UKH

The Ring Ousel season has come around again. In response to the nesting patterns established last year the decision was taken to trial several precautionary bans at Stanage (see http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=71450). On Thursday 8th April restrictions are almost certainly going to be enforced and the likely areas are the Rim Area (far right of Suzanne), the Strangler Area and Counts Buttress. However if the birds settle elsewhere then a different set of sites (not more sites) will be affected. Judging by the current patterns of behaviour this could include the Grotto Slab and Trinity Crack Areas. Check at the crag and the web site for more details.

UKC News - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to UKC News:

Why that date and not the Tuesday after the BH? It will be busy and need a lot of policing.

In reply to UKC News:

Nothing that couldn't be solved with a decent Webley & Scott IMHO.

In reply to UKC News:

In an email I have just received from Matthew Croney of the Peak National Park, he states the following:

Please avoid the following key nesting areas from 8th to the 30th April:
a. The Rim
b. Strangler/Crescent area (Plantation)
c. Count’s Buttress
Why these sites? These are some of the sites where the birds were singing most often last year, attempting to establish territories but failed to nest. They are also outside the very busiest sections of the Edge, so as not to restrict visitors' activity too much. This advice will be reviewed on 30th April, depending on whether any nests have been built here or not.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Thanks very much for posting this information. To get the full details, please visit our website: www.peakdistrict.org/stanage/ouzel.htm (which is currently being updated regarding the 8th April date).

We wanted to avoid Easter if possible but 8th April has just been agreed with the BMC based on monitoring which has shown that the females arrived 5 days early this year (21 March) and some have already paired up and are actively looking for nest sites.

One pair has been seen repeatedly in the Trinity Wall area but none yet around Count's Buttress, so the situation may change at short notice - so look out for information here and on-site.
Many thanks
Matthew
(P.S. For those that don't know, I'm the Stanage/North Lees Estate Manager for Peak Park)

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
If you have a guidebook handy, could you clarify which routes you think might be affected

I'm guessing
a The Rim - no routes ?
b Strangler - Anything right of Nuke the Midges, as far as Skidoo ? - Less than 10 routes ? Or does the area extend further.
c Counts Butress - Nightmare Slab to Trickledown Fairy (20 routes in Rockfax)

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I might need Matthew's help here since I am not entirely sure, however he probably won't be able to give help until he receives the guidebook I have sent him - bit of a catch 22.

The Rim is bouldering only.
I reckon the whole of Count's is out as you suggest.
The area which probably needs clarification is the Strangler Area since that could mean a variety of routes, or hardly any routes.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
I don't have the Rockfax book in front of me but I do have the BMC Guide! The routes we are asking people to avoid are:
1. The Rim - no routes, only bouldering problems
2. Strangler/Crescent - from The Strangler to Scorpion Slab
3. Count's - the whole thing as suggested - from Nightmare Slab to The Trickledown Fairy

Hope that's clarified it.

In reply to MC:

Thanks for explaining why Easter has to be in the timeframe. As I read the original posting it looked like the set in stone voluntary ban on certain areas agreed at last BMC meeting.

A common sense approach then. Let us hope people stick to the restriction.

In reply to MC:

still not updated - leaving it a bit late now perhaps!

In reply to bruce siggerson: This kind of attitude gives climbers a bad name. Why don't you grow up.

In reply to Les Jennings:

Spot on Les. Access volunteers work long and hard to agree reasonable restrictions, and Bruce Siggerson's attitude is a slap in the face. Grow up Bruce or keep your infantile opinions to yourself.

In reply to john horscroft and les jennings:

Thirty years ago you'd have probably been down there yourself with an airgun or stealing the eggs. Don't tell me to grow up you precious self-obsessed hypocrites.

What's the difference between an Ousel and a crow?
Birds.
B-I-R-D-S.
Thats all they are, rats of the skies.

In reply to bruce siggerson:
I can’t believe you are writing such nonsense, I really hope that you are trying to wind a few people up. Peak Access volunteers give a lot of their time freely for the benefit of other climbers. Time when they could be out climbing themselves. They have also been at meetings trying to arrange reasonable and responsible access in the face of opposition from ornithologists who have produced printouts from Rocktalk where foolish tw*ts have been making stupid comments like the one you made. GROW UP and get a life.

In reply to Michael:

Dry your eyes.
The BMC presumes to speak for all climbers, but it really only speaks for the bleeding heart liberals and southern nancies who consider vermin like the ousel worth protecting.
I am merely exercising my rights in expressing the flipside of the views behind this thread. If I was climbing and saw an ousel I'd have a quick look around, then lob some stones at it to scare it off.
As I'm sure many of my friends would do as well.
Please email me if you wish to take this discussion further,

Bruce

In reply to bruce siggerson:

It's not 30 years ago Bruce. We are all more aware (or should be) that a diverse population of birds (and especially raptors: birds of prey) are a good sign of a healthy ecosystem.

Surely you want to live in a healthy ecosystem Bruce?



Good question. One is rare and and one is common. I'm sure others could give you a better answer.

Mick

In reply to bruce siggerson:


Are you serious? If so: the first is a thrush; the second a corvid.

That's to say: they are nothing like each other.

In reply to bruce siggerson:


Go on then, express it. But explain yourself in full if you want to be taken seriously. Just saying these birds are vermin is not enough. Why are they vermin? What is vermin? If there is an endangered bird at a cliff should we climb on it? Should we care about the cliff ecosystem? If so why? If not, why not?

You could pose some interesting discussion if you just stopped and gave this subject a little thought.

It is not just "bleeding heart liberals" who are concerned about the health of this planet, it crosses all political boundaries.

Mick

In reply to bruce siggerson:
The people who consider the ousel are worth protecting include English Nature, who have the power to ban us from crags like Stanage. Futhermore I believe you'll find it is a criminal offence to disrupt the nest of a protected species.

Yours Sincerely

A bleeding heart liberal

In reply to Mick - Rockfax USA:

What is vermin??
Birds, animals, fish, all vermin.
But you know that already don't you?

Why should we give a toss about the ecosystem? We'll all be dead in a few decades, and I don't plan on reproducing.

In reply to bruce siggerson:

No answer to nihilism.

Just try not to fcuk it up for the rest of us who do care?

Mick

In reply to bruce siggerson:


If climbers start grossly disrespecting the cliff environment......we and importantly YOU will lose your right to climb at the cliff.

From a purely selfish viewpoint, if you disregard voluntary bans, if the Ousel fails to nest. Expect to face enforced bans and covering a wider area.

Whatever your view of wildlife, bleeding heart liberals, so-called environmentalists, the BMC etc YOU will lose your right to climb at the cliff.

How would you feel about that?

Mick

In reply to all:
Just ignore the sad little nihilist everyone. He's managed to get a rise out of us when we should treat his bleetings with the contempt they deserve. He mistakes freedom of speech for the freedom to talk shite . Poor chap......

In reply to bruce siggerson:

Thirty years ago I was chased off the north end of Stanage by gamekeepers.My aim was to go climbing ,their aim was to protect the shooting interests of a minority. Half the crag was off limits during the shooting season. Climbers today are in a very favourable position with regards to access. Don't jeopordise this. The temporary loss of a few routes is a small price to pay.

In reply to john horscroft:

John, there's quite a few with that attitude about. I'm afraid I don't treat such attitudes with contempt. If you do you become part of the problem that splits the climbing community and may lead to in-fighting and worse.

I can see where Bruce and his ilk are coming from even if Bruce is just taking the piss. Are the crags ours or are they for the birds - I believe, like many, that we can co-exist

You shouldn't ignore but try to educate....yes I know entrenched value systems are hard to change. But if you can persuade someone, whatever their views, that if they take on-board enlightened self-interest they may act appropriately so that they don't endanger the birds and their access.

Mick

....and I don't plan on reproducing.

At least you're planning on doing the right thing once in your life.

In reply to green team: Did anyone else hear the piece on the Today prog, R4, this morning? Got the RSPB, and Peak NP reps... Where the hell were the BMC? They didn't even get a mention???? What AM I paying my subs for, people?

Apparently the RSPB will be running around Stanage with tape recorders, to record all the ouzel's unique vocalisations, then repeating the exercise after Easter, to see where they've all gone...

In reply to bruce siggerson:

Vermin definition - tedious posters who carry on playing devils advocate beyond making a point or humour

In reply to bruce siggerson: glad you're not intent on sprogging, then again you'd have to find either a woman who was blind // deaf and stupid or one prepared to fk you for money.

Sloper.

Yours not a liberal, people like you should be shot.

In reply to Slopper:

Very informed comment from the faux lawyer there, considering you've never even laid eyes on me.

In reply to UKC News:

Heard about this on the Today program this morning... ...well a slightly curtailed report.

As a rock climber who also has an interest in birds of prey, I do not agree with Bruce, but think the issue is slightly less obvious than is being portrayed.......

The number of species extinctions that have already occurred exceeds in many orders of magnitude the species currently existant on earth. It is natural for all species to compete for resources and to become more successful (such that it is their genes which get passed on). Perhaps allowing climbers to rock climb at stanage allows some of the more dogdy genes to be knocked out of the gene pool??

Whatever the case, taking a view in favour of a ring ouzel is essentially arbitrary and not immediately based on any obvious ethical basis. "Rights" based ethics are universally dodgy and have far more to do with pragmatism than morality, yet it is only the consciousness and "rights" of the twitcher, juxtaposed with those of the climber, which make this an issue for discussion.

Trying to protect the ouzel's "southern border" has to be an arbitrary process. Why shouldn't the climber, or anyone for that matter, ride roughshod over another species. At least in secular terms, that would be an ethic consistent with the dynamic force of evolution (provided no knowledgeable detriment to the human species is caused). I don't think humanist ethics can provide a basis for contention, monotheists might feasibly turn to an ethic in which the respect and protection of "God's creation" would allow protection of the ring ouzel, but in general secular ethics does not fall on one side or tother of the kill the ring ouzel / protect the ring ouzel problem. So why not side with hedonism and fulfil all are climbing ambitions irrespective of bans?

In reply to Jamie Wilson:



What do you mean by "dodgy genes". The concept of fitness of a gene is dependent on both population and environment. Thus the dodgy gene that is eliminated may not have been so dodgy to the ouzel in its natural environment. Also, long term evolutionary change (i.e. a response due to genetic variation that is not already present) does not happen quickly, and humans are now in the unique position of being able to change the environment at a rate previously only achieved through geological or astronomical events.

If a species cannot respond fast enough, it will instead become extinct. This is now happening at such a rate that it is reasonable to consider our own time as being a period of mass extinction. You can still argue that this is a perfectly natural process, but you do have to ask whether it is the kind of world that you would like to live in.

In reply to Mark L:

The "dodgy genes" were not those of the ring ouzel I was talking about, it was those of the climber. Gene(s) for the, what might be construed as, suicidal behaviour of climbing.

None of what you say forms the basis of any sort of ethic of substance, which is why what you say never comes hard against the call of the hedonistic tyrant. What I am interested in seeing is a more coherent ethical arguement in that direction.

In reply to Jamie Wilson:

Oh, I see. Nevertheless, rock climbing at the kind of location being described is probabaly one of the safer ways you could find to pass your time; its effect on reproductive success (and hence fitness) is a different question that is probabaly best left alone.


It wasn't intended to be, it was a statement of fact, and assumed that it was recognised that there is (at least) a pragmatic basis for conservation. If you want an ethical case as well, then visit a library; there are numerous books and articles that provide just that.

In reply to bruce siggerson:

About as informed as your posts.

In reply to Mark L:

What you said was not fact:

"This is now happening at such a rate that it is reasonable to consider our own time as being a period of mass extinction."

is itself highly debated in the scientific literature.

As for ethics, and your condescension, what makes you think I don't visit a library. Following interest in medical ethics, I became interested in ethics more generally, not least because my grandfather was an ethicist. What books and articles on enivronmental ethics "in the library" are contradictory, situational, arbitrary, obsessive about autonomy, and in general, utter nonsense. Which is probably why, when challenged, lay people, like youself, find it impossible to find coherent language to articulate why someone should behave in a particular manner. In this case, why the climber should leave off the ouzel nesting areas.

In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:

There is at least one esoteric routes at The Rim amongst the bouldering...Forgotton Chimney.


In reply to Ring Ouzel/BMC doubters and critics

Having listened to the arguments at the Peak BMC meeting a few months back I'm convinced that the proposed Stanage Agreement, if handled well, could be a very positive thing for future access agreements. There are nearly 1300 routes at Stanage...for the moment go climb some of the others.

Those critisising the BMC for not being on the show should realise they may not have been invited. I'd add that the local access volunteer, Henry Folkard, has done a fantastic job on all of our behalves.

In reply to Jamie Wilson:

"What books and articles on enivronmental ethics "in the library" are contradictory, situational, arbitrary, obsessive about autonomy, and in general, utter nonsense. Which is probably why, when challenged, lay people, like youself, find it impossible to find coherent language to articulate why someone should behave in a
particular manner."

Thanks for that

In reply to Jamie Wilson:


This is wrong, isn't it?

Ignore the 'twitchers': it is the rights of the birds themselves that is being discussed.

In reply to MC:

Still not updated. Nor is the RAD database on the BMC site.