UKH

Don't knee-jerk; hear me out.

We're quick to vilify people that create "art" on "our" rocks (never mind those that simply graffiti them).

But when one of our own smashes up an SSSI, we decide it's "good intentions" and we "don't want to draw attention" and we should "keep it constructive".

Actions have consequences.  Why should we be exempt?   The recent actions, and our response as a community, make me ashamed.

Christ, a few years back some folk (climbers) got exercised because the people that owned a quarry were pock-marking walls by shooting there.

Other people also enjoy the landscape for different reasons - including, but not only, the flora and fauna.  Climbers are not good for either of those even when we tread lightly.  So we should stop tacitly (or overtly) approving of environmental vandalism; or being apologists for it.

I'd've had the person who, without any permission or authority vandalised Aldery Cliff done for criminal damage and theft of the timber and rock that disappeared.  The place is utterly trashed.

Where'd you get that we "don't want to draw attention" from? The thread about the SW area meeting doesn't say that.

What would you like to see happen differently? The BMC are helping set up a group who will actively approach the landowners (hardly "not drawing attention").

Sure, but you don't know who it is, and no one's telling, so the only thing to do now is try to work out how best the community can make things better at Anstey's. Calmly.

Which is my point really.

Give us a clue - to what are you referring?

I’m not sure that’s quite accurate.

I think as climbers we usually make ourselves more accountable - we have processes to do things well and properly; we also have various forums for discussing things that haven't gone well.

Personally, I feel climbing is valuable, even if has an effect on the environment - from gear manufacture, to petrol consumption, to bolts or gear scars, to the removal of plants and loose rock from cliffs. But, obviously, there are limits to this. Indeed, one of the reasons climbing is valuable is because it encourages us to feel a guardianship over these landscapes that have disclosed their beauty, their intricacies and their vulnerabilities to us.

Anyway - cutting to the chase: maybe you should be a bit more specific, if there's a grievance, rather than writing off climbing and climbers in general!

Really?
After the first Lockdown ended and climbers returned to 'abandoned' crags there seemed to be on one hand a delight that birds had nested on popular crags/routes and on the other hand a bit of disappointment that those crags were now effectively a no go area.   

What is an SSSI?

A 'Site of Special Scientific Interest' - area protected by law for its wildlife or geological interest, see eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Special_Scientific_Interest

Isn't it normal to see the errors in other people's way, but not see our own. 

Calling out the use of plastic bags/cars/rock damage in others, while carrying around half a tonne of plastic equipment in a  a car, travelling hundreds of miles to clip some bolts at a nicely manicured crag.

I don't have answers but I do see the irony in some the  environmental claims climbers/walkers make

It might've been handy if you'd given some indication of what event(s) you're talking about.

Anstey

I fear a good few on here would cry foul at a delinquent graffitiing on any given boulder, say.. Joe's Arete at the Roaches, but have absolutely no problem in leaving it covered in chalk after a session.

I was disgusted at the chalk on the Bowder Stone when I visited it a couple of years ago. Shameful and caused by climbers. 

Over sanitation of the crags seems to be becoming more prevalent, maybe due to lockdown and more indoor climbers venturing out. On one of my local crags a lot of heavy gardening took place last year, even when the flora was off route it was getting removed.

I think, that as climbers we look at a crag and think that it's in a fairly wild state without realising that without 60-70yrs of traffic most of our crags would be much more vegetated, and would support much higher numbers of nesting birds, roosting bats, etc. Then we get in into our heads that we're acting 'environmentally' by taking our rubbish out with us, all without realising that we've been responsible for destroying some of the rarest habitats in Britain.

Due to sheer numbers of climbers vs. venues in Britain it seems like this might be a problem which increases in the future. In other countries such as Spain, where the climbing is also well developed, there's so much undeveloped rock that it's less of an issue. Like you say though, many climbers seem to think that they're blameless while being quick to point the finger at other groups of outdoor users.

The person is known and admitted doing it. Its up to the landowner whether to pursue though and I very much doubt that they have the resources to do so. I do wish there would be some kind of consequence though.

As to the moving forwards I agree, there's little point in getting out the tar and feathers on here. We need to highlight the system that is in place to avoid this sort of idiocy happening in the future

edit: rewrote the thing

Cordless pressure washers have come down in price, just seen one for under £40.

An annual bast with one of those might tidy things up a bit. 

Likewise on  number boulders on the Dales. I'm heard locals complain about the eyesore - some even referencing CRoW as it didn't happen before open access. 

And just look at chalk left at popular venues ie Almscliff - even on the easier routes that were first climbed in proper boots and no chalk. *

* to avoid elitism calls - I'm a low grade climber these days so these are the routes a plod up. No real need for chalk on them

I didn't know that and I don't see even a hint of that in the SW area meeting minutes.

Is it definitely just up to the landowner to pursue? Sanctions for damaging an SSSI are surely not just up to the landowner.

It's clear that the idea of not leaving a trace needs reinforcement. There's always a tension between fun and responsibility when one is making use of limited natural resources that you are sharing with other people and (in this case) with wildlife. I would say that we (whoever "we" might be) definitely need to make sure that "normal" behaviour errs on the side of responsibility.

Likewise virtually anywhere in the Peak. I did an easy little problem in the Curbar boulder field last year and had to spend five minutes, no exaggeration, trying to disappear the loose chalk from the holds. It was like someone had tipped a bag of chalk over the entire boulder, to the extent that the holds were unusable. What purpose does that serve? How can anyone think that that is actually how you go bouldering? That it's actually beneficial and helpful to their ability to climb, even ignoring the obvious wider problems?

I find it really disappointing the number of people who seem to be coming into climbing on real rock who exhibit absolutely no connection to the environment they're climbing in. They're there to go climbing and that's it. They don't seem to give a shit about anything other than their own fun.

I'd suggest that indoor walls have a responsibility to educate those who may take their newfound passion outside. If people aren't serving the traditional apprenticeship and learning the acceptable ethics in that way, there needs to be a replacement. But I don't know how that could be made to work in practice.

There are levels though aren't there? I'd proffer that the average 'dedicated' climber in the UK is more environmentally sensitive than the average person on the street. Carrying half a ton of plastic equipment with a long lifespan is hardly comparable to wasting half a ton of plastic (and associated emissions) by buying bottled water every day (as per my old housemates).

We will unfortunately always have an impact on the environment we climb in, it's unavoidable, but I think it's important to try to minimise that as much as possible. Manicuring crags to perfection is obviously not commendable; there needs to be a balance. If we were to act with regard only for the environment and nothing else though, we would never leave our mud huts. There needs to be a balance — but the balance needs to shift more towards nature and less towards our whims.

As for sanitising crags in the way that someone has taken upon themselves to do at Anstey's — just no. Completely selfish, utterly wrong, and I hope they are eventually prosecuted to the maximal extent possible. Anything less just supports the view that we can trash the world we live in for our convenience. It's not on.

Are climbers more aware? 

Some maybe, as for levels, there is the problem. From a climbers point of view we justify our use of materials and damage to the environment with "we aren't as bad as them" (take your pick on who is the current fashion to target), or we are more entitled to drive/fly etc because we are doing it for a "purpose"

As for long lifespan equipment, one the oldest climbing things I have is a worn out 23 year old TNF jacket, which is old in climbing terms but hardly long lasting. 

I'm no eco warrior, but there is no way I would call climbing low impact environmentally. Not the worst but certainly not guilt free

I completely agree, and I think that:

is not the right attitude to have. We should assess our impact in absolute terms and not relative to others who care less or have more damaging hobbies — but at the end of the day we do need to do something with the time we have, and no hobby that I can think of is without environmental impact.

I've been very tempted a few times to write a 'planet-friendly guidebook'; that is a guidebook to UK climbing that is accessible by public transport, focusing on the how to get there rather than the climbing there is to do. But I'm lazy and I'm not convinced there would be any demand for it. Because we all, myself included, jump in our cars and drive to the crag without second thought. Because it's easier.

I didn't own a car or have a driving licence until long after I started climbing, and the first years of trying to catch a random bus or train to the middle of nowhere and walk in to various bits of Northumberland always felt like a proper adventure — a full-value day out. With the convenience of driving, something has definitely been lost from the trip. Might have to go back to basics when it becomes possible again...

Cart and horse spring to mind.

Part of the problem with such an idea is piss poor public transport that keeps changing. Its one reason we put less in the peak grit guides than we'd have liked.

I prefer state solutions. For example it's long past due to tax aircraft fuel and we should be considering adding a carbon offset to all journeys. No more cheap flights would make a massive difference. The recent huge profits from licencing of offshore wind is a perfect opportunity to start a sovereign green wealth fund to improve green energy take up.

They outed themselves on here in a thread that was deleted. The landowner (as the landowner) and Natural England (as the party responsible for SSSIs) would presumably be responsible for any actions from here onwards which although they could, I somewhat doubt they will due to the limited resources available to them. While I get this it leaves us in the unsatisfactory position where it seems like there will be no consequences for those concerned. You never know though obviously. I don't want anyone's life ruined but something should happen even if it's just owning up to NE and the landowner and apologising.

The work done imo shows a certain arrogance regarding climbers needs outweighing all others. This is obviously wrong and with other cases also happening needs highlighting to prevent future occurrences. 

And...? Can't delight and disappointment coexist?

Ultimately, the solution has to come from the state I think. It's naïve to think that millions of people are going to alter their lifestyle for something that they see no immediate and tangible benefit from. But it's also sad that I can't see any government —certainly not the current one — making the depth of changes needed because it would make them deeply unpopular with those who don't want to change.

With regards to crap public transport, that's where the guidebook is needed (though the fact that transport routes change constantly would make it incredibly difficult if not impossible to keep it current). But I disagree that it's too difficult to go climbing by public transport; it just needs a different approach. One has to see the value in the whole adventure, not just in the vertical bits. I once took an hour long bus journey and walked five miles into Simonside to immediately get rained off in torrential rain back when I didn't own suitable clothing. We tromped back to the village, sat in the pub and dried off by the fire with a pint. We had great fun.

In an ideal world climbers would leave no trace, not even footprints. The ideal of backcountry travel.

The reality it they don't. Bolts, chalk, gardening. Climbers, us, are as selfish as most other users of our outdoor spaces

The 'windfall' money that could be used to boost green energy:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-b...

There may end up being no legal consequence to the person concerned, but 'no consequences', really?!

Trial and shaming by social media is quite an ordeal to experience I would guess. Especially when that comes from the group you count yourself as part of. Depending on the guy's state of mind I wouldn't be surprised if he already feels like his life is somewhat ruined.

Don't get me wrong, I object to what's been done at Ansteys as much as anyone else. But I expect it was done out of a misplaced sense of doing the climbing community a favour. As such I tend to think the guy doesn't deserve to suffer any worse than he already has. I very much doubt he's going to be rushing out to do anything similar again any time soon. So what else is gained by demanding a further pound of flesh?

I'm not so sure. In most cases where the law has been broken and damage been done (for whatever reason, good or otherwise,) a lack of consequence is not often seen as ok. "Shaming", if the whole thing went through the courts, would involve being mentioned in the paper and the like so being mentioned on a forum which only a tiny % of the population see is definitely more discrete. Added to this as pointed out upthread the only people who know who did it were involved in the original thread which has since been vanished. Many of those people also aren't any sort of local so where's the shame coming from? I haven't named the chap and no-one else has either so any shame could well be internal from having done something that was bloody stupid.

On a side note: the large chopped down tree that was on the ground down there seems to have now vanished along with the tall, waist high stump by Omelette wall. 

That is surely why it needs to be dealt with through the justice system and not by the baying social mob? The law is quite clear and freely available to read, and by choosing to break it you are accepting that you may be on the receiving end of those sanctions.

I disagree, I think it would do more harm to climbing and access in this country than good.

I don't agree that a court of non climbers would give a more appropriate or fair 'verdict' to the person involved than an internet forum of generally fair minded climbers, who collectively have specific knowledge of both the area, the history, the work, and all other important contextual considerations.

I don't see what extra lessons would be learned by an individual prosecution.

I do think it would have a chilling influence on necessary crag maintenance (e.g. loose block removal) which sometimes goes on under the radar for various very good reasons.

Um, no.  Climbers just like us have severely damaged a SSSI, on land they don't own and to which they have no access agreement, in pursuit of more convenience whilst udertaking a passtime.  I think climbers imagining that we have "specific knowledge of all other important contextual considerations" is demonstrably false.

Maybe if the guy who butchered Aldery had been named and pictured and prosecuted (There were bat roosts in one crack he filled with soil!) the publicity may have made others more aware of the various laws and made them become more circumspect. Of course it may not have. Some people would do stuff to suit themselves, regardless of the law, which is why we have a justice system!

Then yes, if that is the prevailing attitude of the climbing community, climbers clearly are less accountable for our actions.

The man has just trashed an SSSI, with a knock-on effect to wildlife and to other non-climbers who enjoy the landscape, and to the landowner. Burying that just because it might affect our hobby is selfish and irresponsible. It's not just about climbing.

Personally I don't think a prosecution is probably appropriate at least in this case. I do however feel that the correct procedures should be followed and it should be up to Landowner/NE to decide. I very much doubt they would or even could go down the full prosecution route if this is anything to go by:  https://www.endsreport.com/article/1670562/natural-englands-lifetime-prosec... . 

It is 100% up to them through, and the fact that it would be an official caution would probably be more off putting to the next over-enthusiastic good Samaritan than the Alderly case where it seemed to be all smoothed over with no repercussions at all for the party involved. As it stands, at the area meeting someone said that they'd spoken to the guy and "he was sorry and won't do any more" or something to that effect. Whether this was actually the case or people trying to smooth things over I can't say but it would be nice to know that there had been something more concrete than that. You assume that there's genuine contrition for the damage caused to the site and indeed there may be. Conversely though, there may be none at all and the guy is laughing his a*se off as the work is done and dusted and there's no comeback coming. Even if it ended up with him having to speak to the LO or NE, actually apologise and get warned its going to be more off putting and hopefully dissuade him (or others) from trying anything else like it if he or others was considering it ion the future.

In reply to Removed Usercook:

There's definitely something to be said for this argument.

In reply to Removed UserTehmarks:

No indeed it's not. Climbing is good part of it but it shouldn't be all of it.

You didn't see the other thread? I saw little but condemnation of the action. 

I don't share your faith that courts would have any interest in any wider question beyond what laws had been broken. I'm not sure all climbers getting tarred with that brush is fair or helpful. 

Which bits of context regarding these actions do you think climbers on here don't know?

It would be if anyone implied that was what should happen.

My point is it has already been brought to the attention of the landowner and discussed in depth on several internet platforms and at least one meeting. In what sense is that buried? And in what way is a prosecution going to make anything better? 

If I run your [child/partner/grandma] over because I'm on the phone, what further lessons are there to be learnt from prosecuting me? We already know that it's wrong to be on the phone while driving. But it wouldn't be right, would it?

"I don't share your faith that courts would have any interest in any wider question beyond what laws had been broken. I'm not sure all climbers getting tarred with that brush is fair or helpful. "

why should they be concerned with anything other than the law - including good intentions?  As to the tarred with the same brush argument; does that apply to everything? As a car driver I've never particularly felt hated because of the antics of some pisshead in a car .

edit: adding something for clarity

To elaborate, it's all well and good being apologetic but it doesn't help the potentially endangered bats, it doesn't unfell the trees and it doesn't repair the landscape. You don't need to be Einstein to realise that destroying an environment within a fragile and protected ecosystem and on someone else's land is not right.

I can only conclude that the person in question is either stupid, or knows this and did it anyway. Why should they not face meaningful punishment? What's the point in having laws that aren't enforced? And why should a court of law consider anything other than the facts as they pertain to the law?

If there's any negative effect to climbing or to access, there is only one person who can be blamed for it.

There was some - but there was also quite a lot of "well meaninng", and of course it's been deleted.  Which is pretty shameful.  Perverting justice?

Well, "climbers" seem to serially do stupid shit like this.  Generally gardening and tree removal without consulation of the landowner or other potentially interested groups.  And our reaction when challenged is to hide the purpetrator and make noises about good intentions, rather than being as indignant as we are when someone paints "our" rocks.  So we seem to be frequently unaware of context like land ownership, SSSIs, other users/enjoyers.

The actions were as obviously wrong as flytipping or staright out vandalism to anyone that thinks about it for a moment.  Why do we feel that the individual should not be held to account?

In that instance I wouldn't take a very unbiased view. I would possibly wish for some sort retribution, however irrational that might be. I'm not sure the irrational wish for some catharsis after the loss of a loved one is in any way an appropriate comparison. I'm not sure it really deserved dignifying with such a long reply in all honest. 

My point is that they won't be, and nor should they. And as a consequence the outcome may have negative implications for climbing access, as well as being needlessly punitive for someone who's already probably learn their lesson and suffered a fair amount.

And yes a court case reported in the press is quite likely to cast climbers in a bad light and doesn't help people wishing to undertake any form of crag maintenance, however minor or necessary.

The thing is, the creatures that have now lost their habitat — perhaps their lives — can't seek retribution. Because they're not human. They can't articulate their problems to us, they can't prosecute the perpetrator, and they can't go and beat the shit out of him. There's a reason that the area is an SSSI, and ignoring the fact that some idiot has just caused serious damage to it for entirely selfish reasons just because it may cause problems for our hobby is utterly selfish. And it shouldn't be at the sole discretion of the landowner in the same way that the landowner has just as little right to cause that damage.

I can't believe that you can come to any other conclusion. If this was an estate owner causing equivalent damage to a SSSI in say the Peak District, we'd be looking for blood. It's hypocrisy at its worst.

How exactly do bats and trees benefit from this prosecution? Given we are agreed the whole climbing community condemns the action in the first place and the guy is hardly likely to do the same thing again.

Fortunately you don't get to choose, or you'd hold the blame also for shipping the guy off to court.

So what's the point of having a law to protect sensitive environments when all that is actually required is to apologise for damaging them? Where is the deterrent to others who now see that they can do whatever they want as long as they appear to be contrite about it after the fact? How do you actually know the person in question isn't actually laughing their arse off because they've escaped any consequence for what they've done?

How do bats and trees benefit from a prosecution? Because the next 'wit might think twice before felling trees and destroying habitats. And the current 'wit almost certainly will think twice. You're postulating that they feel guilty, that they're suffering for their actions. That's pure conjecture.

Knock-on effects to climbing? Screw climbing, if this is what we think is acceptable. And I say that as someone whose sole passion is climbing things.

I think the nub of this is that you are assuming this guy is not contrite, hasn't really suffered, and that other climbers will look at this case and see no deterrent to copycat action.

I disagree on all counts.

It's a balance of probability thing regards contrition. But given I only see negatives for the climbing community (and no actual benefit for the environment) in a prosecution, I'm happy to go with my instincts in this instance.

No, I'm stating that the law should be applied fairly and equally to all who break it. The climbing community are not and should not be the arbiters in this matter, and any consequences to climbing lie fully at the door of the moron who decided to dig up a sensitive habitat.

It's no wonder the world is f*cked.

That's a very absolutist stance to take. Really, is there no room for nuance? No instance where you wouldn't rather a climber wasn't presecuted for contravening UK law? Not even a tiny bit of wiggle room?

You do know it is illegal to uproot any plant without the permission of a landowner? You've never pulled a sprig of grass out of a pocket?

My point is absolutist positions tend to be absurd. Insisting there are no grey areas is just making a rod for your own back. Where the grey becomes black is the real question. I don't for a minute believe you are really that rigid. I think you're just adopting a rhetorical posture.

I guess that's why they have things like the CPS, courts, jury's and judges, not your mates to decide on guilt and punishment. 

"may have negative implications for climbing access"

it indeed could do. I don't want that but if that happened that would be fair enough - its an SSSI and should be treated as such. You do the crime, you do the time. As I said earlier it's bloody arrogant to think that the rules don't apply for him, you, me or us. Hopefully this would be mitigated by the wider community condemning and disavowing the damage. If not then so be it and hard lessons would have to be learnt. Over time access would no doubt be discreetly regained.

"as well as being needlessly punitive for someone who's already probably learn their lesson and suffered a fair amount" 

Probably learnt their lesson. Maybe or maybe not. He certainly didn't come across as remotely remorseful in the previous thread; his attitude came across as "f*ck y'all, I'm gonna carry on as I don't care what anyone says" and that's exactly what he did. As such I'm finding it slightly difficult to be too sympathetic and believe he's had a sudden bout of contrition.  As to the potential for serious ramifications did you not look at the link I posted? The chance of getting any sort of punitive sentence seems vanishingly unlikely. It would almost definitely result in a warning letter and a caution. It would be be something official that would hopefully discourage him and others though and mean the system was being applied throughout.

"doesn't help people wishing to undertake any form of crag maintenance" 

Agreed but lets be completely honest, the work that went on down there wasn't maintenance any more than me building an extension on my house is. Maintenance is *90% * of the time quite unobtrusive and unless you know what you're looking at you probably won't really notice anything too much. This was not that in any way.

The rules are the rules and should apply equally to everyone.

edit: spelling

Of course there is room for nuance — but the man has destroyed a sensitive and protected environment. That's not a little whoopsie — that's a serious transgression in my mind. It's not like he's fallen foul of an obscure or arcane law, is it? And we're not the only stakeholders, are we? Birdwatchers, walkers, those who care deeply about conservation — they all have a right to impartial justice, and we have a justice system to deliver that. What sort of message about climbing does it send to those people to hide the perpetrator among us and close ranks? And it's not like it's the first time that climbers have taken it upon themselves to trash sensitive places either, is it? Perhaps if there was some real consequence for doing so, we'd stop doing it?

Maybe I'm unreasonable, but I don't think my hobby is so important that it justifies ignoring wilful destruction of sensitive bits of the natural world. Again, if this were on an estate in the Peak, there'd be a baying mob. Nuance that is dependent on one's own interests is called hypocrisy. Not all issues are black-and-white, you are right, but this one falls well foul of my fundamental morals. There is no grey: it's plain wrong.

I must apologise though: I conflated johncook's reply with Anstey's. Perhaps no endangered bats have been displaced, but other animals almost certainly have.

Did you look at the photos?

Your "grey area" is what's absurd.  It's not nuanced; it's vandalism - and you want to defend it for some inexplicable reason.

I didn't suggest the Anstey's mess fell within any grey area. I made my disgust regards it plain in previous posts. I was talking about the principle that it's in everyone's interests that all breaches of law should be punished, in all cases.

If your case is so strong, why are you having to resort to putting words in my mouth to make it? This applies to a couple of the other posts above that I don't have time to reply to. I enjoy a good debate, but only where the content of a post is critiqued, rather than a convenient parody.

I think there is every reason to doubt that regaining access would just be a matter of time. 

Yes, I saw the images via previous threads on this board and UKB. Hence my condemnation.

This person's contrition or lack of is of secondary import to the damage to local climbers and access in my view. If a prosecution was guaranteed to not damage these I might be persuaded it had some value. As things stand the interests of entirely unconnected innocent local climbers have been damaged by the reckless actions of one outlier individual. I'd rather this damage was not compounded.

Yes I agree. Did anyone suggest otherwise? But it's beside the point. A legal verdict may just amount to 'wilfully damaging an SSSI' with no particular accounting for scale, in which case it might equally apply to something we consider within the remit of maintenance, e.g. trundling a loose block. This was my point early about the difference between a climber's perspective and a court's when it comes to assessing how egregious a particular action is. Both the major and the minor (form our perspective) may be legally the same to a court.

Surely if there are access issues for climbers arising from this then it would make it less likely for others to do the same and more likely that other climbers would nip this sort of behavior in the bud if they did see it. I don't think we want to get in the mess that mountain biking is in with illegal trail building.

It has to be seen as completely unacceptable or it'll run away from us and large scale damage up and down the country will threaten access for everyone. It sounds harsh but they should be made an example of to stop this sort of thing from ever happening again. Condemnation from a few on a UKC forum is not real punishment.

Maybe, or maybe it might contribute to an eventual ban on climbing at said crag. Is it worth the risk? Are the rare and strange individuals who might do a thing like this even guaranteed to be dissuaded? Arguably the thinking majority don't need dissuading in the first place. 

Just so I am getting this correct, are you saying that damage to an SSSI is a criminal offence and someone who everyone seems to know has done a lot of damage, but because a criminal prosecution would bring bad publicity to Climbing, you think that prosecution would be a bad idea?

 

 The whole point of the thread is "are we less accountable?" and you're kind of arguing that we are by saying that we should deal with problems in-house and that a social media drubbing is enough of a punishment for culprits. If climbing is banned then surely it's a massive lesson learnt and it's time for us to get our house in order and start educating at walls, on UKC, etc.

Thank you. That's exactly what I meant.  And Boy is exemplifying it perfectly.

My contributions have been in response to a particular point regards criminal prosecution. I wasn't responding to the OP.

Your question isn't clear. Do you mean are we less accountable than other groups, or do you mean should we be less accountable than other groups?

On the first, no I don't think we are less accountable.

On the second, no I don't think we should be. 

Neither of which conflicts with not wishing to see a case go to court which may damage climber's interests, and arguably is burning down the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree then, as I think that it's fairly clear that you're arguing that we should be less accountable. If a climber has done something wrong then it reflects badly on climbers and as a group we should take responsibility for failings in education and if that results in a ban, then so be it. Who else's responsibility is it, as a group we should be making it absolutely clear that this sort of behavior is unacceptable and landowning groups would undoubtedly view us with more respect if we supported prosecutions in cases like this.

I spoke to the guy at Aldery while he was chainsawing trees above climbers and telling them to get out of the way. He was very aggressive, told me he knew what he was doing, had been a climber for many years etc etc. Friends suggested that I didn't try to argue with an aggressive man who was holding a running chain saw. I reported the incident immediately to the BMC. Maybe I should have called other authorities. I actually wish I had!

Then it all got downplayed. The culprit was a well known older climber, but we were asked to keep his name quiet. Maybe now the BMC should name him and the current perpetrator.

The repercussions are still ongoing, with the recent addition of bolted anchors, by the BMC to replace the nasty ones he installed (one of which, the death triangle one is now on the ground under crag because the block it was in was standing on soil that became undermined due to lack of vegetation!) to replace the trees he had felled! 

And the birdwatchers? And the conservationists? And the local non-climbers? And the displaced wildlife? Why bother having SSSIs in the first place? Do you actually give a shit about the world beyond climbing?

It's in everyone's best interests that breaches of the law are considered by those whose job it is to consider breaches of the law fairly. It's not our job to decide who should be punished and who shouldn't for transgressions of any law. It's why we have the police, and the CPS, and the courts. We're not talking a minor mistake — he's f*cked up big time. No, it might not be in your best interests for the law to be applied, you're right, but it's most certainly in the best interests of all of society.

It's very well known who it is.

I think most would view a path on a Lake District hillside as 'acceptable' whereas dumping cans of paint over the hill or tearing the turf up to mark your name on the hill would not be.

Is it necessary to be uncivil in your language? All I am doing is arguing a reasoned position.

I don't see that a prosecution will further the interests of those groups in this case. For reasons already given. Therefore I dont see it as a zero sum equation. Our loss does not necessarily equate to their gain. As an access rep for climbers, a sometime birdwatchers, and member of my local wildlife trust I happen to care about conservation and climbing. 

It's outwith any reasonable morals and, as much as I try to be dispassionate and rational in any discussion I enter, you're driving me to distraction. The world is an awful place precisely because we allow and support these flagrant transgressions on nature, and it makes me furious.

I don't understand why you think it equates to loss and to gain, and I'm going to leave it there. It's not a zero sum equation — it's not an equation at all. It's a matter of ensuring that society as a whole doesn't allow us to destroy the world we live in with impunity.

"I think there is every reason to doubt that regaining access would just be a matter of time. "

I'm very reliably informed that in the past there were access issues at the site. The fact that we've been climbing there for the last X years means that as long as we are discreet that access can be regained. The word is discreet though which brings me to your point about maintenance:

You were talking about grey areas above which was a fair point. There's little black and white in this world which is why at places like the site concerned we need to step carefully and be discrete. If the work done is low key, done over a period and careful no one will notice and an absolute minimum of fuss will result, if any. This was the unofficial advice given previously to someone who asked about crag maintenance there. Small, careful and low key or words to that effect. If you like think of it as working in the grace space to allow for minor speeding when driving. That can't be conflated with doing 80 in a 30 zone. A loose block getting trundled? If its that loose it'll be coming out anyways and it moving from the cliff to the bottom isn't going to be too remarkable. Ivy getting cut back - who'll particularly notice?  Yes, I'm not blind to this being damage to an SSSI but there is a definite difference - If maintenance is done right no one really knows its been done I suppose is my point..  Chucking bolts all over the place could almost certainly considered to be damaging to the SSSI concerned but they have ignored that because the damage is relatively unnoticeable and isn't really causing a problem. All the stakeholders (I hate that bloody word!) have rights that require balancing and as climbers one of our needs is to do some work to allow this to continue. The landowners are generally very reasonable and ignore our normal levels of maintenance and use of their land around the 'Bay (including the odd belay stake and the like) - if we don't p*ss them off why would that change particularly?

This brings me to: "This person's contrition or lack of is of secondary import to the damage to local climbers and access in my view" and "innocent local climbers have been damaged by the reckless actions of one outlier individual."

Is it though? I do wonder if this is the case. Speaking to the actual person concerned would quite probably do more to smooth over the mess with the landowner as the LO would have some kind of feeling of their reasoning and hopefully understanding why its not acceptable to do this. Instead of this you're proposing the climbing community looking at their toes and shuffling around awkwardly like a bunch of kids getting told off by a teacher when the teacher doesn't know who did it.  As to the courts, sure there's a possibility of access issues but I'm certain having the guilty party speak up and say it was a dick move would do more to prevent this than us just pretending it didn't happen. 

"Are the rare and strange individuals who might do a thing like this even guaranteed to be dissuaded?"

Obviously no guarantees but I'm certain there's more chance that people WILL do stuff like this if there's no consequences at all. After all, it took the uproar from the previous thread to stop this guy and only then after he'd completed the work. 

"Maybe now the BMC should name him and the current perpetrator."

Frankly I'd agree. Obviously to the landowners or whoever, not on here. As a community we need to  accept the fact that we have no more rights than any other stakeholder and not covering up what is essentially criminal damage.

'The BMC' organisationally probably don't know as such although some access workers certainly do. I do know the local access workers had no idea this was going to happen in advance. I've worked alongside Peak Area access volunteers for decades and have massive respect for their ability to make good choices in complex situations. I helped with the restoration work following the incident and know the volunteer effort required just for that.

Naming and shaming needs to be a last resort or it risks breaching so many areas of trust and confidentially it could destroy the future viability of well informed and coordinated access work.  Just one example is it's very hard to define where crag cleaning becomes a 'problem' with very different views from different stakeholders. Don't forget those cracks on Aldery are choked with vegetation in their normal state ... and that the BMC removed some trees as their root systems were destabilising some parts of the crag. I suspect one reason the unsafe bolts went in was in response to an 'ultra traditionalist' removing all the lower-offs agreed by the local area meeting and access team...   ie. dumb tit-for-tat activist climber politics.

I think given John's stared concerns with safety and ecological damage at Aldery he should indeed have reported the incident to the police. Knowing what happened when other  incidents were reported elsewhere, I'd wish him luck in getting any significant action let alone a successful prosecution as an outcome. The law is too often an ass on health and safety and ecology.

I generally agree with most of most of your post, but...

I don't know how you've come to that conclusion. I'm not saying that at all, I just think the knock on consequences of legal action aren't worth the supposed benefits (not that we get to choose obviously).

Again, this is far from what I implied. There have been consequences and they will no doubt continue.

Are you saying that unsightly gratuitous chalk is closer to a path up a hill than cans of paint? I’m not sure many would agree.

In reply to Offwidth:

There are no benefits for us if it ends up in court. It doesn't mean that if the person is known and we're asked we should be honest with the LO. Not doing this essentially makes us (as a community) accomplices as far as I can see. We don't have to volunteer it but if they ask we should say.

As to consequences, someone getting a flaming on a forum from (mostly) total strangers doesn't count as far I'm concerned. Someone being done for assault isn't too likely to be let off because someone said some nasty things about them on the 'net. They might though if they maybe at least apologised. The LO will be highly unlikely to do more than provide a warning but it's their land and they should be allowed to make a decision on how to proceed. 

As Offwidth says it's hard to state exactly when maintenance is too much; sure, that's true. That said, in this situation it's blindingly obvious that it goes far beyond maintenance and this just emphasises the point that unless it's quite small or discreet people probably shouldn't be doing work at crags like the site in question. If a few branches had just been trimmed back it would most likely have gone under the radar for all but the most observant stakeholder. 

I don't want access to be lost, I don't want anyone to get a record. I do however feel that the system should be applied. 

Yes. Chalk left as a byproduct of ascending somewhat closer to a path than spray painting your name. 

As it stands, at the area meeting someone said that they'd spoken to the guy and "he was sorry and won't do any more" or something to that effect. Whether this was actually the case or people trying to smooth things over I can't say but it would be nice to know that there had been something more concrete than that. 
 

Mike ( if that’s) correct ; I hope your not suggesting I was lying when I reported what the “ landscaper “ had said to me.

cheers Phil

No, chalk is an often unnecessary additional product applied to a natural surface. Your poor comparison would be matched by complaining about boot rubber on a path. The climbing equivalent of a path would be polish, and potentially ‘clean’ holds that stand out amongst otherwise lichened rock.

I had no idea who it was who'd said it Phil. For some reason I thought it was said in the terms of "someone has spoken to him etc etc" rather than "I spoke to him". As such one has a far more convincing provenance than the other. If you were the person that spoke to the guy then I'll obviously accept it and offer an apology for any offence caused as none was intended.

Incidentally, it is Mike - you've climbed with me in the past often enough!

Chalk: an unsightly product left as a result of the popularity of the activity of bouldering.
Path: an unsightly scar on the natural landscape created as result of the popularity of the activity of walking.

Don't get me wrong, chalk is one of my biggest pet hates, but as a throwaway analogy I think it serves quite well.

You can boulder without chalk; you can't walk without putting your feet down.

You can certainly walk without constructing a path, though. No one uses chalk to be deliberately antisocial, and in that sense it's a fitting analogy. No, it's not great under forensic scrutiny, but I'm not sure he meant it to be analysed quite so comprehensively? It's clear to me what he was trying to get at.

You stated originally that chalk on a boulder was on a par with graffiti on a boulder. If the graffiti was applied using chalk you might have a case.

Making no attempt to remove it after is deliberately anti social.

I have, in the past. Names daubed by chalk ball at New Mills. It doesn’t really matter what caused the marking of the wall. If it doesn’t belong there naturally, it’s ‘graffiti’. Paint, chalk, poo, sweet and sour sauce. None of it belongs on a boulder, placing it on and then taking zero effort to remove it after is poor behaviour. 

The process of walking will create a path, a few grains of sand at a time. You won’t notice it on an day to day basis, but you will over time. If you boulder every day without chalk you’ll never end up leaving an unsightly chalk mark on the wall. It’s not a good comparison. 

You can't walk over the same ground more than a few times without creating a path. Sheep do it, even badgers.

It won't drop huge great rocks or flagstones in place though, will it? There are degrees of path, and there are also obviously degrees of chalk.

Obviously! My issue isn’t with chalk, it’s with the selfish behaviour surrounding it. If you leave a route/problem covered in it and walk away then the next climber that comes along doesn’t have the luxury of the onsight, or even the adventurous feeling of heading in to the unknown. Whatever happened to the basic decency of ‘leave no trace’ and ‘take only photos, leave only footprints’?

Hi Mike, many thanks for that, hope things are good for you, and we can all get back out climbing soon.

Cheers Phil

The basic decency of that philosophy vanished as soon as the first bolt placed on a route met with general approval.Not a popular point of view but it's difficult to argue that bolts aren't a visible trace, in exactly the same way that cairns are.