Wright's rock closed for climbing

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 mark s 14 Jun 2022

Climbing has been banned at Wright's Rock Area in the Churnet due to rule breaking. 

There were only a few rules to follow, one been the days you can climb on. Logbooks yet again gives you answers .

2
 Offwidth 15 Jun 2022
In reply to mark s:

A real shame. I agree,  it seems too many can't follow simple negotiated access arrangements.

 afx22 15 Jun 2022
In reply to mark s:

This is a massive shame.  I bought the guidebook and went last year.  It was wet, so didn't climb and went elsewhere but vowed to be back.

 Iamgregp 15 Jun 2022
In reply to mark s:

Now this isn't a loaded question, as I've never been there, but was there clear signage indicating the rules?

2
 Neil Williams 15 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

I think anyone who has logged climbs here on days that aren't the allowed days could probably have checked first.

 Si dH 15 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

I haven't been recently either but apparently there was very clear signage on the gate.

 Iamgregp 15 Jun 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, you are right, and those people don't really have too much of an excuse.

It's more the people who don't come on here that I ask on behalf of - there are a great number of climbers who are not visitors to the site, or users of the BMC RAD database so for those that aren't we ought to make sure that BMC branded signage is clearly displayed in these cases.

However, as Si has pointed out, apparently there was clear signage, so there's really no excuse if people have ignored it...

 Jackob 15 Jun 2022
In reply to mark s:

What a shame sucha great crag. Really hope this can get resolved.

 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Jackob:

Access was negotiated after the new owners expressed concerns about climbing there.

If we regard it as OK for people not to check RAD (directly or through the UKC link) we will lose access to other sensitive venues. We simply can't 100% rely on signs as some fools occasionally remove them.

Thinking about this fiasco, maybe the RAG rating could do with being tweaked a bit. Very sensitive  venues with carefully negotiated rules are arguably amongst the most important to read on RAD. 

1
 Neil Williams 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

It is very bad for users of UKC not to check the RAD.

You can't expect all climbers to even know what it is.  You aren't required to have an Internet capable device to go climbing, nor to speak English, nor to even know what the BMC is.  Thus, if an established climbing venue ceases to allow climbing or restricts it, it is fairly sensible for signage to be put up indicating that.  Because of impact on its members it might actually be worth the BMC having some sort of fund to pay for such signage.

I think a lot of people assume all climbers are (or somehow have to be) active BMC members - the BMC does need to push the point that they aren't a regulatory body when negotiating.

Post edited at 11:08
2
 midgen 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

Last time I was there (November-ish), there were several prominent signs stating private property, no entry. The access rules only exist on the RAD and UKC. Pretty sure the guide doesn't mention anything, so not a huge surprise people don't know about them.

 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

No one expects that: online info and signs together are belt and braces Neil. Everyone involved in access work understands signs are important. What is depressing is so many climbers seemingly don't know about UKC links and/or RAD, and worse still many do know but don't check access, and disastrously we have the few who see a sign and climb anyway.

I'm not aware of any financial problem ever with the BMC or its volunteers providing signs.

Online checking is sensible in any case... who wants to have a great plan thwarted at a sign, at the base of an intended day out?

1
 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to midgen:

That's because the access issues happened after the most recent guidebooks were produced. It illustrates why we can't rely on guidebooks and why checking on RAD matters (something made very clear in the current Definitive and Rockfax bouldering guidebooks I just checked)

 Neil Williams 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> disastrously we have the few who see a sign and climb anyway.

I think we might have had these in this case - if you know how to log on UKC you know how to use the RAD.

> Online checking is sensible in any case... who wants to have a great plan thwarted at a sign, at the base of an intended day out?

Having Internet access isn't a condition of being a climber, to be fair.

 Dave Garnett 16 Jun 2022
In reply to midgen:

> Last time I was there (November-ish), there were several prominent signs stating private property, no entry. The access rules only exist on the RAD and UKC. Pretty sure the guide doesn't mention anything, so not a huge surprise people don't know about them.

I think it's naive to think that most people are plugged into RAD or UKC.  A BMC notice saying that there are serious access restrictions and the consequences of flouting them is mandatory in situations like this.  Include the address for RAD, but don't assume people routinely check if there is nothing on site to suggest it.  

People are used to ignoring generic 'private, keep out' signs, which are often understood as being more about avoiding liability in case of an accident, so it needs to be specific and unambiguous. 

 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Dave Garnett:

I totally agree it's naive but I see that position as really disappointing these days, given the information provided on this subject up front in the latest guidebooks and online (let alone BMC news and many online discussions). If so many climbers are are unaware of RAD it means they are skipping reading the access section in the guidebook introductions (or if on a phone, the online links) as the vast majority I see at the crag seem to either have a modern guidebook or a phone Ap.

3
 Iamgregp 16 Jun 2022
In reply to midgen:

Oh FFS, this is what I feared.

What's the point in the BMC spending all that time and effort negotiating that access to then fail to take the necessary steps to inform everybody what has been agreed?

If we make it so that this information has to be actively searched out on the internet (either here or on RAD) then some people are going to miss it, and the rules are going to get broken.  That is a certainty. 

It's frustrating that this has happened as negotiating the access and getting and agreement is the tricky and time consuming part of this process.  Putting up a sign is inexpensive and the work of minutes and it sounds like that it's been missed in this case.  A great shame.

Post edited at 12:43
11
 Iamgregp 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> People are used to ignoring generic 'private, keep out' signs, which are often understood as being more about avoiding liability in case of an accident, so it needs to be specific and unambiguous. 

Yep, like the "No Climbing" ones at Winspit!

 afx22 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

There's a phase, when getting into climbing outside, that people are not aware of UKC, RAD, or that access issues even exist.  Maybe they have a guidebook or maybe they're using an online topo.  I think signs are therefore a useful last defence.

If some of those people then choose to ignore the signs, then they are selfish idiots.  We have those in all walks of life and there's not so much can be done to stop them.

 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

>What's the point in the BMC spending all that time and effort negotiating that access to then fail to take the necessary steps to inform everybody what has been agreed?

Signs were up. It was on RAD (and via UKC). What else do you realistically want? The BMC try their best within the resources they have aided by a small army of volunteers taking the time to do good work for free. UKC do a good job in supporting this.

>If we make it so that this information has to be actively searched out on the internet (either here or on RAD) then some people are going to miss it, and the rules are going to get broken. That is a certainty. 

Yep but that's too often down to laziness: whats so hard about this search? Signs are a vital backup but they do disappear sometimes and climbers in such circumstances have expressed regret for not checking RAD (say recently when a bird ban was accidentally  breached in the Lakes)

 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to afx22:

I'm incredibly sympathetic to that group of self taught beginners but within my experience  of access related work (and for various reasons within that) I don't think such climbers are causing more than a small percentage of the problematic access breaches.

I've always regarded signs as vital to maintain access in sensitive circumstances.

Post edited at 13:16
 Iamgregp 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

If the signs up said "Private Property No Entry" midgen says then the signs were not correct.  Realistically I want signage that correctly details the negotiated access agreement.  Surely that's not unrealistic?

I'm not going to, and wouldn't want to, defend people who haven't checked RAD out of laziness.  Like I said upthread, there are a lot of people who don't know about RAD, the BMC, UKC or all of that... I just want them to be informed.

3
 Offwidth 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

That was certainly the initial view of the new landowner. The BMC then stepped in and negotiated access (and put up signage to that effect)

There is more to access issues in the area than this particular landowner. There is way too much poor behaviour (especially those climbing on wet delicate rock) leading to problems getting trashed... just read the UKB thread.

https://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,31415.0.html

Post edited at 13:33
 AJM 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Iamgregp:

According to the pictures one can find on the internet of the sign, it was pretty clear...

https://www.instagram.com/p/CeyCqeYDfAA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

 Iamgregp 16 Jun 2022
In reply to AJM:

Yes agreed.  That signage is perfectly clear enough.  

Like I said "If the signs up said "Private Property No Entry" like midgen says then the signs were not correct.  Realistically I want signage that correctly details the negotiated access agreement. "

And these signs do detail the agreement, so that's fine.  There's no excuse for people to have been climbing there.

Post edited at 13:54
1
 Iamgregp 16 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

No worries.  Having seen the signage I'm happy that there wasn't any failing on the part of the BMC or the Landowner to inform what the rules were.

I'm now annoyed that the signs were ignored.  Seeing as it's my normal state to be annoyed about something

3
In reply to Neil Williams: 

> Having Internet access isn't a condition of being a climber, to be fair.

I suspect the number of climbers in 2022 who do not have internet access, and who also climb at Wright’s Rock, is going to be vanishingly small and really not the issue.

 CantClimbTom 16 Jun 2022
In reply to midgen:

> Last time I was there (November-ish), there were several prominent signs stating private property, no entry. The access rules only exist on the RAD and UKC. Pretty sure the guide doesn't mention anything, so not a huge surprise people don't know about them.

If there were clear signs (?) on when was permissible then people would be unreasonable to jeopardise access. I do get up to various "adventures" requiring adherence to the 11th commandment (i.e. don't get caught), but that kind of rocking the boat for others even I wouldn't do!

Equally...  I've never heard of RAD before this thread. I think it's unreasonable to assume everyone knows what that is. If the BMC had negotiated specific access and then not put up signs or not been allowed by landowner to put up signs (?) then sadly all the excellent work by BMC (thank you!) has sadly gone to waste due to that

5
 midgen 16 Jun 2022
In reply to AJM:

Interesting, I only saw the outright 'private property, no entry' signs when I was there. Maybe it's changed since then. There were several signs visible so someone really didn't want anyone in there.

For the record, I didn't climb at Wright's, as I'm a bit of a goody two-shoes like that. Although I have been known to be terribly naughty and climb at Intake occasionally.

 mrphilipoldham 16 Jun 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

Tom I was going to ask this to the thread but as you’ve posted that you didn’t know about RAD then I’ve the perfect opportunity to make my point. Do you own any guidebooks? Assuming you do.. are there any that don’t at any point mention RAD? I know the BMC and Rockfax ones do, and I even think the Yorkshire grit guides do.. but unaware of other publications.

If it is the case that all guides mention it then I don’t understand how people are defending folk for not knowing about RAD. If people turn up at a crag, guidebook in hand, the vast majority will have been presented the opportunity to learn about it. If they’ve skipped the important information at the front then that says something about attitude.

3
 CantClimbTom 16 Jun 2022
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes I do own guidebooks, quite a few from Rock and Ice climbs of Skye to Southern Sandstone and places in-between, but as I'm at the bottom end of the food chain the routes/grades don't change much and so my old books are old, from about 30 years old to 10 years old and they still serve me well (although some are disintegrating!)

I am not justifying or defending ignorance of RAD (or ignorance of anything else) My post was simply: an observation of the fact that some climbers will not have heard of RAD and that assuming everyone has is wrong

1
 mrphilipoldham 16 Jun 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

That’s fair enough  

3
 Offwidth 17 Jun 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

Fair enough on the guidebook front but as I said no one should rely on guidebooks for current access information. As I'm genuinely  interested in improving access information awareness, you might be able to help us understand what is going wrong for people like you. Hence, I'd ask two things.. as someone clearly aware that access issues exist, do you just rely on signage and not look for information elsewhere on access and as a UKC logbook user why do you think you have missed the access links on the logbook crag pages?

 Iamgregp 17 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> why do you think you have missed the access links on the logbook crag pages?

If you go on the find crag map on here, click on a crag, it briefly displays overview page then automatically redirects to the map page where there is no info on access/links to RAD.

What there is is a whole list of routes, and that's what people have logged on to see, so likely they jump straight in to doing that then close their browser when they're done.  Wouldn't have thought people would navigate away from that page and check the overview page or click the link to RAD unless they were specifically looking for access info.

People looking for access info are always going to find it, the challenge is getting that info in front of people who aren't looking for it.

 CantClimbTom 17 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

I can only speak for myself, I've not been to that particular crag, although I have climbed and explored elsewhere in a small number of occasions (mainly artificial structures) what you might term as "non-permission visits" so in my very small way I can relate to naughtiness (this isn't a blanket endorsement for all misdemeanours). Climbing has always attracted and benefitted from an element of unconventional non conformist and occasionally anarchic folk who may well be outside of BMC membership, regulated climbing clubs or climbing wall social scenes. I am absolutely not going to make excuses for people who ruin it for others, they've broken the 11th commandment! Really you should look at log books and ask the question to individuals who climbed at that crag at problem times and logged it.

My personal take on this, whatever that is worth... is that some posts in this thread underestimate the free spirit anarchic streak of climbing which means that valuable tools such as RAD should be seen as supplementary measures and not assumed that climbers diligently check these first. IMHO unmissable signage should be the first line of defence and guidebook notices RAD etc seen as secondary measures, you will never get 100% compliance but IMHO that approach is the best you can hope for. 

I'm at pains to say that 1) I'm not stating that it's OK for people Not to check access 2) I can't speak for whoever ruined access at that crag (please ask them!)  3) I'm not the official spokesperson naughty climbers.

I merely decided to stick my head above the parapet to warn that climbing is a very broad church and includes all sorts of non conformist types who don't follow BMC politics (edit: or log climbs on UKC) or even may not have heard of RAD etc

Post edited at 11:30
3
 Offwidth 17 Jun 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

Thanks for the post...it's very helpful. I'd still like to know your view on how,  as a UKC logbook user, you had never heard of RAD, when it links to every crag page... is it down to what Iamgregp said? (I'm less interested in hearing from anyone incolved in the Wright's incident, as it risks 'pitchforks', as breaches, where there are signs up, are in my experience nearly always from those who should know better... if anyone has anything constructive to say they can email me through UKC). 

I'm fully aware of the broad church and see that as a good thing. I know most rock climbers are not BMC members but would encourage more to join as it's cheap given the benefits (especially in a club) and gives us more clout on access matters. I know RAD isn't used anything like as much as it should be but want to help improve that.

I've lost count of banned crags I've climbed on where the owner has refused access but I always follow any agreed restrictions I'm aware of and would avoid venues where hope of negotiated access looks realistic.

Post edited at 12:25
 CantClimbTom 17 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

> ... is it down to what Iamgregp said?

Yes! I didn't mention in my reply as I thought lampgrep had covered it so clearly

 Brown 17 Jun 2022
In reply to Offwidth:

My anarchist streak has always followed the method you outline.

If there is no access, and no possibility of the land owner agreeing access then I have always just got involved. This has led to a few confrontations and being escorted away by shotgun wilding gamekeepers or difficult conversation with owners.

If there is an access method, or a few hoops to jump through, then I'm happy to oblige.

I felt that climbing guides were always quite good at giving a nod, nod, wink, wink about these things. 

I've been amazed though at people's behaviour in places I always considered to be access quietly.

1
 Iamgregp 17 Jun 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

Why thank you!

 Davib 05 Jul 2022
In reply to mark s:

This is a real shame, I was there in May about a month before this post and there was a very clear sign on the gate explaining when climbing was allowed.

The landowner came to check how many people were climbing whilst we were there - he seemed interested in us as climbers and was surprised to hear that one person was climbing in a section that doesn't see much traffic, suggests to me he knows which boulders get traffic and isn't just some grouch who doesn't want people coming in; seemed friendly to me and we thanked him for allowing us access.

Does anyone know the latest news? The picture linked below suggests access could be back now: https://www.instagram.com/p/CeyCqeYDfAA/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

OP mark s 07 Jul 2022
In reply to Davib:

I don't know the latest but best just stay away I think 

 Davib 07 Jul 2022
In reply to mark s:

Cheers Mark, will do

 Valkyrie1968 08 Jul 2022
In reply to mark s:

Clearly there are still issues with getting through to people as someone logged a problem there yesterday, when the agreement is Friday-Sunday.

OP mark s 08 Jul 2022
In reply to Valkyrie1968:

After all that's been posted on here about the rules and climbing getting banned and someone thinks it's ok to just go and break the rules again. Absolutely ignorant of them.

 andi turner 10 Jul 2022
In reply to mark s:

I was with a group walking that way. I saw a climber walking up (green bouldering mat) I called to him but was ignored. You couldn't make it up...

OP mark s 10 Jul 2022
In reply to andi turner:

so confident in his ignorance he even posted on logbooks that he had broken the rules. maybe people upset about the ban should email him.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...