UKH

As an aside to the current thread on the BMC, i looked for stats on BMC membership.  To my surprise, i found that only 1/3 of the membership are club members - the majority are individual members.

Now, I'm a member of an affilated club, so have never considered individual membership.  Having just read an article on the BMC website about five reasons why hilkwalkers should join, they all seemed a bit week, to be honest.  So my question to UKC readers is:

What brings you Individual Members to the BMC?  Insurance, altruism, competition regulations ?

PS.  I'm not looking to start a debate.  If you can point me towards a BMC publication or survey that contains this information, that'll be perfect.

You need to be a member for climbing in cheddar gorge , and many other locations I think. 

Also discounts on their climbing guides are useful

In addition to Jim's points above:

Wanting to contribute to the stuff the BMC do around access and equipment safety.

Applying for Mountain Training awards requires you to be a BMC member.

Access to competitions.

Subsidised training courses for some stuff.

Buying BMC travel insurance is cheaper with membership IIRC.

Third party liability for mountaineering related activities and a small amount of personal injury cover (unlikely to go very far mind you). This ties into climbing in Cheddar Gorge.

The discount scheme might benefit some people.

Wanting to have a say in how the hobby is represented and interacts with government.

Wanting to read Summit Magazine (Magazines really don't do it for me and I am not sure how many members actually read it so this one is pretty tenuous).

BMC Club Hut access

BMC reciprocal rights card for the alpine huts (expensive way of doing it from memory, I think the AAC membership card already achieves this for less than BMC membership+ reciprocal rights card?).

Those are the main ones I can think of (I am also a club member and have never been an individual member so these are based on the benefits of BMC membership I am aware of, and things other people have told me). 

I originally joined as it was required for certain crags. I’ve kept it as they do good work on access and conservation. Not a huge fan of the mismanagement of finances and gb climbing stuff

From a personal perspective, I think the BMC do a lot of amazing work regarding access, that I'm happy to support, allthough in recent years the chaos that they've gone through has made me wonder about the wisdom of this sometimes.

In my case, as a fairly long-term individual member, it's mostly this:

With a smidge of these:

Originally for insurance.

I like what they do in terms of access too, so those two things justify the actually fairly low yearly fee.

Of course the (dis)organisation itself is a mess right now. But hoping this is a short term issue, rather than long term decline. I’ll continue to support them in the meantime regardless.

For my part: Insurance and supporting access.

The rest is largely irrelevant (to me).

Predominantly for Cheddar climbing, but also support the access work and representation of climbers interests (despite current BMC issues). 

For climbing at cheddar. Then stayed despite moving away as I appreciated their work. The recent goings on have tested my commitment somewhat. 

I joined for the insurance and stayed for the Access......

I then got involved after the MONC/Bob Pettigrew attempted coup as I had grown to think the BMC as an NRB is important and was orth supporting. As an engineer by day, I then joined the Technical Committee.

I will continue to support it by being a member, volunteeriung on TechComm and using my vote/attending area meetings to voice my opinion etc to ensure it stays on what I believe is the right path. I was actually intending to attend the AGM this year but was disappointed to see it is online only. Hopefully they can manage the inevitable and required debates well enough to allow voices to be heard, concerns raised and decisions can be made.

Originally for the BBC insurance, and also because, as a climber, it seemed “the right thing to do”. When the insurance became a joke, and the magazine an embarrassment, I didn’t renew my membership last year. Given the current state of affairs, I’m glad I did.

Travel insurance, liability insurance, access.

Full disclosure: I'm a club member now but wasn't always. And if it weren't for that I'd be joining MCofS instead of BMC in light of the current shitshow.

Genuine question, what are MCofS doing better/differently than the BMC? 

Maybe nothing, I can't say for sure, but they haven't shown the arrogance and contempt for their members and their direct questions that the BMC's leaders have. I don't think they've knowingly refused to release information that they have no reason to keep secret, and has to come out at some point anyway, when directly asked multiple times.

Basically, this. I’ll renew when/if they sort themselves out.

because I'm not in a club

I'd love to not renew, but need it for Cheddar. If anyone has an alternative which would allow climbing there without BMC membership I'd love to know!

This has been the case for twenty years or so. It was a major point in the move to 'one member one vote' in the changes to the BMC in 2003. The debate got pretty acrimonious, with IMs feeling ignored, considering they were paying the vast majority of BMC subs.

I'm a member to support the access and technical Work they do. With no interest in comps, and insurance elsewhere, I guess this falls under your 'altruism'.

Watch where you say that you are supportive of the technical work we do, you might get invited to help out if you're interested in getting involved!

Seriously, if you are interested we are looking at changing the way in which tasks are done by volunteers to enable none committee members to contribute to discrete packages of work without requiring them to commit to longer term involvement from what I understand this is a BMC wide initiative.

Mostly altruism- I support the access work, the technical work and I think climbers needs a consistent voice to represent them, both indoors and outdoors.  Insurance also counts I suppose. 

I don't appreciate the mealy mouthed title of this thread and it disappoints me . 

We used to use it for insurance but now use snowcard. We were forced to join again last year for a trip to slovakia that only allows UIAA affiliated body members on its mountains so we joined up and used the insurance again. It will be the last time.

It's really a bit like the Monty Python Romans joke with much the same reasoning.

You forgot:

BMC owned crags and BMC managed crags.

The two internal charities (Access & Conservation Trust....&  Land and Property Trust) plus close working relationships with Mountain Heritage Trust ....and Moors for the Future.

Supporting funding partners (ABC, Mountain Training organisations, NICAS, etc).

Members of the UIAA and EUMA in international work (linked to the internal international  commitee).

In the lobbying of the UK and Welsh government and the commenting on current and proposed legislation, this includes collaboration with numerous charities on such work.

Corrdinating Mend our Mountains.

Hills to Oceans initiatives with Surfers  Against Sewage

A trustee on Alex Maciintyre and Glen Brittle huts.

....I'm sure there are more as well.

Ahh therein lies the problem: You listed the things the BMC *does*. The question is (in effect) "What do people care about." The difference is notable.

They all fit under the points I made I think?

Either way, the BMC does lots of great stuff, it needs to do some other stuff much better and is working on it.

I am an individual member of the BMC.

It does a large amount of good works via it's dedicated volunteers: access, land management, technical. political lobbying for conservation etc etc. (It even has a department for competition climbing, although that department appear to not want to admit it. )

It's problem is it's inability to publicise it's good works, it's abysmal financial controls, it's complete lack of oversight of a certain department, and it's lack of communication with it's funding members, who do not appear to figure in it's thought processes. 

I am hoping that the new CEO kicks some sense into the organisation in the very short term, and explains to the members what he is doing, and who is resisting any change for the good. He does need to find out what direction the members want to go, and also cure the secretivness by opening up the communication channels.

In the mean time I will stay as a member, but that may not last.

Going back through my thread archive, I see that I got so sick of the BMC attitude to IMs, I turned off the BMC sub-forum (the one in UKC; it no longer exists...) in 2006, and stopped engaging.

The next involvement was the rebrand. I've kept out of the recent troubles, and the apparent shift to being competition-focussed.

I've been an IM throughout. Maybe it's time to reconsider...

As an aside, after sacking my BMC membership, I’m now a member of the DAV - the words “chalk and cheese” could not be more appropriate. 

Insurance, liability, access and conservation. I think the membership fee is totally worth it just for that. The response time for local access reps to potential issues is really commendable.

Why exactly? Even with the current issues, the BMC still does lots of access and environmental protection stuff here in the UK, right down to occasionally buying crags to save them for climbers. The Peak area meetings can be a bit old school ("a show of hands to accept the minutes of the last meeting please...") but you do see the numbers of meetings with landowners, local authorities, national park authorities etc. that volunteers go to, representing the BMC - to help us all with access - keeping it, and sometimes expanding it.

As with many above, wanting to contribute because of the work on access and safety.

Ok, I’ll ask - why the downvote?

With my walkers hat on, I would be interested to know, in fact as a walker, how would you know of the BMC, I would think the natural group to join would maybe be the ramblers.

"Mealy mouthed" ??  I just wanted to know what other members joined for, that's all.

Thankyou to everyone who has replied so far.  The reasons have been instructive and the replies constructive.

Oh dear, what a shame.

Knowing the BMC hillwalkers reps I'm sure they would beg to differ. Many of the access, environmental and conservation concerns of climbers, mountaineers, scramblers and hill walkers are shared.

I'd say the BMCs main target demographic is those who are or want to be skilled hill walkers with some aspect of adventure. That is not really the main target demographic of the Ramblers. There are clear overlaps though, and the two organisations worked well together in the Dartmoor wild camping campaign.

The BMC could advertise the benefits to hill walkers much better (like much of its good work) but Rose Gare-Simmons, the current BMC Hill Walking Nationally Elected Councillor, has 35k followers on Instagram.

Honestly, I think you are clearly a good and decent guy, but totally blinkered.

I walked for years in the Lake District, and had no awareness of the BMC, no awareness of climbing for that matter.

I have attended several  NW area meetings, most are really nice people, but IMHO, no representation or interest in walking.The whole thing is climber centered.

Not any more.... thanks to Steve Charles the NW have one of the most impressive hillwalking agendas in the country.

https://thebmc.co.uk/top-picks-of-2023

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/9rhCryJ5EE9R2djp/

Clearly lots of wrong sides of beds this morning.... what the hell is so wrong with celebrating some exceptional volunteer contributions from a local area hill walking rep?

I know Steve Charles and he's a great guy and the BMC is lucky to have him on board. But to suggest that this is a BMC initiative is doing Steve a disservice as he's been actively involved and promoting conservation on the hills for many years and the BMC have finally got behind him

Godwin said there are no hillwalkers in the NW area meetings and yet Steve is the NW area hillwalking rep. Trying to get hillwalker members reps in all local areas is a BMC initiative (led by Carey... a Sport Englad funded BMC employee who was responsible for the BMC hillwalking work) over 6 years ago now.

Anyhow I'll buy some badges... a good egg despite volunteering for the BMC.

MCofS, now called Mountaineering Scotland, don't have quite the same level of access battles to fight, and is I suspect a much smaller organisation than the BMC. I'm aware of a couple of Scottish clubs who, some years ago, associated themselves with the BMC rather than the then MCofS due to dissatisfaction with MCofS but this was over a decade ago. I don't hear any grumbling about them these days.

OP: I'm MCofS/MS but I've been an occasional individual BMC member purely for insurance and reciprocal rights in continental huts. I joined the Austrian Alpine Club a few years ago for rescue insurance and hut discounts so I've no need for the BMC services now.

It has to be said that when I found myself in France without insurance,* the guy I dealt with at the BMC bent over backwards to help me out. I was very grateful and impressed.

*Mrs 65 & I had gone out for 2 weeks after which she was flying home and I was staying out for another month. I'd got insurance for two of us for two weeks, thinking I'd get an individual policy after she went home. Turns out you can't get holiday insurance once you're actually on holiday. A couple of worried days were spent on a Vercors campsite making phone calls but all was sorted.

Yes. The BMC could advertise it's good works and it's existence much much more widely and effectively. Many walkers, and climbers (who started indoors) have no idea what it does!

I'm an individual member and have been for many years. to be honest I'm not sure why I bother these days but I guess it's just some sense of chipping in a bit towards UK climbing, plus maybe the occasional discount from shops. 

I joined the BMC in the mid nineties when I was climbing with a friend but not a member of a club. I think I mainly joined to try to feel connected to the wider community (this was pre-internet) but I can't honestly say that that worked. I think I stayed a member because I felt my membership fee was contributing to useful things like access (altruism if you like), and also for the liability insurance and gear discount, and because of general inertia. Most years the gear discount has paid for my membership.

A few years back I joined an affiliated club but kept my individual membership. Mostly for the same reasons as above, although I know that I could get the benefits that matter to me through my club membership. In the end, while I enjoy being a member of a club, my identity as a climber and hill walker is an individual thing. So I keep my individual membership.

Have you seen about club member upgrades? You might be able to save yourself a bit of Dosh for the same benefits:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/upgrade-your-club-membership_0

I dont think defining it as Mountaineering Scotland versus BMC doing better or worse is appropriate.

From the outside looking in there is discontent/concern with both, maybe to different extent, but for similar reasons.

Namely that both organisations seam to have gradually strayed from their core founding remit of representation. Yes both organisations will say their plans and strategic direction has been approved by AGMs, but the feeling of the grass roots is probably different.

Those grass roots still have alot of belief these organisations can/could be beneficial.

MS seam to often act as the Business development for the outdoor provider / training industry, they commonly appear to represent the government to us, rather than vice versa, being beholden to gov funding via sports Scotland and they were obviously unwilling to ask the us for direction when critical access to the outdoors was being denied  through covid.

If you looked at MS website today, you would struggle to realise that some of our finest classic hill areas are going to have bulldozed tracks, generators  and masts imposed on them. You would however find that their top priorities from that website appear to be a selection of beanies, requests to join or give membership and a bit of skills place availability.

Confidence in them no, hope that such organisation can get back campaigning for us on issues that matter….possibly but I’m not feeling optimistic.

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that. I renewed my individual membership a few weeks ago, but I'll try to remember that for next time.

Yeah, that was the contentious thing in 2003... IMs still supporting the clubs, eh...? Aren't we lovely, altruistic people...

If you email the office they can normally sort it before mid May I think, and refund the difference.

Talking of which I need to check if mine is set up correctly because I normally remember some time in July!

Thanks, I have oft seen comments saying "I'd join Mountaineering Scotland instead of the BMC" but no-one has ever articulated why. The grass is not always greener!

Forty years ago it seemed the right thing to do. This was the body that represented the interests of 'mountaineers' in a lot of ways. I wasn't particularly interested in the accident/liability insurance, had no real plans vis a vis Mountain Training....

Forty years on I have made use of the travel insurance sporadically, did actually get on the Mountain Training 'ladder', I'm still not overly fussed about the insurance and still think it just 'the right thing to do'. Who else is going to fight/negotiate for access on our behalf, do work on equipment technical issues, try to encourage good practice and offer support to clubs?  For my sins I have been involved in the BMC governance/politics in the past and, after a hiatus, currently. That's always been 'interesting '. 

It would to interesting to question the numbers more closely. How many of those individual members are also club members. (I've only been a club member through membership of the Association of Mountaineering Instructors - " "I'd never belong to a club that had me as one of its members" © Marx. G.)

Hi Dave

I've sent you a copy of a survey done in 2017 which largely covers this question and unsurprisingly comes up with similar responses.

Of note is how little support there was for climbing competitions both in the survey and in the responses here

Good response.

Agreed, certainly not helpful to a discussion on either.

Yes to all of that. I do recall a mild stooshie on social media and on here, some of the more robustly worded criticism being from me, when MCofS (as it was then) put out a statement to the effect of not supporting the aims of Reforesting Scotland on the basis that the hills would end up being all covered in trees, (they wouldn't, at most up to c700m). I don't engage with much that MS do, but you are correct that the proliferation of hill tracks, mast plans and rampant wildlife crime seem politely absent from their communications, and they absolutely shouldn't be.

Sadly agree.

I've learnt a new word, whats a stooshie?

Scots for a spirited but usually harmless argument. It has hints of handbags at dawn, but is also often used as an understatement; a big brawl can be glossed over as just a wee stooshie.

I'm not anti BMC and have no idea what all these gripes are. I might be one of these newer generation climbers who don't feel the need to join clubs, bodies or read about access updates. It's a crappy excuse but a lot of us just assume we have access because it's public land.

I'll say honestly from a position of total ignorance that these bodies often have a bit of a "room full of bickering old blokes with pens and notebooks" image. Way off? No idea.

The personal time anyone is putting in to help access , whether it's under the BMC banner or another one of those orgs is fantastic, thank you very much. You are quite right, I should take more interest.

There are often some young people there too! 

In all seriousness, the Peak area meeting is usually pretty good, a bit of talking nonsense with friends, updates on access stuff, some of the environmental stuff the BMC is involved in (I wound up having a day out on Houndskirk Moor planting trees back in 2019 off the back of a BMC meeting which was decent) and some updates about the stuff the BMC is doing. The meeting belongs to the members of the area who are present to get the info they want from the BMC (in so far as the staff and volunteers who are present know the answers and aren't bound to confidentiality), if they want nothing to do with governance they can always vote to stick that bit of the agenda in the bin (as a recent Welsh meeting apparently did). There are often chips too.

Why is the insurance a joke! I presume you mentioned the premiums. Is there a better option that provides as comprehensive cover?

Snowcard is loads better these days, unless there's something really specific to worry about.

BMC travel insurance quoted 6x the price Snowcard offered me this year - they could do with finding another underwriter, or the poor sales may become a permanent feature in the accounts rather than a short-term blip.

When the penny dropped for me that this was what the BMC did, it was a no brainer for me to join. I also thought it was a bit stuffy but on joining I sort of realised that if I refused to be part of the solution, then how could I keep taking everything with a straight face. 
This was before we needed BMC subs to climb at Cheddar, way before any of this financial nonsense. 
What polarised it for me into a good decision was when Chris and Adam had their ropes cut by landowners on Dartmoor. Steve Finlay led a peaceful protest on Vixen Tor, everyone was climbing, having fun, it was a beautiful day to be part of. The BMC had taken point on coordinating and supporting the comms and Just everyone there was amazing. It couldn’t have been further from the image of grumpy old men with notebooks. 
Then I joined a club and membership was automatic and out of my hands, but the reason above is just one that I would continue to fight for its existence in the current format. 

Wait a second.... What the ****?! A landowner cut a climber's rope, on two separate occasions?!

Lots of nastiness on Vixen Tor. 

Yep. It must be pretty well documented. I wonder if there’s a report on BMC somewhere. 
There’s one here actually!

https://www.ukclimbing.com/news/2005/09/vixen_tor_protest-20207

Yeah I always get a quote from both, just in the hope that the difference might be small enough that I can justify going with the BMC one, but it never is.

The MCofS tree stooshie was on this day in 2017 as it’s just popped up on my Facebook memories as I had a massive rant on there AND let them know my opinion.

They did reply to me personally but it was, as far as I can recall, fairly bland and designed to get an irate member off their back rather than anything of substance.

That's pretty wild...

I knew access was banned, but thought it was the usual stuff, not attempted murder.

The worst thing about it was that the Landowner had hired help who, while Chris was about 30 feet up on TortureI think, cut his ropes. He was actually ok (he climbed about 8b+ maybe at the time, but had also tied himself off to a friend and a decent nut), but the help then strangled Adam to escort him off the land!

You couldn’t wish to meet a sweeter more humble guy than Adam. It made everyone’s blood boil. While it wasn’t a  BMC protest, they  (Dave Turnbull) was pretty clear in supporting the cause. 

Bear in mind that any areas that fall under CRoW mean that BMC membership isn't needed for access as you have a right. If we accept membership requirements for any crags on CRoW applicable land, then next it will be mandatory: belayers' licence, walking trail permits, insurance certificate, rescue insurance, and so on as in some other countries.

(This comment doesn't suggest we shouldn't remain grateful and help fund the hugely valuable work done by BMC access team, the dedication and hard work of local volunteers or give us a right to be rude to anyone)

While you're not wrong about this, CRoW land is free for us to climb on (as opposed to swim, cycle, camp, other activities) partly due to campaigning by the BMC at the time as I understand it. If CRoW had come at a slightly later date (say, after the HoL reform removed many of the landed gentry from the process) many believe we could have had stronger and more progressive legislation. If not a clean cut 'Right to Roam' then certainly more access to waterways, forestry land, etc. which would be transformative. 

You do know CRoW can be changed for the better or worse and the BMC were part of trying to make CRoW as good as it could be and hopefully will be for any future changes. In the meantime issues arise on the edges of legislation.

Lord Grieves (BMC patron) led on the matter in Parliament before he sadly died. If you search Hansard you will find lots of debates like the following:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2019-04-02/debates/225256AD-5922-4AD9-8...

For balance, for euro sport trips I normally get a quote from BMC and snowcard (who I think are the only real alternative) and find they are normally about equal. I always find it strange when people complain how expensive BMC insurance is as for most activities (for me at least it) seems like the going rate.

I've got the individual upgrade on club membership.

Mainly for the liability insurance, but also because I'm SPA.

Next is funding the BMC's voice/action for the outdoors and then the other benefits lower down.

It was about double for our Font trip last year

Fair do's, for my el chorro trip last November I think snowcard was £10 cheaper (for a couples week policy). That was prior to the mess with the underwriters last year, alas I haven't done anything fun enough to need insurance since.

I do, and I'm very grateful for their work on this!

But equally I wouldn't want a very good thing to become used to create a de-facto requirement of membership needed to climb, or any other ticket/licence/permit to be an established norm for that matter

Are you talking about the difference between the north and south sides of Cheddar Gorge? From memory you only need liability insurance to climb on one side of it.

I would guess that the BMC proposed it in access discussions as a solution to concerns from the landowner about vehicles/ people being hit by dropped rocks/ equipment because liability insurance was something that was already available rather than introducing it just to enable access at Cheddar. I haven't heard anything said about licences or qualifications being made mandatory and would opposed it if it was suggested (given it would kill off clubs entirely without doing much for safety improvement).

Happy to report that our position is consistent that we want access to free for BMC members and non-members alike. I wasn't involved at the time of the deal but my understanding is that the rather extreme risks posed by the busy traffic under the gorge with open topped buses, pedestrians, and cars, the land manager felt that they would only be comfortable with access with the reassurance that climbers be insured plus the seasonal closures. Cheddar is probably one of the most challenging crags for access in England in terms of balancing the needs of climbers versus the safety of the public, so it was seen as an acceptable compromise which we have certainly not exported elsewhere as a means of obtaining access.

As things stand our advice isn't that you should join the BMC per say, but that you need proof  of cover (which does come with MS or BMC membership).

Our policy is always to de facto oppose payment for entry in general, and to keep things as cheap and accessible as possible, member or not.