is tolerated and not removed as has happened in other Peak locations as indicated by Jon above.

If we fail at this then we could end up with a situation where, whilst climbing is not banned, all fixed gear is.

Even I, possibly the most militant "anti-fixed-gear" person in the discussion, don't want that to happen.

As said the issue was raised and discussed at the November meeting. To save anyone else the trouble of looking it up the minutes read:

5. Access Update
Louise Hawson:
• There was a route that was bolted onto Tissington spires that someone described as “bolts that could be seen from outer space”. This is particularly difficult as there is a new NT manager in that area. In this case, NT where well within their rights to complain. The bolts are now being removed. Discussing if there's an option to replace these with less visible bolts but that will be a long term discussion.
• Andy Reeve: NT & Dovedale agreement for bolting. Need to explore whether previous agreement still holds with current ranger. Previous agreement was to bring requests to local area BMC and then talk to NT, keeping conversation open but this is a goodwill agreement.
 

While I accept that things are rarely perfect, I'm appalled if there has not been discussion with Mark. '...at least tried to get his contact information'. I'm sorry but this comes across as the kind of self-serving guff that politicians come out with, every day of the week. How hard can it be to get Mark's contact information? I've been out of the Peak for 20 years, was never in the scene anyway and don't even own a smartphone. What would I do? Contact Simon. If he didn't know, he'd probably know someone who did. If that didn't work, move on to someone else (Steve?) Not rocket science, surely?

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this, in my view, not having dialogue with Mark was astonishingly disrespectful and comes across as corporate heavyhandedness. I accept this wasn't the intention but... it still happened. If this kind of situation happens again, could you please have the thoughtfulness to contact the person and do your best to have dialogue with them? In my experience, the more reasonable you are with other people, the more likely it is that they'll be reasonable with you. Maybe a more amicable resolution might have been found. I don't know - and, sadly, now we never will know.

Mick

This route should never have been put up in the first place.  It was done without consultation, apparently in breach of an existing agreement, and without consent from NT and Natural England.  I find it difficult to see how the BMC could possibly have defended it.

Why is the onus on the BMC here?

Mark is the one who unilaterally, without consultation, decided to bolt this line. No one asked him to do it. Why the victim status? He's the protagonist. Without his action the BMC's job would have been considerably simpler.

I'm struggling to see how the BMC are the bad guys in this as has been suggested by a couple of posters now.

I'm no fan of the NT or the BMC, but I'm failing to understand why you have no grasp of this simple situation.

If someone turned up and spray painted "w@#nker" on the front of your house without your permission, you'd be within your rights to clean it off. Now imagine your thoughts if the graffiti artist turned up the next day and was outraged and demanding re-imbursement for their lost paint.

Great thread, should be re-titled "old guy throws a wobbler about not being allowed to do whatever the f@#k he wants to"

Based on what's been posted about previous agreements above, it's easy to see why the BMC complied with the NT's request to remove the bolts.  However, not speaking directly to Mark about it seems poor, it may not always be easy but he's contactable.  

I can see why Steve's annoyed. I think Mark deserves for someone to have properly let him know what was being done and why.

Why is the desire for courtesy and clear communication a one way deal? Where was Mark's communication with the BMC or  the landowner prior to bolting? If you want courtesy then surely it needs to be reciprocated?

Since you ask, I try to go with what I think courtesy demands. I don't make a calculus based on whether I judge someone has done enough to earn it. Their standards are a matter for them.

Mick,

I agree that it is a fair and proper courtesy for us to contact the bolter in such situations. Bearing in mind that this actually happened six months ago so my memory of exactly what was tried is a little hazy, I am sure that we did try to contact Mark. As I said above: "...I'll take your statement that Mark was not made aware of this at face value, and so I send my apologies to Mark. Doing this without his knowledge was not our intention."

Given that I have publically apologised for an unintention omission, I'm not sure what more you want.

Seeing this as 'corporate heavyhandedness' is your interpretation, although I feel it is a somewhat unkind one in my view. The reality of it is that we may have missed this on this occasion because we all have jobs and our prioirity was with engaging with the NT. As much as it is an important courtesy to speak to Mark, I doubt that anything he could have said would change the facts on the ground that the NT wanted the bolts removed and doing so was important for the reasons stated throughout this thread.

This kind of situation happens most weeks. Typically, we are in contact with all parties. This is why I think it should be forgiveable if we make a mistake now and again.

stp: I offered my email if Mark wanted to get in touch earlier in the thread. Since you've said that he doesn't have internet access, he is welcome to call me. I guess the easiest way of getting my number to him would be for you to email me, then you can pass it onto him. I don't know if he has any interest in this though so I'll leave that ball in your / his court.

Andy

That's fair enough, admirable even. Your post stated 'Mark deserves for someone to have properly let him know what was being done and why' why does Mark 'deserve' this? By your own standards would you not also criticise Mark's actions? Given the all the voluntary work the BMC team do why are they not deserving of a little courtesy and respect? Why expect them to go to further effort when the protagonist made no effort to engage with either the landowner or the BMC ahead of their actions?

Hi, If this kind of situation does happen most weeks and one slipped though the net, then fair enough. I guess it's particularly regrettable that it happened in this case, but that's life for you - well, for all of us really.

We simply don't know - and never will now - what Mark's position might have been. It may well be different now! Perhaps a compromise may have been possible (e.g. painting the bolts a neutral colour?) Or maybe a compromise was never possible. We simply don't know. It's the possibility of compromise - and, as you agree, the courtesy - that seem most important.

But I fully accept that mistakes happen. We all make them. Life, innit?

Mick

Problem is someone bolted a line they shouldn't have with what sounds like substandard gear. Solution is to strip it. Easy.

Only a separate issue when convenient for you. You were adamant it didn't at first but now it turns out it does you want that debate closed?

They're doing fine from what I can see. They've pissed off two, maybe three climbers here, and done right by the rest.

Could go out bolting without asking anyone. That's more disrespectful. Could use gear that'll rust too, if you wanted to ice the cake.

I'm an ordinary climber. Doesn't seem that way at all. Seems like they've screwed over two people who have gone against established protocol and bolted a route that shouldn't have been bolted.

There isn't a problem any more. The BMC and a helpful volunteer fixed it.
I have loads of time, respect and money for people who go out and equip/reequip routes for the people to enjoy. That's commendable. Thing is, everyone knows, and I mean everyone, that if you want a discussion about whether a route gets bolted, you have the debate before not after. Otherwise, typically, the bolts get chopped pending a discussion with the community which probably goes as well as this one has. Clear now?

In reply to Andy Reeve:

Courtesy and professionalism. But, as I wrote above, mistakes happen.

I think it's better to stay out of stereotyping - victims, good guys, bad guys - and just deal with behaviour. Even if someone was out of order (and I'm not inferring that Mark was or wasn't), surely you would expect a higher standard of behaviour from the people making judgements and initiating direct action? But I fully accept that mistakes happen. We're all imperfect.

Mick

The lack of direct contact with Mark is my fault. I tried to get in touch via a mutual friend as I didn't have his details. This wasn't fruitful in the end and I intended to follow up via other people but then forgot to. I had said to the other reps that I would be in touch with Mark, so as far as they were concerned that side was covered by me. Sorry guys. I agree, I ought to have continued to try and get hold of Mark and explain the situation. If anyone does have Mark's details and he'd like to have a chat let me know.

Thanks for being so upfront about things.

Mick

When you say, "This whole thing has been dealt with in a secretive, underhand and dishonest way", can I presume you mean the "way the bolting was carried out"? everything else seems above board and straight forward!

Of course people swinging around wielding a drill for a few hours impacts anyone out for a peaceful walk.  But that isn't the issue for climbers, is it ? It's the unilateral action in what was always going to be a sensitive spot.

This sounds slightly ironic when our climbing access is worked on - successfully on the whole - by amateur volunteers!

Evidently it did.

Quite a bit of the bad feeling seems to stem from the fact that Mark was not contacted about this, and this seems largely to be due to the fact that he 'does not have internet access'.

Really?  In 2021?  My aging and committed luddite father manages to read an email address I've set up for him.  If someone is refusing to use email, then they're going to have to accept that they'll be out of the loop. 

The question was, 'Why is the onus on the BMC here?' and I replied, 'Courtesy and professionalism'. Clearly the BMC has paid workers and unpaid workers. Should professionalism really stop at the boundary between the two? Surely most unpaid workers are adults, well used to professional standards of behaviour in their careers?

And courtesy - shouldn't we all exhibit this?

The chain of communication didn't work; I accept this. I'm not blaming anybody. But I would argue that courtesy and professionalism are in the best interests of all of us.

Mick

Absolutely correct about fixed gear.

I'd slightly disagree about your characterisation of our rights under the CROW Act though. They are potentially much less secure than many realise. 

Climbing is not specifically mentioned in any of the CROW legislation. Climbing is only specifically mentioned in the current non-statutory guidance. That guidance is nothing more than a legally untested opinion, as such, there is only a presumption that climbing is allowed on Access Land. Unfortunately that does not, to my mind, make the right to climb "well enshrined" unlike in Scotland where the Access Code has explicit statutory authority.

Whether it would be advantageous or not to attempt have the situation formally clarified in court is a completely separate debate... 

Might be a conscious choice?  

I’ve never had Facebook but if things are getting arranged on there people know how to reach me.  

  

Nope. It was because the person who was supposed to contact him forgot to do so. He made a mistake and, to his credit, has accepted this.

If someone hasn't got internet access, it's either their situation or their choice. It in no way absolves the people concerned of the obligation to contact Mark. And this, to their credit, they accept.

Mick

"at the end of the day, f*ck him. He's a nobody. He counts for nothing. Seriously how much more disrespectful can you get?"

I've got no skin in the game on this on beyond the procedural aspect of bolting and crag use and how it is conducted as it affects other climbers and other people more widely than just us. The above quote from yourself pretty much sums up my thoughts though.  He doesn't get permission from the landowner, doesn't canvass for opinions from anyone (presumably other than his own circle of friends who will be obviously pro the work. As such; Yes, it's definitely disrespectful of the wider community and the landowner so f*ck both him and his hangers. He chanced it and got called out on it. The work is wasted which is a shame but if he'd spoken to the wider community maybe he could have saved his time.

Mmm.  If someone in this day and age hasn't got internet access long term, then it's a choice.  And that's totally fine, but a clear consequence is that you are going to be significantly harder to get in touch with.    In this case, it appears that Boy made an attempt, and it failed, and then forgot to try again.  If there had been a simple email address to pass on, this might have gone more smoothly?

I chair the RMC on the private estate I live on, and one of the 51 house owners refuses to use email - her grandchildren have set up an iPad for her to use but she won't touch it.  As a result she's very out of the loop.  I'll print vital documents like AGM minutes for her, but I'm not going to spend much more time than that printing every single communication and posting it through her letterbox!

If he has the means to have a rechargeable drill, bolts, hangers, ropes and other climbing gear (I am assuming of course that he bought these rather than them being donated) then he has the means to have a smart phone with internet access so I can't see it as being anything but a choice. His situation may (or may not - for all I know Zippy could be a multi-millionaire) limit his choices but it doesn't appear that such a choice is beyond his means.

I always argue (with my wife) that it is the responsibility of the person who is "pushing" the communication to ensure that the communication was received (if it's important) but if in todays western society you chose not to have internet access then you surely have to accept that people may sometimes fail to contact you.

“Boy” tried to contact the person who bolted the crag, good on him, unlike the person who did the bolting who appears to have only contacted his own ego. 

People attitude to tech is interesting, I know somebody who is a highly paid researcher in IT, who refuse to have a mobile phone. Never had a good explanation, personal choice I suppose. 

I think we have covered the individual concerned enough here. Can we steer this back to the central issue of land-owner consent and bolting procedure (possibly that has been covered from most angles as well).

Thanks, Alan

I would guess that they didn't want to be trapped in the world of instant response and 24x7 availability.

That too is a choice you make. Every smartphone has a 'do not disturb' setting and can be put down. 

I don't think we have covered the access reps fully. It hasn't been properly said that their actions are almost the exact opposite of a 'corporate response'... they are a large group of highly integrated local activists with highly devolved responsibility from BMC HQ. It was said they were open and transparent in the area meeting but I'd add that this is in the tradition of dealing with bolt debates on a case-by-case basis.

In particular 'Boy' must cover over a hundred venues in his particular areas of responsibility and is a full-on access hero for what he has achieved over the years I've known him (as well as a prolific developer of new lines). I'd also thank Andy as being as sensitive and open a BMC area meeting chair as I've known.

We should be celebrating the Peak access team and I'm glad that's the general thrust of this thread. Too often major problems have arisen in recent years because some individuals just acted in ways they must have known were controversial, without any attempt at community consultation and with wider access risks a likely consequence.

Isn't it about time we started to designate individual crags as either 'bolt free' or 'bolting allowed' rather than the current non-specific statements.

This is a case in point where we are talking about an individual route on Tissington Spires rather than Dovedale as a whole. 

As an aside I am old enough to have been present at a bolting meeting in Sheffield where Gary stated that if the NT caught you in Dovedale with a drill you would be thrown out. 

John

Indeed... access to venues is not a static thing. I'm not getting at Gary in saying this, as he is another who has made massive access contributions over the decades I've been involved with the BMC (and is a better known prolific developer).

Indeed. Mine also has a radical design feature called an 'off switch'. I use it at night and it's like time travelling back several decades.

Now that I know it was on Tissington Spires I am all in favour of the BMC's action in chopping the bolts.

It has always been my understanding (following the bolting debates at various locations across the Peak) that natural limestone was bolt free (unless that has changed) and Dovedale in particular owing to its highly public nature.

Here here. Gary has done sterling work in Peak sports climbing and understands how access can be affected.

Natural Limestone is not bolt free in the Peak or other areas. Cheedale, WCJ, Stoney, High Tor...

That's not been the case for decades, has it?

That's true.  My memory is a bit hazy about the intervening period, from where I thought there was a general understanding about natural limestone, and the current situation where I'm not at all clear what the rules are. 

Edit: however, I am clear that bolting on land owned by the National Trust, County Wildlife Trusts etc without specific permission is asking for access restrictions.  Actually, any significant new fixed gear without the landowner's permission runs a real risk of having to take it out again.  

You are right having checked I see that there have been a handful of sports routes in Dovedale since 1988. Though they are very much in the minority.

Cheers for that Dave. As mentioned elsewhere I was forgetting about Cheedale, Raven Tor, etc. and my Peak limestone does say that there are sports routes in on Tissington Spires. So I accept there is precident for that

You are right I checked. Though Dovedale seems very much on the fringes of what is accepted

It is clear to most climbers, whether they like it or not, that there is a growing demand for bolted routes in the UK. It is logical that that in a few years time we will have a situation where many bolt free limestone crags, natural or quarried will become bolted and the only bolt free crags left are likely to be the classic and popular crags. There is a generation of young sport climbers emerging and the Olympics is going to increase the popularity of sport climbing even more. 

I think the BMC needs to get a more robust national system together to control the development of crags and somehow take it away from the current free for all, not an easy task I am sure. No doubt some die hard trad climbers will not agree, and some sport route developers will also object to the additional oversight. 

There are plenty of very professional bolters out there, but the risk I see is that less experienced bolters might make some mistakes and the results could be incorrect areas bolted, access issues, or at worst a climber being killed which might result in landowners rethinking access arrangements.

I think this is the point of my most recent post, the rules are not clear and someone (the BMC in my opinion) needs to try their best to get a grip of the situation.

Totally agree. 

Having been at these early discussions back in the 1990s, the natural-quarried distinction was never part of any agreement. It couldn't have been since by that time there were hundreds of bolts in Chee Dale, WCJ and elsewhere including, for example, Arch Enemies (7c+) in Dovedale from 1987.

Alan

Not all climbers are BMC members and the organisation is a representative rather than governing body. The future belongs to the future generations to decide the direction the sport takes. The BMC can educate about the traditions and heritage but shouldn’t dictate and enforce.

Regarding safe bolting the BMC isn’t in a position to assume the level of legal responsibility you seem to be advocating for all bolting and bolts over which it has little practical control. 

The ethos of the BMC enshrined in the participation statement accepts risks as part of the game and with the emphasis on individual responsibility.

It seems obvious to me (and most I suspect) that it is morally reprehensible to knowingly place poor bolts but also trying to police that out of existence is equally repugnant. Community peer pressure is far more preferable.

Whilst there are occasional maverick incidents and recalcitrant individuals the vast majority of bolting is done with care.

The current balance seems right and the BMC is no position to police and enforce (nor should it be). 

You're right, that ship has already well and truly sailed. 

I guess my point was that restricting to quarried rock was the original position, way back, and was at least clear and easily enforced, but was already being overtaken by events.  After that, the rules were never going to be straightforward and always seen as, to some extent, negotiable.  Some people negotiate before, and some prefer to do it retrospectively.

I've never been a fan of the mixed use approach.  It's not that it can't work, in principle; but, over time, it usually doesn't, in practice.  

Anyway, Dovedale is a specific case where there was a long-standing history of highly conspicuous aid climbing, so can we hardly say obvious fixed gear and tat are new, but we have a landowner who has made certain conditions clear and if we want to maintain access we have to be trusted to keep to them.    

Pedantic point, but I don't even think this was the original position. The first free-climbing bolt I am aware of was Lyme Cryme, then there was one on Multiplex and the first fully-bolted route was Clarion Call. These, and other Chee Dale WCJ developments, pre-date anything in any quarries. There were also bolts placed much earlier on aid routes on Raven Tor, Thors Cave and Dove Holes etc.

Alan

You are right Alan. (Teach me to fact check before jumping in)

I must have been channelling the ghost of Ken Wilson

I accept your points and they are all valid, but I don't agree with all of them, it is all part the debate. Although it isnt necessarily relevent, just for the record I would consider myself a trad climber at heart but I enjoy a day clipping bolts as well.

Good point, not sure I fully agree, maybe it is time for change? Maybe the sport is becoming more "mainstream" and needs to be more controlled?

 If not the BMC then would the Association of Mountain Guides be a better group to take on this role? It would keep the guides busy, creat work etc.

Anecdotally, I would say when it comes to sport climbing the understanding of individual risk is less engrained in the more recent generation of sport climbers, would you agree? In the early days of sport routes in the UK they tended to be hard routes done by experienced climbers, things have evolved.

It is morphing from a hard core way of life activity to a hobby/occasional sport to many people.

The key word in your statement above is "knowingly". 

Agreed. However one "maverick incident" or one "recalcitrant individual" could be the cause of long term serious issues.

Yes, although I think there's a distinction between the occasional bolt on an otherwise trad route (and these were always controversial and subject to elimination) and a fully bolted sport route.  

I have an original unexpurgated version of the infamous 1999 Wye Valley guide but, suffice to say, Clarion Call was a subject of some debate.

Anyway, I'm not sure channelling either Ken (although I'm sure he'd say he was right about the thin end of the wedge, although it's been a longer, slimmer wedge than he imagined) or Geoff Milburn, is likely to be constructive here.  I'm deeply ambivalent about the whole thing.  I can't get excited about bolts on the scruffiest bits of Cheedale but somehow bolting beautiful natural limestone in Dovedale feels a bit wrong.

But then I used to drive hundreds of miles to climb on even more beautiful bolted limestone at Buoux, so I'm a hypocrite as well as having a selective memory.  

What I would say here is that a bit of historical context might be important. The route No match for climb id:599710 has been an obvious and major challenge for years and is not some minor filler-in.

The bizarre route Destot's Gap (E5 6c) was put up in 1983 by Jim Moran and the afore-mentioned Geoff MIlburn. This was a slightly downward traverse left for 5m from George, desperate up move for 4m, then traverse back right back into George. Bit of a non-event presumably because the lower wall direct was too hard (and unprotected). It may well never have been repeated.

Mark Pretty himself added a direct trad line on the upper wall, Bye, George (E3 5c) in 2003 (so he has had his eye on it a while) which could easily have been combined with the techie bit of Destot's to give a more independent line albeit quite unbalanced.

No match for climb id:599710 completes the challenge that first started 38 years ago by doing the logical direct start to Destot's Gap up the thin wall. In order to either maintain his own trad E3, or because he wanted to keep the upper section more in keeping difficulty-wise with the lower bit, Mark added a new independent finish to the right of Bye, George. 

This is potentially a very good route with a great line and I doubt it would ever have been done on trad gear. That said, it needed to be done on good bolts and in consultation with the right people and only done if they gave agreement.

Alan

In your first 1992 Peak Rockfax the description says “It needs a direct start (currently 1pt aid).” 

Do you recall who did it that way? Also it kind of refutes the notion that it is unprotected. My recollection from abbing down the wall a very long time ago was that there were numerous small wires on the lower wall followed by a runout on the hard bit. 

Surely worth some strong kid having a look and climbing it on gear? 

Yep

Hmm, interesting. Have no recollection of writing that. Maybe Neil Foster might know. Doesn't appear in other guides I have so it must have been my info from somewhere.

I would be surprised if there were numerous wire placements. I abbed near there last year and the wall is pretty compact. That said, you are correct that something with a single aid point doesn't tend to be otherwise unprotected.

Alan

I'll hold your rope.