In reply to UKC/UKH News:
There are a number of questions raised by this which I think are quite interesting:
1. Was the threat to access from alternative buyers real and qualified?
2. Was the question of future access discussed and negotiated with the other potential buyers?
3. Was it also discussed with the Yorkshire Dales NPA to encourage them to enshrine the maintenance of public access in any sale?
3. Was buying the crag really the last resort to maintain access?
I hope that the answer to all of the above is yes, but would like to be reassured.
The general question of crag ownership raises some more questions in my mind:
1. If as stated, the BMC's policy is to own crags purely to secure access, should the BMC also have a policy for disposal of these assets, with the necessary long term security of climbing access built in as a covenant on the purchaser and all subsequent owners?
2. What protections are built into the BMC ownership of assets in it's crag 'portfolio' to maintain the principle of free, unlimited access for all?
The BMC does not need to own crags for the long term to maintain access, it just needs to be able to put in place the necessary protections if the current owner is not prepared to do so.
None of us expects the BMC to seek to restrict access or charge, but attitudes change, and an argument for restricting access and/or charging can easily be constructed, especially if the crag portfolio continues to grow. All it takes is someone with a 'business' mentality to how the professional sport of climbing should be run to decide that the BMC's assets should be providing a return on investment (obviously all for the benefit of 'good' causes such as increasing awareness of climbing as a sport, initiatives to increase participation, funding training for elite athletes to improve Olympic results...).
As a contrast, the National Trust, with a message of preserving Britain's heritage for the benefit of all, also have a policy that properties in their ownership must make a trading profit. This is aggressively pursued with such morally questionable practices as asking visitors for an additional 'donation' on top of their published admission charges, offering 'free' guided tours and then passing around a collection box to embarrass people into donating, and pressuring volunteer staff to maximise revenue generation opportunities.
I hope that the BMC will buck the modern trend for NFP organisations to become more 'business' like, and stick to it's core values.