Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 3 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 224
Author
Fixed gear guidelines in the Grampians
Wendy
14-May-2018
6:59:11 AM
On 14-May-2018 kieranl wrote:
>On 13-May-2018 gfdonc wrote:
>>kieranl wrote:
>>>Sorry to report that the 500m mark ..[snip]
>>>..While somewhat arbitrary it includes a significant number of cliffs,
>>including Rosea and Bundaleer. >Enough other cliffs are also close enough
>>to this mark to hopefully make people take notice of it.
>>
>>Hold on there, cowboy. If you want to make a moratorium about specific
>>cliffs then just list them. There are lots of 'forgotten' crags above
>>the 500m mark that are getting revisited as part of a forthcoming guidebook.
>> I doubt most of the current crew have ever heard of them.


Aren't these places almost exactly what we need to be talking about before they become the next Dreamtime Wall?

gfdonc
14-May-2018
7:07:41 AM
On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:

>Aren't these places almost exactly what we need to be talking about before
>they become the next Dreamtime Wall?
They won't be, not on my watch. Your guidelines cover it pretty well.
chalkischeap
14-May-2018
7:46:14 AM
New fixed gear guidelines would need to be published by an 'authority' e.g. The Victorian Climbing Club. Form a committee, have lots of meetings etc. (The 500m idea is bizarre and sounds like the product of several sub-committees already.)

Don't we have something like this already at VCC?

Some climbers will take no notice anyway.

Dobbing 'offenders' in to Parks Victoria is a really bad idea.

Outraged climber to PV: "This guy has been placing inappropriate bolts".

PV: "All bolts are inappropriate, we'll have to ban climbing if you guys are messing up the cliffs."
Wendy
14-May-2018
9:36:09 AM
Why do I feel like people have PV paranoia? PV know we place bolts. They know there are lots of them. They have had the public complain about them before. If they were going to blanket ban climbing because of the mere existing of bolting, they would have done so already.

Why would reporting irresponsible climbers lead to banning? It simply acknowledges that we recognise inappropriate bolting. If they are going to ban because it's easier than fining or legal action, wouldn't they then be setting themselves up for an awful lot of fining/legal action?

Hey, we can't be fuucked fining you guys for inappropriate bolting, so we will just ban you climbing instead. Oh look, you are still climbing. Does that me we have to fine you anyway?

Banning will lead to an awful lot of work for PV. It's hardly likely to be the blanket response to climbers stepping up and reporting climbers that have not been responsive to peer action.
armstp
14-May-2018
10:20:45 AM
I have the opposite of PV paranoia as I would guess that in reality they are not going to do anything. They are not going to ban climbing and they are not going to deal with inappropriate bolting as they canít tell it apart from any other kind of bolting.

I know that in the past the most complaints they got about bolts and climbing was in relation to Sandinista Wall. It is directly above a popular walking track, it is covered in bolts and chalk and hiking groups have complained about the eyesore of this stuff in a spectacular natural environment. Despite a number of complaints as far as I know PV never did a thing.

After the 2006 fires I worked with a Ranger assessing a few fire damaged cliffs. Her only concern in relation to bolts was whether they had been damaged by the fires and should be replaced to make them safer.

I suppose what I am saying is that you may as well leave PV out of the equation in terms of controlling climber behaviour. It might work as a threat for some people I suppose, just so long as they never call your bluff. If you do report these climbers what is PV going to do? From a Rangers point of view as a compliance officer what makes these new anchors at Camels Hump any different from all the other anchors at Camels Hump other than that the climb was first done without them. I don't see the basis for legal action as it is a climbing ethical issue not an environmental one. You can't legitimately fine someone for retro bolting a route when there are numerous similar bolted routes around. Legally all the bolted routes are wrong or none of them are. Retro bolting is not against the law, only against climbing ethics.



ajfclark
14-May-2018
10:30:44 AM
On 14-May-2018 armstp wrote:
>They are not going to ban climbing and they are not going to deal with inappropriate bolting as they canít tell it apart from any other kind of bolting.

They can certainly tell when it damages a place significant to the traditional owners. See discussion around the black range recently.
Access T CliffCare
14-May-2018
10:50:06 AM
Hi All,

Thanks Kieran for starting this separate thread. Iím dropping you a line shortly.

Whilst I know these kind of discussions seem to come and go, from my land manager interactions over more recent years, the time is fast approaching that a more proactive approach rather than reactive,from the climbing community, to where and how we climb is required. And again within those discussions, the conversation that is happening now is one that was noted as being a necessary one. I have had some ideas on the drawing board since the bolting issues in the Black Range. These ideas have a multi pronged approach. This discussion of guidelines when it comes to fixed protection and development is one part of it. One of my issues (which I have noted in Access reports) is what kind of platform to put this and others on so as to reach as many in the climbing community as possible and for them to be able to provide feedback that is then reasonably easy to disseminate. Chockstone was obviously one avenue, theCrag, CliffCare website, Argus and media such as Vertical Life. And all of this will happen, but I feel like having a central landing platform could be a good idea. And what could work best. Is Chockstone the best platform for the bigger discussion? I know it often requires trawling through pages to know what has previously been said. And it will drop off the page of recent posts and out of peopleís minds if someone doesnít comment regularly. Maybe this would be the case on any platform? Iím going to be throwing in feedback, suggestions, and concerns from the other camps, namely Parks Victoria and Traditional Owners so that the climbing community is informed and understands the full extent of the issues and possible outcomes. I currently spend time going back and forth between a variety of Facebook pages, websites and forums to collect feedback.

Just finishing up Ė These conversations go a long way though, as a collective, when I do have discussions with PV and TO. And they are on the table. I would like to go with information to present rather than go and hear what decisions have been made to manage the situation. Of course, when all is said and done, you canít make people listen or force them to do something they feel they shouldnít have to do. I suppose those that continue to carry on as they always have really do need to understand that there are consequences. This isnít a matter of having PV paranoia, but it is about being realistic. It wonít just keep continuing on with nothing ever being done about it. And itís also not just about PV. There are other stakeholders involved.

armstp
14-May-2018
10:50:18 AM
That is of course a different kind of 'inappropriate bolting', the kind that can be identified by non-climbers! I would imagine that bolting on a major popular tourist feature would also be able to be identified as inappropriate by PV.

It doesn't change the fact that the real issue for climbers is dealing with the stuff that is inappropriate by climbing standards but looks just like any other bolting to a non-climber.
Access T CliffCare
14-May-2018
10:51:19 AM
On 14-May-2018 armstp wrote:
>I have the opposite of PV paranoia as I would guess that in reality they
>are not going to do anything. They are not going to ban climbing and they
>are not going to deal with inappropriate bolting as they canít tell it
>apart from any other kind of bolting.
>
>I know that in the past the most complaints they got about bolts and climbing
>was in relation to Sandinista Wall. It is directly above a popular walking
>track, it is covered in bolts and chalk and hiking groups have complained
>about the eyesore of this stuff in a spectacular natural environment.

>Despite a number of complaints as far as I know PV never did a thing.
>
>After the 2006 fires I worked with a Ranger assessing a few fire damaged
>cliffs. Her only concern in relation to bolts was whether they had been
>damaged by the fires and should be replaced to make them safer.
>
>I suppose what I am saying is that you may as well leave PV out of the
>equation in terms of controlling climber behaviour. It might work as a
>threat for some people I suppose, just so long as they never call your
>bluff. If you do report these climbers what is PV going to do? From
>a Rangers point of view as a compliance officer what makes these new anchors
>at Camels Hump any different from all the other anchors at Camels Hump
>other than that the climb was first done without them. I don't see the
>basis for legal action as it is a climbing ethical issue not an environmental
>one. You can't legitimately fine someone for retro bolting a route
>when there are numerous similar bolted routes around. Legally all the
>bolted routes are wrong or none of them are. Retro bolting is not against
>the law, only against climbing ethics.


Hmm, I can't say I agree with all of your points there. I have been hearing complaints and it hasn't been about Sandanista. Because a ranger's concern voiced to you was just about whether the bolts were damaged and that was it, was probably more related to the fact that it was a specific concern at the time and there was other conversation that didn't include you. I heard those concerns too. I also heard other concerns that had nothing to do with fire damage and was a different conversation.
Whilst it appears nothing has been done about it, doesn't mean it hasn't been discussed and that nothing will continue to be done about it. Some things take time and some times, it's about giving usergroups the opportunity to listen, learn and self regulate/manage. It's also not always about environmental. As I said, it's complex. And there are different issues at different cliffs and parks. One of the biggest issues we will be dealing with is cultural heritage and Traditional Owners. And more specifically in the Grampians, which let's face it has the bulk of climbing and new routing going on.This should be done sensitively and I would also hope that the climbing community is keen to see how we can best be respectful and non damaging to the cultural heritage that is in the park. This should be regardless of what PV would like to do in order to manage it from their end.
armstp
14-May-2018
12:15:08 PM
I should note that I only raised PV in the discussion because some people seemed to hope that they could be used to solve ethical climbing problems that only have meaning for climbers [eg someone retro-bolting a single trad route in an area that is already full of bolted climbs].

I think we have to be careful not to confuse two issues here. The first is that there are areas where PV can be expected to act on its legal rights if climbing transgresses them. These include actions causing damage to public property, ignoring TO rights and bolting at highly visible high use tourist sites. These are highly relevant points that need discussion but quite different to the issues that sparked off this debate.

The climbing ethical issues will spill over into that legalistic framework at times but the bolt for peg exchange at Bundaleer does not strike me as something of interest to PV or TOs. Assuming the cultural issues relative to Rosea have been addressed it doesnít seem likely that TOs or PV would really care or notice if there were discrete belay/abseil rings placed at the end of every pitch on Rosea, but a lot of climbers would find it offensive. You canít appeal to the authorities to stop someone doing that because each of those anchor/abseil rings is no different to the few that currently exist. How does a non-climber distinguish what is acceptable or not? Only climbers can do that, hence this discussion.


FatBoy
14-May-2018
12:54:00 PM
On 14-May-2018 armstp wrote:
>I should note that I only raised PV in the discussion because some people
>seemed to hope that they could be used to solve ethical climbing problems
>that only have meaning for climbers

Now you're trying to have it both ways - your previous post basically dismissed introducing PV as a factor and that any attempt to do so would be incorrect.

FTR, I object to over-bolting for 3 different but important reasons:
  1. Possible future restrictions to access by land-managers
  2. I want to retain as much of a trad ethic as possible since I consider it a purer form of climbing
  3. Excessive visible bolting is ugly - even for me as a climber
Of these, the 2nd point is the principle reason for my arguments at Rosea, but it doesn't mean that i. and iii. aren't still factors.
Wendy
14-May-2018
1:26:23 PM
With the odd exception such as the bolt on Blimp, I think most climbing ethical concerns will overlap with PV concerns. Climbing ethics also involve minimising environmental and aesthetic impact. I'm fairly sure that my issues with Dreamtime Wall and potential for something similar to happen at other obscure crags would be shared with PV. Whilst PV might not care if Rosea is a bolt free cliff, I'm guessing they would if it turned into a high traffic sport area. This discussion isn't really about individual events like Blimp, but the overall future management of route development. We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are stopped in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope to set boundaries. Kieran is suggesting doing so by categorising individual crags for certain sorts of development. I am suggesting general principals that can be applied across the board. Maybe someone has some other ideas. But either which way, the question remains, what happens when people don't comply?

If we don't utilise existing legal frameworks for causing damage in national parks, how do we deal with recalcitrant offenders such as the guy who appears to have not learnt from having his previous bolts chopped? I really don't think bolting wars are a good solution, even though I know there are people on here who love them.
kieranl
14-May-2018
5:50:38 PM
On 14-May-2018 chalkischeap wrote:
,,,
>(The 500m idea is bizarre and sounds like the product of several sub-committees
>already.)
>

Thank you, though I doubt that any committee would be crazy-brave enough to suggest it. The tallest peak in the Grampians is a bit over 1,000m high, half that and round to the nearest hundred.

It's a non-judgemental dividing line. Cliffs aren't in because of any attribute related to their climbing profile, just their altitude. No subjective decisions required.

One Day Hero
14-May-2018
6:18:04 PM
On 14-May-2018 kieranl wrote:
>It's a non-judgemental dividing line. Cliffs aren't in because of any
>attribute related to their climbing profile, just their altitude. No subjective
>decisions required.

No, it's some bizarre bullshit you strapped on because you have bolting ambitions at low-lying areas in the Gramps. It's ridiculous, transparent, and will massively weaken any attempt to come to an agreement. Why would anybody agree to not bolt their projects which happen to lie above an arbitrary line, decided by you, when others are bolting away on the low side of the stupid line?
One Day Hero
14-May-2018
6:43:27 PM
On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>Why do I feel like people have PV paranoia? PV know we place bolts. They
>know there are lots of them. They have had the public complain about them
>before. If they were going to blanket ban climbing because of the mere
>existing of bolting, they would have done so already.

This is incredibly naive. I honestly think a bolt war is less harmful than involving the authorities.

Fatboy pretty much covered the basics, I'll add a dash of harshness.

People who are bolting highly visible crags in national parks are playing chicken with a train, and the rest of us are stuck in the car with them. For example, I know you reckon Joe Goding is a nice bloke, but he's developing junk which offends lots of climbers, and could potentially affect broader access. The risk vs reward is unbelievable. It's selfish, stupid, and I frankly struggle to see how he can be a good person.
kieranl
14-May-2018
6:43:43 PM
On 14-May-2018 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 14-May-2018 kieranl wrote:
>>It's a non-judgemental dividing line. Cliffs aren't in because of any
>>attribute related to their climbing profile, just their altitude. No
>subjective
>>decisions required.
>
>No, it's some bizarre bullshit you strapped on because you have bolting
>ambitions at low-lying areas in the Gramps. It's ridiculous, transparent,
>and will massively weaken any attempt to come to an agreement.

No. Simply no. Why do you have to seek some weird hidden agendas in anything that comes up? This only works if people act in good faith. Yes, I'd open myself up if I had the agenda you suggest. Have I given you any reason to suggest that I have such an agenda? No. I've never met you to the best of my knowledge and I haven't discussed bolting plans on low-lying Grampians crags with you because I both have no such plans and you are not one of the people I include in discussions of any plans I have. I come here with goodwill and I'll thank you to return this if you are capable of such.
One Day Hero
14-May-2018
6:48:17 PM
Then where does the stupid line come from? Why? What purpose does it serve?
kieranl
14-May-2018
6:53:58 PM
Read the posts. Perhaps consider an apology.
One Day Hero
14-May-2018
6:59:19 PM
I read the posts, it doesn't make any sense. Dumb bolts on poxy rock below 500m are just as likely to cause access problems as those over 500m.

Explain clearly why a bolting ceiling is useful.

Duang Daunk
14-May-2018
7:01:51 PM
On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>With the odd exception such as the bolt on Blimp, I think most climbing
>ethical concerns will overlap with PV concerns. Climbing ethics also involve
>minimising environmental and aesthetic impact. I'm fairly sure that my
>issues with Dreamtime Wall and potential for something similar to happen
>at other obscure crags would be shared with PV. Whilst PV might not care
>if Rosea is a bolt free cliff, I'm guessing they would if it turned into
>a high traffic sport area.

I'm calling hypocrisy sis, as I think you just put another twist on the definition of slippery slope.

>This discussion isn't really about individual
>events like Blimp, but the overall future management of route development.
>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are stopped
>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope to
>set boundaries.

Like Dreamtime?

> Kieran is suggesting doing so by categorising individual
>crags for certain sorts of development. I am suggesting general principals
>that can be applied across the board. Maybe someone has some other ideas.
>But either which way, the question remains, what happens when people don't
>comply?

Chopping rightly starts of the offending bolts as well as including other routes the offender may have put up elsewhere, irrespective of if the bolter is a 7 ft tall giant because confrontation is no loss of energy, and besides it takes more effort and cost to put them in than to remove them.
>
>If we don't utilise existing legal frameworks for causing damage in national
>parks, how do we deal with recalcitrant offenders such as the guy who appears
>to have not learnt from having his previous bolts chopped? I really don't
>think bolting wars are a good solution, even though I know there are people
>on here who love them.

You got the last part right sister.

On 14-May-2018 Wendy wrote:
>We are trying to set standards so that slippery slopes don't occur, because
>much as everyone loves using them for this argument, they can and are stopped
>in almost all cases by agreeing on an appropriate point on the slope to
>set boundaries.

There's that hippo thing again, but at least it seems you admit to them existing, because I was beginning to think you were a denialist.

 Page 3 of 12. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 224
There are 224 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints