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 - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

 Page 8 of 10. 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 186
Area Location Sub Location Crag Links
All NSW (General) (General) (General)  

Author
Climbing banned Centennial Trev Blue Mtns - NPWS

Macciza
6-May-2015
9:23:59 AM
On 6/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>
>I explained why I was asking... in truth I doubted something more specific and current existed.
>
That is current POM, you can't get more current then current. It is the specific POM for the BMNP.. How you could have had your discussions with OEH and NPWS about 'assess/implement... Remove ... Etc' without being aware of it is beyond me. Not very professional at all ....

>Current? OK sure that's fine. But that's not the point. It doesn't deal with the specifics and only >recommends that processes are put in place.

What were you expecting? An AS? An IRATA style 'this is exactly how you must do this'. A work safety statement? It doesn't deal in specifics because it's a 'Plan' for the whole park, not just climbing...
It also had to be read in its entirety, applying fundamental principals of why the NPWS exists, and with reference to the NPW Act 1974 (still current) and other documents...
It does deal specifically with many of the points at issue re Dargans Arch. It is quite specific about allowing climbing subject to certain rules. Etc etc etc. How you could possibly say it 'only recommends' is beyond me, unless you read really badly ...

>The commercial side was a higher priority for various reasons ....

Obviously,if you are taking money off commercial operators, providing facilities etc for them then you clearly have a higher duty of care and far more need to deal with the situation. You don't need to be a professional to know that . . .

>No. I do not need internal documents sent to me via chockstone... links are fine... and above board.

Of course you don't need internal documents, in fact you probably aren't qualified for those internal documents . . . You might also want to check out the various documents the BMCC have produced that deal with outdoor recreation including climbing ...

Macciza
6-May-2015
9:37:47 AM
Re Angus as a beard-stroker running round the bush with a grinder being a mess . . .
He's only chasing down some ring-strokers with a powerdrill who were making a mess . . .
Also it is somewhat historically interestingly given the debolting of Centennial Glen back in the day...
Jdodds
6-May-2015
10:34:29 AM
I must say it's quite amusing watching the old fella struggling so much with the steep territory
ClintR
6-May-2015
10:38:05 AM
Well this is a pretty frustrating read in my opinion, and yes I'm just another non-regular forum user posting my opinion but hell, we're all just climbers. This topic is obviously a clash of many different view points and opinions and the closure comes down to national parks but there are way too many personal motives going on here. Decisions are made and reversed, options change, policies are revised. To go out and chop bolts a week after this decision seems like a massive over-reaction and one that can only be driven by some self interest. The ban is in place. Climbing is not allowed. Everyone just leave it be. If you really care about minimising impact, let the dust settle. People care about both sides of this argument and no doubt there will be future lobbying in both directions. Drastic actions like this can only cause further damage and conflict between all parties involved. Disappointing to see to say the least.

Snacks
6-May-2015
10:56:30 AM
On 6/05/2015 Macciza wrote:
>On 6/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>>
>>I explained why I was asking... in truth I doubted something more specific
>and current existed.
>>
>That is current POM, you can't get more current then current. It is the
>specific POM for the BMNP.. How you could have had your discussions with
>OEH and NPWS about 'assess/implement... Remove ... Etc' without being aware
>of it is beyond me. Not very professional at all ....
>
>>Current? OK sure that's fine. But that's not the point. It doesn't deal
>with the specifics and only >recommends that processes are put in place.
>
>What were you expecting? An AS? An IRATA style 'this is exactly how you
>must do this'. A work safety statement? It doesn't deal in specifics because
>it's a 'Plan' for the whole park, not just climbing...
>It also had to be read in its entirety, applying fundamental principals
>of why the NPWS exists, and with reference to the NPW Act 1974 (still current)
>and other documents...
>It does deal specifically with many of the points at issue re Dargans
>Arch. It is quite specific about allowing climbing subject to certain rules.
>Etc etc etc. How you could possibly say it 'only recommends' is beyond
>me, unless you read really badly ...
>
>>The commercial side was a higher priority for various reasons ....
>
>Obviously,if you are taking money off commercial operators, providing
>facilities etc for them then you clearly have a higher duty of care and
>far more need to deal with the situation. You don't need to be a professional
>to know that . . .
>
>>No. I do not need internal documents sent to me via chockstone... links
>are fine... and above board.
>
>Of course you don't need internal documents, in fact you probably aren't
>qualified for those internal documents . . . You might also want to check
>out the various documents the BMCC have produced that deal with outdoor
>recreation including climbing ...

Thanks. I appreciate the enlightenment and clarity you provide in between bongs...

Macciza
6-May-2015
12:37:53 PM
On 6/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>Thanks. I appreciate the enlightenment and clarity you provide in between bongs...

Thats ok, at least what I have written was based on fact and knowledge, not conjecture and opinion, unlike others ...

Also, very unprofessional to simply resort to argumentum ad hominem . . .

Admins, surely if homophobic/sexists slurs and personal attacks/insults are unacceptable then drugphobic insults such as these should also be banned . . .

If not, then its ok Snacks you are excused on the basis that your mental faculties, logic and comprehension skills have probably been negatively affected due to long term alcohol and prescription drug abuse. Cannabis is actually far safer then any recreational or medicinal drug you may have used . . . .

Snacks
6-May-2015
1:02:22 PM
On 6/05/2015 Macciza wrote:
>On 6/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>>Thanks. I appreciate the enlightenment and clarity you provide in between
>bongs...
>
>Thats ok, at least what I have written was based on fact and knowledge,
>not conjecture and opinion, unlike others ...
>
>Also, very unprofessional to simply resort to argumentum ad hominem .
>. .
>
>Admins, surely if homophobic/sexists slurs and personal attacks/insults
>are unacceptable then drugphobic insults such as these should also be banned
>. . .
>
>If not, then its ok Snacks you are excused on the basis that your mental
>faculties, logic and comprehension skills have probably been negatively
>affected due to long term alcohol and prescription drug abuse. Cannabis
>is actually far safer then any recreational or medicinal drug you may have
>used . . . .

So you want my post banned for a reason you just overstepped...

And just kind of reaffirmed a joking remark...

I just had a hunch based on;
- your Facebook profile with you smoking a bong
- two public times we spoke you rattled off on an unrelated tangent about how shit the government is in relation to Marijuana and both times I excused myself politely

...

Though I apologise if your sensibilities have been offended.

maxdacat
6-May-2015
1:27:11 PM
Somebody on the crag can't spell beard-stroker.

Macciza
6-May-2015
1:28:22 PM
Apology accepted . . .
And I suppose I should apologise as well, though perhaps my failure to 'wake'n'bake' can be taken into account as a mollifying factor . . .
My now drug-addled brain realises I should have merely graciously accepted your compliment at face value as your genuine appreciation of my previously postulated point of view, with due recognition of the positive effects of my probable Cannabis use, rather then interpreting it's potentially derogatory subtextual implications. I guess thats due somewhat to how shit the government is in relation to Marijuana, which fortunately this time is a related tangent if you'll excuse me saying . . .

sliamese
6-May-2015
2:21:02 PM
If only you guys stopped bickering and did something constructive with your time you wouldn't even need to be having this discussion. I'm a rope-access kook thats defied all odds by being IRATA qualified AND able to climb(only just) whilst making informed decisions(even more far fetched statement). Hard to believe i know.

If you do 'go down the IRATA path' with an understanding of both worlds, i think it might be possible to write a formal "Fixed Anchor Guidelines". Heck I reckon you could even talk to Parks Engineers to get this document recognised, helping show that there is some crude standard folks are working to. With that you could change the vibe from an "us and them" mentality to them engaging with the community. You could use that when talking to land-owners when wanting to equip routes on private land!!

Oh if only, there must be something in the water down in Tas as that's obviously impossible. We should go back to schoolyard bickering as thats the best use of our time when it comes to these issues.

If you can't understand why Parks don't want climbers on the arch but are fine with Shipley, well i guess you should let the grown ups try and handle the situation.

Snacks
6-May-2015
3:12:50 PM
On 6/05/2015 sliamese wrote:
>If only you guys stopped bickering and did something constructive with
>your time...

Fair point.
Samcross
6-May-2015
4:40:47 PM
On 6/05/2015 ClintR wrote:
>Well this is a pretty frustrating read in my opinion, and yes I'm just
>another non-regular forum user posting my opinion but hell, we're all just
>climbers. This topic is obviously a clash of many different view points
>and opinions and the closure comes down to national parks but there are
>way too many personal motives going on here. Decisions are made and reversed,
>options change, policies are revised. To go out and chop bolts a week after
>this decision seems like a massive over-reaction and one that can only
>be driven by some self interest. The ban is in place. Climbing is not allowed.
>Everyone just leave it be. If you really care about minimising impact,
>let the dust settle. People care about both sides of this argument and
>no doubt there will be future lobbying in both directions. Drastic actions
>like this can only cause further damage and conflict between all parties
>involved. Disappointing to see to say the least.

Disappointing and very sad indeed,
It's a shame Angus couldn't find another outlet to vent his built up rage, Lawn bowls, crochet or even stamp collecting would seem somewhat more appropriate

E. Wells
7-May-2015
8:50:22 AM
How well do you know Angus? Speak in regard to your own motivations. There are many non climbers who are upset with this crag. Its not so much about the bolts but the impact to vegetation. I have personally witnessed the changes from well before climbers visited to know and the impact is significant. The best way to implement this climbing ban is to remove the bolts. Then the lyre bird can move back in. Then the Wallaby can have a drink on a weekend then plastic pulling arseclowns wont bring they're dogs. Just so you know Angus is probably chopping my routes down there right now , that I put "all my hard work and money into blahblahblah" so Im not exactly over the moon about it but Im not putting my blinkers on about the issues either and I think its the only way to implement a ban on a sensitive area. So be it.

deadbudgy
7-May-2015
9:15:57 AM
On 6/05/2015 sliamese wrote:
>
>
>If you can't understand why Parks don't want climbers on the arch but
>are fine with Shipley, well i guess you should let the grown ups try and
>handle the situation.

Could not agree more.
Rawpowa!
7-May-2015
10:35:48 AM
On 7/05/2015 E. Wells wrote:
>How well do you know Angus? Speak in regard to your own motivations. There
>are many non climbers who are upset with this crag. Its not so much about
>the bolts but the impact to vegetation. I have personally witnessed the
>changes from well before climbers visited to know and the impact is significant.
>The best way to implement this climbing ban is to remove the bolts. Then
>the lyre bird can move back in. Then the Wallaby can have a drink on a
>weekend then plastic pulling arseclowns wont bring they're dogs. Just so
>you know Angus is probably chopping my routes down there right now , that
>I put "all my hard work and money into blahblahblah" so Im not exactly
>over the moon about it but Im not putting my blinkers on about the issues
>either and I think its the only way to implement a ban on a sensitive area.
> So be it.

Well said Evan. Its pretty hard to see everyone abiding by the ban if the bolts and climbs are still there. Its a shame but the issue will just fester if they remain.
BBSR
7-May-2015
1:36:55 PM
I'm glad we have people from parks who care about the environment, and protect the places I love. They have a hard job to do, to balance all the different demands, and I doubt it is easy to do this. If I don't always agree with every decision, I always keep in mind the difficulty of the role, and accept the possibility that I am not exactly impartial myself.

I'm glad we have people who get involved with Parks, and help them do the job. People getting involved in the process is the best way to show that we care about these places, and respect the role parks have in managing them.

spicelab
8-May-2015
3:37:36 PM
On 5/05/2015 One Day Hero wrote:
>On 5/05/2015 Samcross wrote:
>>My kids read this stuff, how dare you One day hero!
>
>Good. Time for an alternative interpretation of daddy's hobby.
>
>You kids remember how daddy couldn't take you to soccer because it was
>super-duper important that he bolt all those new routes? And how all the
>other climbers would be so happy that daddy had made all those climbs for
>them to climb?
>
>Well, it turns out that daddy actually didn't find the place at all, bushwalkers
>had been going there for years. And the reason they liked to go there is
>that for an hour or so they could sit under a beautiful natural arch, have
>lunch in the bush, listen to the birds, and pretend that all the horrible
>parts of our industrial society didn't exist. Obviously, being only a few
>hundred meters from the road, this place wasn't really in the middle of
>nowhere. The funny thing about getting away from the concrete and steel
>and rushing and noise though, is that you can very quickly get the peaceful
>feeling of being much more distant than you actually are.
>
>Then daddy came along. And he brought with him a little road, and the
>steel and the concrete, and noisy rushing climbers, and the numbers and
>the beta, and the "FAAAAARK!!". Then it wasn't a peaceful escape from the
>crazy world anymore, it was just one more shitty bit of a developed planet,
>and all the bushwalkers were really sad. Daddy wrecked their peaceful place,
>and he didn't even put up any quality climbs in the fuching process. Most
>other climbers don't go to daddy's cliff, because they know life is too
>short to waste time dicking around on mediocre pox.
>
>the end
>

Don't ever change ODH. You're pretty much the main reason I keep coming back here.

Eduardo Slabofvic
8-May-2015
4:06:44 PM
On 6/05/2015 sliamese wrote:
>
> well i guess you should let the grown ups try and
>handle the situation.

Lucky I didn't mention the dogs!
dan_b
9-May-2015
10:07:05 AM

>Don't ever change ODH. You're pretty much the main reason I keep coming
>back here.

this

BundyBear
12-May-2015
2:34:04 PM
Looks like some action down at the Trev...

From Facebook (Extreme Peeps) - Not my post !!


So turns out this "passionate person" that has been chopping bolts at centennial Trev is nothing more than a whinging beard stroker that doesnt know what hes doing or what hes talking about.
When the Area was put up it was imperative to the people bolting that the area was well looked after, They would clean up after the dirty bushwalkers and also stopped a couple of bushwalkers from knocking a tree fern over to get a better picture for a walking magazine. The place had been looked after quite well (by the climbers). Most bushwalkers if not all local bushwalkers would stroll in with their dogs not cleaning up after them. Now this guy that has petitioned to close the area down for climbing for no actuall good reason apart from the chalk and bolts and probably being the guy just loves to whinge, has now done more damage to the area than any climber or bushwalker ever could have done. Also by going about it the way he has it is also now impossible to clean up all the chalk marks without placing more bolts (which was one of his complaints, and that just doesn't make sense to do that) he has angle grinded the bolts away but has now also left massive holes angle grinded into the rock making it an eyesore. its a big shame that people like this are allowed to get away with doing things like this. If he thought the place was getting damaged then its only destroyed now by HIS DOING ONLY!!!!! please wake up people and stop people like this from destroying the Blue Mountains. Angus Farquhar your a dissapoontment to the conservation of the Blue Mountains. You are nothing but a spineless jelous Beard Stroker that does not deserve to be out in the bush. (maybe if more people climbed his routes this wouldnt have happened). you must have a pretty shitty life if your doing things like this Angus and not doing it properly inturn making thing worse than it could ever have been.


 Page 8 of 10. 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 186
There are 186 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