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 2 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

vwills
30-Apr-2015
2:15:38 PM
Actually a fair few climbers are also opposed to this place being bolted.

vwills
30-Apr-2015
2:18:00 PM
Something that needs to change in Australia!
>

>
>This is not the first case an area has been shut down with no consultation
>from NPWS with the climbing community and very much doubt will be the last
>because I think officially climbers are in the same basket as base jumpers
>etc and viewed very far down the list of legitimate park users.


>
BBSR
30-Apr-2015
2:33:13 PM

>This is not the first case an area has been shut down with no consultation
>from NPWS with the climbing community and very much doubt will be the last
>because I think officially climbers are in the same basket as base jumpers
>etc and viewed very far down the list of legitimate park users.
>
While I believe our interest group is not always given enough consideration, I don't think the comparison with base jumping is at all a fair one in the blue mountains. Below is an extract from the plan of management. You will see that climbing is specifically approved under the provisions, as opposed to base jumping, which is specifically not permitted.

* Abseiling, rock climbing, canyoning and river activities are approved in the park
provided that activities are undertaken in accordance with:
- the provisions of this plan, including approved sites, closures and group size;
- any code of conduct promoted by the Service;
- any other restrictions, exclusions or closures which may from time to time be
introduced by the Service.
* Persons who wish to undertake any other activities in the park which may involve
risking the safety of the person or the safety of other persons will require prior
approval from the Regional Manager under the National Parks and Wildlife (Land
Management) Regulation 1995.
* Bungy jumping, base jumping and hang-gliding will not be permitted. Parachuting
may only be permitted subject to strict conditions for the protection of public safety,
the park environment and scenic values
dalai
30-Apr-2015
4:41:11 PM
On 30/04/2015 Jdodds wrote:
>On 30/04/2015 vwills wrote:
>>Actually a fair few climbers are also opposed to this place being bolted.
>>
>Something that needs to change in Australia

Why? Not every cliff needs to be climbed or bolted...

Not like the Blue Mountains are devoid of cliffs.
Jdodds
30-Apr-2015
5:00:03 PM
On 30/04/2015 dalai wrote:
>
>Why? Not every cliff needs to be climbed or bolted...

I agree with you there Dalai, but if you Actually knew the area you wouldn't be writing this, I have come across at least 20 or more of this style of Arches whilst exploring the canyon lands that extend more than 100km north of this area, that are naturally protected by the means there is no road access and require multiple day walk ins, none of these areas will ever be developed due to access and lazy sport climbers. This area in particular is less than 100m inside the park boundary, and 150m from the end of a fire road. It was the only one suitable for development.
One Day Hero
30-Apr-2015
5:56:38 PM
On 30/04/2015 Jdodds wrote:
>On 30/04/2015 dalai wrote:
>>
>>Why? Not every cliff needs to be climbed or bolted...
>
>I agree with you there Dalai, but if you Actually knew the area you wouldn't
>be writing this, I have come across at least 20 or more of this style of
>Arches whilst exploring the canyon lands that extend more than 100km north
>of this area, that are naturally protected by the means there is no road
>access and require multiple day walk ins, none of these areas will ever
>be developed due to access and lazy sport climbers. This area in particular
>is less than 100m inside the park boundary, and 150m from the end of a
>fire road. It was the only one suitable for development.

Well shit, if it was only 100m inside the boundary it barely counts as being national park. What the hell did they think was going to happen? It's amazing you guys were so restrained, should have cut a bunch of trees down, made a nice lunch spot, maybe cut a road so you can get your forester down to the crag. Don't these bushwalkers understand that it was the only one suitable for development. Lazy sport climbers have rights.
Hipster
30-Apr-2015
8:01:25 PM
On 30/04/2015 Jdodds wrote:
>I am all for keeping good ties with the NPWS, but I hope we all realise
>that this all came about due to very few complaints from bush walkers who
>have lobbied the parks service for this

Really... Did you speak to Parks?? I did. Complaints came from climbers and bush walkers equally on this occasion.

rodw
30-Apr-2015
8:05:25 PM
On 30/04/2015 BBSR wrote:

>While I believe our interest group is not always given enough consideration,
>I don't think the comparison with base jumping is at all a fair one in
>the blue mountains. Below is an extract from the plan of management.
>You will see that climbing is specifically approved under the provisions,
>as opposed to base jumping, which is specifically not permitted.

I think your cherry picking so I will too :)

Approved climbing sites in the park are recognised at Glenbrook Gorge, Sublime
Point, Three Sisters (subject to further planning) to Katoomba Falls, Narrow Neck,
and parts of the Grose Valley (sites known to climbers as Victorialand, Ikara, Victoria
Falls, Pierces Pass and Hanging Rock). The establishment of new rock climbs at
sites which are not approved climbing sites will require prior consultation with the
Service.

Basically any area not listed above if it come to there attention is liable for a ban. Anyway people can read it themselves and decide...ie page 80 onwards...

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/parks/pomfinalbluemountains.pdf

When it comes to rock climbing the Blue Mts POM s actually probably the most favorable to rock climbers (even with such sweeping limitations.)...in 2002 they changed the rule in that by default rock climbing is banned in all national parks unless the POM states otherwise...which is most of them as most simply ignore rock climbing exist so banned by default.

Yep rock climbing in viewed by NPWS as a legitimate activity....NOT.


Dr Nick
30-Apr-2015
8:06:06 PM
On 30/04/2015 rodw wrote:

>I'm not as optimistic as Nick in regards to changing the status quo, I
>do not think the climbing community as a whole have enough numbers or clout
>to effect change....easier just to side with current regulation when pushed.
>or prompted like they did here.

Seen the Berowra NP POM? They seem to be happy enough with a crag you might be familiar with, though the other three I'm aware of seem to have been missed. Speaking of which, I must go actually climb those things because it's getting bloody ridiculous.

rodw
30-Apr-2015
8:34:07 PM
Yeah its new, previous POM didn't mention it at all which is refreshing considering the state of play with rock climbing in the neighboring Nat park. Mt K lies next to a motor cross country track bordered by an industrial area, and all climbing is out of site of anyone so seems common sense prevails.

I see this note in the POM...

"NPWS will work with rock climbing groups to prepare a code of conduct and guidelines for rock
climbing in Berowra Valley National Park." - comes to the heart of the problem in that we have no designated lobby group for them to liaise with.


vwills
30-Apr-2015
10:16:56 PM
You can't point the finger at NPWS. I think they have, where climbers have cared enough, and provided solutions, been quite receptive, when on the surface, banning would be the "easiest" thing to do.

They are constantly tackling issues such as this , but also have to deal with calls for hunting, dogs , 4wds, "Eco tourism" etc to be allowed , and deal with public stupidity when people injure themselves, while having funding constantly cut and being told they have to make up the shortfall.

An overarching NSW rock climbing access association with affiliation with existing groups such as Sydney Rockies, university clubs, Canberra climbers, and local groups with representation such as Blue mountains, Hunter and central coast, Coffs, Illawarra etc would go a long way to presenting a somewhat united voice and help enormously in dealings with land managers. Trying to get your head around the acts and regulations and plans of management that dictate how our services should function, and using them to negotiate for responsible access for rock climbers is very time consuming, but We do have to get on top of it and work with land managers , or they will take the easiest option, eg Forestry and ban climbing as a dangerous, and damaging activity.
Jdodds
1-May-2015
7:08:25 AM
On 30/04/2015 Hipster wrote
>
>Really... Did you speak to Parks?? I did. Complaints came from climbers
>and bush walkers equally on this occasion.

Yes really, I have spoken with a few members from the Parks, some good friends of mine, they have informed me that complaints had only come from old beard strockers
maxdacat
1-May-2015
7:38:50 AM
On 30/04/2015 One Day Hero wrote:

>
>Well shit, if it was only 100m inside the boundary it barely counts as
>being national park.

That's what I had thought on one of my visits.....especially since somebody had bought their dog to the crag. I wasn't sure if it was in or out.

Parks don't seem to have much in the way of detailed maps defining the boundaries (correct me if i'm wrong):

http://www.bmwhi.org.au/images/GBM-Map-A4-copyright.jpg

are we to think that the dirt roads, train line and Deliverance style houses are part of the NP?
Mr Poopypants
1-May-2015
7:49:29 AM
Hi Folks

A few points:

This area has been visited by lots of different people: climbers, bushwalkers, commercial groups, locals (quite a few locals are very active climbers and outdoors types) for many years. Long before the routes went up. Anybody that doesn't believe that is having themselves on.

It was generally agreed by every climber I know who has been there that the area was too special to be bolted or "developed", even though we knew it would happen one day. Yes, there are plenty of other climbing areas in the park, but this one is pretty special and different. It would obviously be protected by the Parks.

The NPWS in Blackheath are not anti-climbing. The Blue Mts NPWS people went to great lengths to consult with the climbing community during the drafting of the PoM, both locally and from further afield. They initiated the contact with groups and individuals. There were several submissions made by climbers and the NPWS were very open to ideas and suggestions made at meetings they organised. The PoM adopted many of the submissions made by climbers. There was an organised group of climbers from all over who coordinated their approach. Quite a few of the group have been responsible for route development in the mts.

The NPWS were not openly opposed to bolting as a blanket thing, they left this to be regulated by the climbing community. This is what every climber we spoke to wanted. They are far more concerned with other environmental and management issues, eg cars pushing bush back at car parks, new tracks eroding, rubbish and toilet areas developing around campsites or carparks etc (the list is long).

What became obvious is that their resources are stretched and we need to fix our own problems to avoid becoming their problem. Every climber present at the meetings (and others that I spoke to) agreed that we need to jump in when a problem arises and be proactive about finding a remedy.

Bolting is not their big worry with this. If the main cause of the dramatic increase in visitation isn't removed (the climbs) the NPWS will be forced to act to protect the arch (whether we think it needs protecting or not). They've told us this now. It is in the best interest of climbing all over the Park that this area is cleaned up by climbers and that a good job is done.

Contrary to what some of you think climbers have quite a good rapport with the Parks in Blackheath and we need to keep it that way. We all know there are plenty of other areas in the park that they have ignored bolting at and are not concerned about climbers using for recreation. They even now draw a distinction between recreational climbing and commercial use.

Before you crucify me, I'm not saying that the situation is perfect for climbers but a lot of local and non-local climbers have actually engaged with the parks and things have improved considerably. There's even space in the park for sport climbing :-) I've found the Rangers very approachable and not anti-climbing or anti-bolting at all, quite a few of them climb. (and yes, I do know quite a few of them)

They do monitor route development and are aware of what is going on.[slight edit] They really haven't intervened much, if at all, recently in the Blue Mts area, look at Bell. Lets keep it that way.

For what it is worth (probably nothing) I think the smart thing would be for climbers to remove those bolts and repair the holes properly and for the problem to just go away before the Parks have to get involved. (and I love a new climbing area as much as anyone) It's a shame to lose any climbs anywhere, but let's pick our battles wisely.

Cheers
G.

ecowain
1-May-2015
8:07:16 AM
On 1/05/2015 maxdacat wrote:
>Parks don't seem to have much in the way of detailed maps defining the
>boundaries (correct me if i'm wrong):

Look at any topographic map produced by the Department of Lands. Depending on the edition look for either a dot dash style line with an "N" every inch or so, or for a solid green line. If in doubt, read the map's legend. This indicates the boundary of the National Park.

Looking at the Wollangambe 1:25,000 8931-2S Second Edition map, the area in question is clearly 600m inside the National Park boundary. On this part of the map, the train line is outside of the boundary, and the dirt roads ducks in and out of the park.

Whether people have chosen to respect this boundary, with dogs, Deliverence style houses or pot plantations, is another matter.

rodw
1-May-2015
8:41:28 AM
On 1/05/2015 Mr Poopypants wrote:
>They do monitor route development and are aware of what is going on, even
>your stuff on the plateau before you anounced it Rod.

Just to be padantic....the plateau is state forest not nat park btw :)

As for boundaries, just use the six viewer for reference..

https://maps.six.nsw.gov.au/
yosemite05
1-May-2015
9:21:21 AM
I lost count of all the drawers hanging from the Arch and the caves on my visit out there just the other day. For a somewhat tourist destination that the Arch is becoming, this would definitely be an eyesore for them. Won't belong before NPWS will need to erect a giant fence on the Arch to prevent visitors falling off it.
PDRM
1-May-2015
9:52:02 AM
From Dave Noble's page:

"Sports climbing involves the placement of ring bolts into the rock and this has caused some controversy. The arch itself is an interesting geomorphic feature and I think its a shame to see bolts in it. But it is not unique there are plenty of arches in the sandstone country of the Greater Blue Mountains, nor is it in a remote place. But it is in Blue Mountains National Park and perhaps the land managers need to consider this issue?"
OozeDumbHopeless
1-May-2015
12:37:37 PM
On 28/04/2015 Duang Daunk wrote:

>Sure they do bro.
>They consulted no end for the dmp of North Head.

To be fair, in this case, as the NPWS pointed out, climbing interfers with whale watching.
access t cliffcare
1-May-2015
12:45:00 PM
On 1/05/2015 Mr Poopypants wrote:
>Hi Folks
>
>A few points:
>
>This area has been visited by lots of different people: climbers, bushwalkers,
>commercial groups, locals (quite a few locals are very active climbers
>and outdoors types) for many years. Long before the routes went up. Anybody
>that doesn't believe that is having themselves on.
>
>It was generally agreed by every climber I know who has been there that
>the area was too special to be bolted or "developed", even though we knew
>it would happen one day. Yes, there are plenty of other climbing areas
>in the park, but this one is pretty special and different. It would obviously
>be protected by the Parks.
>
>The NPWS in Blackheath are not anti-climbing. The Blue Mts NPWS people
>went to great lengths to consult with the climbing community during the
>drafting of the PoM, both locally and from further afield. They initiated
>the contact with groups and individuals. There were several submissions
>made by climbers and the NPWS were very open to ideas and suggestions made
>at meetings they organised. The PoM adopted many of the submissions made
>by climbers. There was an organised group of climbers from all over who
>coordinated their approach. Quite a few of the group have been responsible
>for route development in the mts.
>
>The NPWS were not openly opposed to bolting as a blanket thing, they left
>this to be regulated by the climbing community. This is what every climber
>we spoke to wanted. They are far more concerned with other environmental
>and management issues, eg cars pushing bush back at car parks, new tracks
>eroding, rubbish and toilet areas developing around campsites or carparks
>etc (the list is long).
>
>What became obvious is that their resources are stretched and we need
>to fix our own problems to avoid becoming their problem. Every climber
>present at the meetings (and others that I spoke to) agreed that we need
>to jump in when a problem arises and be proactive about finding a remedy.
>
>Bolting is not their big worry with this. If the main cause of the dramatic
>increase in visitation isn't removed (the climbs) the NPWS will be forced
>to act to protect the arch (whether we think it needs protecting or not).
>They've told us this now. It is in the best interest of climbing all over
>the Park that this area is cleaned up by climbers and that a good job is
>done.
>
>Contrary to what some of you think climbers have quite a good rapport
>with the Parks in Blackheath and we need to keep it that way. We all know
>there are plenty of other areas in the park that they have ignored bolting
>at and are not concerned about climbers using for recreation. They even
>now draw a distinction between recreational climbing and commercial use.
>
>Before you crucify me, I'm not saying that the situation is perfect for
>climbers but a lot of local and non-local climbers have actually engaged
>with the parks and things have improved considerably. There's even space
>in the park for sport climbing :-) I've found the Rangers very approachable
>and not anti-climbing or anti-bolting at all, quite a few of them climb.
>(and yes, I do know quite a few of them)
>
>They do monitor route development and are aware of what is going on, even
>your stuff on the plateau before you anounced it Rod. They really haven't
>intervened much, if at all, recently in the Blue Mts area, look at Bell.
>Lets keep it that way.
>
>For what it is worth (probably nothing) I think the smart thing would
>be for climbers to remove those bolts and repair the holes properly and
>for the problem to just go away before the Parks have to get involved.
>(and I love a new climbing area as much as anyone) It's a shame to lose
>any climbs anywhere, but let's pick our battles wisely.
>
>Cheers
>G.

Obviously I only deal with access in Victoria but keep an eye on any topics Australia and worldwide. I can't comment on any specifics with this issue it being in NSW but Mr. Poopypants - such a well written and balanced view of what it is often like to work with the landmanagers. The framework in which they have to work can be challenging to them as much as us as a community. And they definitely rely on us pulling a lot more of our own weight. It's a quite complex relationship that will often change also when new people come into either camp. Anyway, just thought I would throw that 2c worth in. It is a good post that explains a lot.
>

 Page 2 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