This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Latest research debunks earlier research that claimed that climbers are murderers of plants and lichens......
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Its good to hear some good press on that one for a change.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
You took your time!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=189423
You took your time!
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=189423
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
It doesnt mention lichens.
And it also states that bumbly cliffs havent been looked at.
Good news if you are the Cromlech. Otherwise looks like 'feelgood' research to justify an ultimately destructive hobby.
Next they'll be saying MMR causes autism, tut.
It doesnt mention lichens.
And it also states that bumbly cliffs havent been looked at.
Good news if you are the Cromlech. Otherwise looks like 'feelgood' research to justify an ultimately destructive hobby.
Next they'll be saying MMR causes autism, tut.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Alternative Headline:
'Scientist has concept of common sense explained to him'
Alternative Headline:
'Scientist has concept of common sense explained to him'
In reply to Bokonon:
I like that one.
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Alternative Headline:
>
> 'Scientist has concept of common sense explained to him'
>
> Alternative Headline:
>
> 'Scientist has concept of common sense explained to him'
I like that one.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Glad to see that all that gardening and bush-whacking I did the last time I went to Cocking Tor and Turning Stone Edge does not mean I am a plant murderer!
Glad to see that all that gardening and bush-whacking I did the last time I went to Cocking Tor and Turning Stone Edge does not mean I am a plant murderer!
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I think that you're reading too much into it. In the words of one of the researchers: "This doesn’t mean that prior research was wrong or that climbers have had no affect".
As far as I can tell, the study looked only at sport crags, with relatively difficult routes ( http://www.gripped.com/News/index.html ). This is hardly representative (nor was it meant to be) of all climbing crags. It certainly doesn't "debunk" the previous research, though it does raise questions about the research methods.
Does anyone know if the research has been written up anywhere; there was no reference in the new scientist article.
Mark
> Latest research debunks earlier research that claimed that climbers are murderers of plants and lichens......
I think that you're reading too much into it. In the words of one of the researchers: "This doesn’t mean that prior research was wrong or that climbers have had no affect".
As far as I can tell, the study looked only at sport crags, with relatively difficult routes ( http://www.gripped.com/News/index.html ). This is hardly representative (nor was it meant to be) of all climbing crags. It certainly doesn't "debunk" the previous research, though it does raise questions about the research methods.
Does anyone know if the research has been written up anywhere; there was no reference in the new scientist article.
Mark
In reply to Anonymous:
Conservation Biology
Volume 20 Page 821 - June 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00367.x
Volume 20 Issue 3
Influences of Microhabitat Constraints and Rock-Climbing Disturbance on Cliff-Face Vegetation Communities
KATHRYN LYNNE KUNTZ AND DOUGLAS W. LARSON
Still think its a pile of crap though.
Like a myriad of peer reviewed articles are going to overturned by one feelbetter article....
Conservation Biology
Volume 20 Page 821 - June 2006
doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00367.x
Volume 20 Issue 3
Influences of Microhabitat Constraints and Rock-Climbing Disturbance on Cliff-Face Vegetation Communities
KATHRYN LYNNE KUNTZ AND DOUGLAS W. LARSON
Still think its a pile of crap though.
Like a myriad of peer reviewed articles are going to overturned by one feelbetter article....
In reply to Anonymous:
Agreed. Steep cliffs do have ledges filled with soil and who knows what micro-fauna and flora is to be found in these inaccessible places. It could take only one enthusiastic new router to wipe out an entire population of undiscovered oribatid mites with his broddler and a soft brush!
Mick
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
>
>
> I think that you're reading too much into it. In the words of one of the researchers: "This doesn’t mean that prior research was wrong or that climbers have had no affect".
> [...]
>
>
> I think that you're reading too much into it. In the words of one of the researchers: "This doesn’t mean that prior research was wrong or that climbers have had no affect".
Agreed. Steep cliffs do have ledges filled with soil and who knows what micro-fauna and flora is to be found in these inaccessible places. It could take only one enthusiastic new router to wipe out an entire population of undiscovered oribatid mites with his broddler and a soft brush!
Mick
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Tell us about these oribatid mites, I don't know them? I may have slaughtered thousands in my career, I am distraught, my lack of knowledge appals me now. Have I made a species extinct?
Tell us about these oribatid mites, I don't know them? I may have slaughtered thousands in my career, I am distraught, my lack of knowledge appals me now. Have I made a species extinct?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Nick Colton, deputy chief executive officer of the British Mountaineering Council was quoted in the New Scientist report, he said, "Climbers would always choose solid stone cliffs over plant-covered ones."
Umm yeah right. Given the choice. However, where climbers do strip the vegetation (I'm thinking about Borrowdale here but could be anywhere) they obviously have an environmental impact and depending on the type of vegetation involved and scale of activity the overall effect could be ecologically damaging.
Nick Colton, deputy chief executive officer of the British Mountaineering Council was quoted in the New Scientist report, he said, "Climbers would always choose solid stone cliffs over plant-covered ones."
Umm yeah right. Given the choice. However, where climbers do strip the vegetation (I'm thinking about Borrowdale here but could be anywhere) they obviously have an environmental impact and depending on the type of vegetation involved and scale of activity the overall effect could be ecologically damaging.
In reply to Yorkspud:
Mostly, not always - e.g. Raven Crag, Thirlmere. You have to fight you way through regetation to get to the start of the regional classic E1 Totalitarian, its very obvious the damage this causes to the flora and fauna. This is only one example.
Its a fact, climbers DO cause damage to the rockscape environment. The amount of damage we do varies crag to crag with heaps of different factors influencing this. We should be alot more worried about the damage we cause approaching the crags, footpath erosion should be a much more pressing issue. Routes to the base of less popular crags should be choosen and followed carefully.
> Nick Colton, deputy chief executive officer of the British Mountaineering Council was quoted in the New Scientist report, he said, "Climbers would always choose solid stone cliffs over plant-covered ones."
Mostly, not always - e.g. Raven Crag, Thirlmere. You have to fight you way through regetation to get to the start of the regional classic E1 Totalitarian, its very obvious the damage this causes to the flora and fauna. This is only one example.
Its a fact, climbers DO cause damage to the rockscape environment. The amount of damage we do varies crag to crag with heaps of different factors influencing this. We should be alot more worried about the damage we cause approaching the crags, footpath erosion should be a much more pressing issue. Routes to the base of less popular crags should be choosen and followed carefully.
In reply to OopzISlippedAgain:
IMO Raven Crag could do with a lot more damage to the plants at the base! Given the surroundings a bit of judicial gardening / napalming would hardly effect the Lakes ecology overall!
IMO Raven Crag could do with a lot more damage to the plants at the base! Given the surroundings a bit of judicial gardening / napalming would hardly effect the Lakes ecology overall!
In reply to Fiend:
haha so true. If it was a more popular crag then definatly, but its not. Still think we should take care not to disturb the environment too much.
haha so true. If it was a more popular crag then definatly, but its not. Still think we should take care not to disturb the environment too much.
In reply to OopzISlippedAgain:
Lets just face it. We're making omelettes, and we are indeed smashing eggs in the process.
No amount of research by Kuntz et al. is going to negate the fact that we are eroding and reducing biodiversity in areas we frequent. It's called logic.
Saying yeah, its cool, climb away, it does no damage, when this only applies to sheer faces (even I'm not convinced by this), and not routes that are on terraced/broken faces, which probably makes up a bulk of the routes in, say, North Wales, THEN for NS to publish selective passages that effectively pronounces climbers are not environmentally deleterious in any way, is a tad irresponsible.
Climbing is an insult to biodiversity and the environment. Period.
Still, Burbage on Sunday.
Lets just face it. We're making omelettes, and we are indeed smashing eggs in the process.
No amount of research by Kuntz et al. is going to negate the fact that we are eroding and reducing biodiversity in areas we frequent. It's called logic.
Saying yeah, its cool, climb away, it does no damage, when this only applies to sheer faces (even I'm not convinced by this), and not routes that are on terraced/broken faces, which probably makes up a bulk of the routes in, say, North Wales, THEN for NS to publish selective passages that effectively pronounces climbers are not environmentally deleterious in any way, is a tad irresponsible.
Climbing is an insult to biodiversity and the environment. Period.
Still, Burbage on Sunday.
In reply to Ste Brom:
No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
> Climbing is an insult to biodiversity and the environment. Period.
No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
In reply to Ste Brom:
Uhhhhhh, not sure about that at all in fact in some cases the opposite could be true. I'm sure in some cases biodiversity may increase, some stay the same, some decrease. But you have to take it all in context of the area and region.
Much of the good custodianship of the crag environment is about the perception of us to others....bit like a PR campaign.
> (In reply to the real weeman)
> Lets just face it. We're making omelettes, and we are indeed smashing eggs in the process.
>
> No amount of research by Kuntz et al. is going to negate the fact that we are eroding and reducing biodiversity in areas we frequent. It's called logic.
> Lets just face it. We're making omelettes, and we are indeed smashing eggs in the process.
>
> No amount of research by Kuntz et al. is going to negate the fact that we are eroding and reducing biodiversity in areas we frequent. It's called logic.
Uhhhhhh, not sure about that at all in fact in some cases the opposite could be true. I'm sure in some cases biodiversity may increase, some stay the same, some decrease. But you have to take it all in context of the area and region.
Much of the good custodianship of the crag environment is about the perception of us to others....bit like a PR campaign.
In reply to Ste Brom:
That's total bollox.
> Climbing is an insult to biodiversity and the environment. Period.
That's total bollox.
In reply to Al Evans:
Climbers on stanage. Biodiversity still remains around stanage. We should protect whats left in this country. Sure, destroying a few plants and making a few paths is no big deal but we've got to look at the wider scale of things. Protect 1 or 2 small areas to protect it all, Stanage and Raven Crag are still part of the bigger picture.
> No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
Climbers on stanage. Biodiversity still remains around stanage. We should protect whats left in this country. Sure, destroying a few plants and making a few paths is no big deal but we've got to look at the wider scale of things. Protect 1 or 2 small areas to protect it all, Stanage and Raven Crag are still part of the bigger picture.
In reply to Al Evans:
That's a bad bad argument Al and is often wheeled out. Using that argument gives you justification to do anything anywhere as long as it is not as bad _____________ fill in the gap.
Humans have to play in the outdoors but when they play they must attempt to minimise their impact so it causes little or no harm....the key is to try.
> (In reply to Ste Brom)
> [...]
>
> No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
> [...]
>
> No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
That's a bad bad argument Al and is often wheeled out. Using that argument gives you justification to do anything anywhere as long as it is not as bad _____________ fill in the gap.
Humans have to play in the outdoors but when they play they must attempt to minimise their impact so it causes little or no harm....the key is to try.
In reply to Ste Brom:
I strongly disagree. Logic is all well and good, but with sufficient imagination you can come up with as many 'logical' hypotheses as you like; you still need the research to find out which is true.
Furthermore, it is a false to suggest that 'natural' ecosystems are automatically more biodiverse, there are numerous examples of ecosystems where moderate disturbance by humans raises biodiversity.
Mark
> No amount of research by Kuntz et al. is going to negate the fact that we are eroding and reducing biodiversity in areas we frequent. It's called logic.
I strongly disagree. Logic is all well and good, but with sufficient imagination you can come up with as many 'logical' hypotheses as you like; you still need the research to find out which is true.
Furthermore, it is a false to suggest that 'natural' ecosystems are automatically more biodiverse, there are numerous examples of ecosystems where moderate disturbance by humans raises biodiversity.
Mark
In reply to Ste Brom:
the paper which is refered to in new scientist hasn't been published yet.
Kuntz & Larson (2006) Microtopographic control of vascular plant, bryophyte and lichen communities on cliff faces. Plant Ecology...
The paper does not discount that climbing has a negative impact on the diversity of cliff floral communities only that there are other factors such as presence of shading, water availibility and ledges and cracks with soil that have a stronger effect. What the author highlights is that previous work had not sufficiently allowed for these correlations when drawing conclusions and the result of that was that there was a strong bias in the analysis meaning that the differences in plant communities at the climbed sites may not be due to the actions of climbers afterall. Instead climbers selected those sites due to the low density of plants.
in response to your comment: that a myriad of peer reviewed articles are not going to be over turned by another study, you are simply naieve. This study is also peer reviewed (probably by the authors of said myriad) and it has been approved and deemed worthy of being published. furthermore, the second author, lawson, has quite literally written the book on cliff ecology so could be considered the authority. so if you think that someone working under the leading author on cliff ecology who has successfully published peer reviewed papers twice isn't capable of shaking the status quo on a subject which has had only a handfull of other papers written on it then you're a fool.
> (In reply to Anonymous)
> Conservation Biology
> Volume 20 Page 821 - June 2006
> doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00367.x
> Volume 20 Issue 3
>
> Influences of Microhabitat Constraints and Rock-Climbing Disturbance on Cliff-Face Vegetation Communities
> KATHRYN LYNNE KUNTZ AND DOUGLAS W. LARSON
>
> Still think its a pile of crap though.
>
> Like a myriad of peer reviewed articles are going to overturned by one feelbetter article....
> Conservation Biology
> Volume 20 Page 821 - June 2006
> doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00367.x
> Volume 20 Issue 3
>
> Influences of Microhabitat Constraints and Rock-Climbing Disturbance on Cliff-Face Vegetation Communities
> KATHRYN LYNNE KUNTZ AND DOUGLAS W. LARSON
>
> Still think its a pile of crap though.
>
> Like a myriad of peer reviewed articles are going to overturned by one feelbetter article....
the paper which is refered to in new scientist hasn't been published yet.
Kuntz & Larson (2006) Microtopographic control of vascular plant, bryophyte and lichen communities on cliff faces. Plant Ecology...
The paper does not discount that climbing has a negative impact on the diversity of cliff floral communities only that there are other factors such as presence of shading, water availibility and ledges and cracks with soil that have a stronger effect. What the author highlights is that previous work had not sufficiently allowed for these correlations when drawing conclusions and the result of that was that there was a strong bias in the analysis meaning that the differences in plant communities at the climbed sites may not be due to the actions of climbers afterall. Instead climbers selected those sites due to the low density of plants.
in response to your comment: that a myriad of peer reviewed articles are not going to be over turned by another study, you are simply naieve. This study is also peer reviewed (probably by the authors of said myriad) and it has been approved and deemed worthy of being published. furthermore, the second author, lawson, has quite literally written the book on cliff ecology so could be considered the authority. so if you think that someone working under the leading author on cliff ecology who has successfully published peer reviewed papers twice isn't capable of shaking the status quo on a subject which has had only a handfull of other papers written on it then you're a fool.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I agree with you Mick, I wasnt using it as an argument to justify anything, but just as an attempt to put climbers effect on the environment in perspective with humans overall effect on the environment.
In fact a lot of climbers actions against great potential enviromental disasters probably means the good done by climbers outweighs the bad. Not that the bad can be condoned of course.
The BMC takes a very responsible stance on conservation of both fauna and flora, and in opposition of huge transgressions against the environment. Nearly all climbers accept and obey the BMC restrictions and support its stance against things like more extension to quarrying in the Peak, and indeed in some cases unnecesary road building, apart from the ramblers and specialist conservation groups it stands alone in this, as do its members.
I agree with you Mick, I wasnt using it as an argument to justify anything, but just as an attempt to put climbers effect on the environment in perspective with humans overall effect on the environment.
In fact a lot of climbers actions against great potential enviromental disasters probably means the good done by climbers outweighs the bad. Not that the bad can be condoned of course.
The BMC takes a very responsible stance on conservation of both fauna and flora, and in opposition of huge transgressions against the environment. Nearly all climbers accept and obey the BMC restrictions and support its stance against things like more extension to quarrying in the Peak, and indeed in some cases unnecesary road building, apart from the ramblers and specialist conservation groups it stands alone in this, as do its members.
In reply to onlytovey: I think you may of missed the point..so I'll try and elaborate and qualify..
I repeat.
Saying yeah, its cool, climb away, it does no damage, when this only applies to sheer faces (even I'm not convinced by this), and not routes that are on terraced/broken faces, which probably makes up a bulk of the routes in, say, North Wales, THEN for NS to publish selective passages that effectively pronounces climbers are not environmentally deleterious in any way, is a tad irresponsible.
OK, lets say at this point sheer faces are not affected. The reason Im not 100% convinced on that, is, say, look at the unclimbed areas on merseyside sandstone, its obvious to a blind man more F+F exists than on established routes. For example, I can say for a fact rarer types of caloplaca sp on non-climbed areas exist as opposed to established routes. Granted, this anecdotal. So, I guess, taking local conditions into consideration is more the way to go, as opposed to stating a global statement saying all is ok, is irresponsible. Essentially biodiversity isnt uniformal, if you know what I mean.
These leaves terraced ground; this is where the logic kicks in; taking a reductionist view point, why is walking on scree/talus frowned upon?
Because is disturbs post glacial F+F. Fact.
Bringing that up a notch, why wouldnt one climb the broken cliffs above fynnon llant (spelling)? Again, rare fragile alpine plant communities.
Then bring that up to the more broken cliff environment with routes on..a logical progression.
Anyway, if you want to believe you cause no damage when you're out, this naive fool is saying I think you are wrong, I am willing to accept the burden of responsibility and continue to monitor myself as opposed to venture into the wilds with a clear conscience, because someone said somewhere its OK; personally I dont think that the research in the long run wont stand up to scrutiny, unless local conditions are taken into consideration.
But this is only a viewpoint, you understand, not a tethering post for you to throw your abuse from.
I repeat.
Saying yeah, its cool, climb away, it does no damage, when this only applies to sheer faces (even I'm not convinced by this), and not routes that are on terraced/broken faces, which probably makes up a bulk of the routes in, say, North Wales, THEN for NS to publish selective passages that effectively pronounces climbers are not environmentally deleterious in any way, is a tad irresponsible.
OK, lets say at this point sheer faces are not affected. The reason Im not 100% convinced on that, is, say, look at the unclimbed areas on merseyside sandstone, its obvious to a blind man more F+F exists than on established routes. For example, I can say for a fact rarer types of caloplaca sp on non-climbed areas exist as opposed to established routes. Granted, this anecdotal. So, I guess, taking local conditions into consideration is more the way to go, as opposed to stating a global statement saying all is ok, is irresponsible. Essentially biodiversity isnt uniformal, if you know what I mean.
These leaves terraced ground; this is where the logic kicks in; taking a reductionist view point, why is walking on scree/talus frowned upon?
Because is disturbs post glacial F+F. Fact.
Bringing that up a notch, why wouldnt one climb the broken cliffs above fynnon llant (spelling)? Again, rare fragile alpine plant communities.
Then bring that up to the more broken cliff environment with routes on..a logical progression.
Anyway, if you want to believe you cause no damage when you're out, this naive fool is saying I think you are wrong, I am willing to accept the burden of responsibility and continue to monitor myself as opposed to venture into the wilds with a clear conscience, because someone said somewhere its OK; personally I dont think that the research in the long run wont stand up to scrutiny, unless local conditions are taken into consideration.
But this is only a viewpoint, you understand, not a tethering post for you to throw your abuse from.
In reply to Al Evans:
I think that sums it up.
Ill shut up and stick to bugs, this really isnt my field.
> (In reply to Ste Brom)
> [...]
>
> No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
> [...]
>
> No, being human is an insult to biodiversity, climbing has little to do with it. For instance which is more threatening to BD, climbers on Stanage, or Sheffield!
I think that sums it up.
Ill shut up and stick to bugs, this really isnt my field.
In reply to Ste Brom:
That's the media. Attention - grabbing headline. I don't think many climbers would claim that they don't have an effect on the cliff environment.
I think most would agree with you.
Now whether the effect is significant is another matter all together.
> (In reply to onlytovey) I think you may of missed the point..so I'll try and elaborate and qualify..
> THEN for NS to publish selective passages that effectively pronounces climbers are not environmentally deleterious in any way, is a tad irresponsible.
That's the media. Attention - grabbing headline. I don't think many climbers would claim that they don't have an effect on the cliff environment.
> Anyway, if you want to believe you cause no damage when you're out, this naive fool is saying I think you are wrong,
I think most would agree with you.
Now whether the effect is significant is another matter all together.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
The answer laregly depends on whether or not you're a Bhuddist.
> Now whether the effect is significant is another matter all together.
The answer laregly depends on whether or not you're a Bhuddist.
In reply to Fiend:
As you say its a question of scale and whilst overall biodiversity 'damage' compared to footpaths, pollution etc is small, damage, say to a rare lichen or nesting bird, can be significant in terms of populations.
As you say its a question of scale and whilst overall biodiversity 'damage' compared to footpaths, pollution etc is small, damage, say to a rare lichen or nesting bird, can be significant in terms of populations.
In reply to Ste Brom:
That may be true, but if you're considering biodiversity on the crag as a whole, then it's far less obvious.
At some point we'll probably have to define biodiversity for the purposes of this discussion (though I'd rather not if possible). I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that disturbing habitats and even destroying large numbers of plants will not automatically have a reduce biodiversity. Indeed, it can often have the opposite affect.
Incidently, I agree with you that the new scientist article was misleading, and that you cannot generalise from the research they quote. However, the same can be said for your logical argument also; there are just far to many variables.
Mark
> OK, lets say at this point sheer faces are not affected. The reason Im not 100% convinced on that, is, say, look at the unclimbed areas on merseyside sandstone, its obvious to a blind man more F+F exists than on established routes.
That may be true, but if you're considering biodiversity on the crag as a whole, then it's far less obvious.
> ... this is where the logic kicks in; taking a reductionist view point, why is walking on scree/talus frowned upon? Because is disturbs post glacial F+F. Fact.
At some point we'll probably have to define biodiversity for the purposes of this discussion (though I'd rather not if possible). I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that disturbing habitats and even destroying large numbers of plants will not automatically have a reduce biodiversity. Indeed, it can often have the opposite affect.
Incidently, I agree with you that the new scientist article was misleading, and that you cannot generalise from the research they quote. However, the same can be said for your logical argument also; there are just far to many variables.
Mark
Know this might seem like a troll - just think something is missing from the news article and thread on eco friendly climbing.
Maybe the gardening problem is perhaps missing the point a bit. If you think about the environmental impact of climbing there are other things which climbers do which affect the environment far more, The top one has to be pollution and carbon emissions from travelling - think of how far a climber living in london and driving to the peak district each weekend actually travels in a year, not to mention flights to font, ceuse, verdon, the alps etc.
In the context of the uk has to be understood very few areas are in their natural state, snowdonia is a prime example. I don't condone gardening at all, but think real problem is perhaps people climbing for wrong reasons and not appreciating the beauty of it. Not quite sure how you would police that.
Maybe the gardening problem is perhaps missing the point a bit. If you think about the environmental impact of climbing there are other things which climbers do which affect the environment far more, The top one has to be pollution and carbon emissions from travelling - think of how far a climber living in london and driving to the peak district each weekend actually travels in a year, not to mention flights to font, ceuse, verdon, the alps etc.
In the context of the uk has to be understood very few areas are in their natural state, snowdonia is a prime example. I don't condone gardening at all, but think real problem is perhaps people climbing for wrong reasons and not appreciating the beauty of it. Not quite sure how you would police that.
In reply to tedrogers:
What are these 'wrong reasons'?
> but think real problem is perhaps people climbing for wrong reasons
What are these 'wrong reasons'?
Good question!
I think climbing because a person likes it is a good reason, but too often hear more about how difficult or dangerous things are than how wonderful.
Is it possible that if someone climbs just to look good or because they think it's dangerous, but doesn't necessarily like it, then they are more likely to do things like chip the rock or go mad with gardening in order to create a new route?
There are lots of similar examples, climbing everest is a prime one with obvious environmental problems resulting from the majority of people climbing more for status than anything else.
It is difficult as the things that often encourage people to start climbing (i.e. the media) often portray climbing in a skewed way. Climbing for status or because it is dangerous is a bit like joining the army because you like guns and definatly not a good reason at all.
I think climbing because a person likes it is a good reason, but too often hear more about how difficult or dangerous things are than how wonderful.
Is it possible that if someone climbs just to look good or because they think it's dangerous, but doesn't necessarily like it, then they are more likely to do things like chip the rock or go mad with gardening in order to create a new route?
There are lots of similar examples, climbing everest is a prime one with obvious environmental problems resulting from the majority of people climbing more for status than anything else.
It is difficult as the things that often encourage people to start climbing (i.e. the media) often portray climbing in a skewed way. Climbing for status or because it is dangerous is a bit like joining the army because you like guns and definatly not a good reason at all.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...