Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

Area	Location	Sub Location	Crag	Links
All NSW	(General)	(General)	(General)

Author

Climbing banned Centennial Trev Blue Mtns - NPWS


Snacks

5-May-2015
7:58:52 PM

So, how does an area like Upper Shipley compare to having this area banned (and now apparently with bolts removed as of today)?

That crag would have to be one of the most used areas by bushwalkers and climbers in tandem in the whole Blue Mountains.

Wouldn't want to see it go on my account though... ha ha... as I'm more just making an academic point...

But it is;
- unaesthetic from a bushwalker point of view, though some like stopping and watching climbers... but at least some would object...
- grid bolted to the max
- soft sandstone with climbers possibly ripping off holds onto walkers (unlikely but more of a risk here than at the arch in question)

Olbert

5-May-2015
8:10:45 PM

On 5/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>So, how does an area like Upper Shipley compare to having this area banned
>(and now apparently with bolts removed as of today)?
>
>That crag would have to be one of the most used areas by bushwalkers and
>climbers in tandem in the whole Blue Mountains.
>
>Wouldn't want to see it go on my account though... ha ha... as I'm more
>just making an academic point...
>
>But it is;
>- unaesthetic from a bushwalker point of view
>- grid bolted to the max
>- soft sandstone with climbers possibly ripping off holds onto walkers
>(unlikely but more of a risk than at the arch in question)

It's not in the National Park.

It's been there for 20+ years - so there isn't a major problem. Most people have accepted it for what it is.

It doesn't have any outstanding natural value (in comparison to an arch!) that isn't all over the Blue Mountains.


nmonteith

5-May-2015
8:46:25 PM

Just a heads up. I can guarantee that National Parks are reading this topic so keep that in mind.

Jayford4321

5-May-2015
8:49:06 PM

On 5/05/2015 Olbert wrote:
>I think the strongest bolt removal argument boils down to this:
>
>a well reasoned blah blah blah

but ur wrong!
the strongest bolt removal argument boils down to the deed of doin it, and it isnt rocket science is it olly, as someone said at whee was it again? yeh, now i rmember, tha big mt k a while back.


Snacks

5-May-2015
8:53:20 PM

On 5/05/2015 Olbert wrote:
>On 5/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
>>So, how does an area like Upper Shipley compare to having this area banned
>>(and now apparently with bolts removed as of today)?
>>
>>That crag would have to be one of the most used areas by bushwalkers
>and
>>climbers in tandem in the whole Blue Mountains.
>>
>>Wouldn't want to see it go on my account though... ha ha... as I'm more
>>just making an academic point...
>>
>>But it is;
>>- unaesthetic from a bushwalker point of view
>>- grid bolted to the max
>>- soft sandstone with climbers possibly ripping off holds onto walkers
>>(unlikely but more of a risk than at the arch in question)
>
>
>It's not in the Nationa
> Park.
>
>It's been there for 20+ years - so there isn't a major problem. Most people
>have accepted it for what it is.
>
>It doesn't have any outstanding natural value (in comparison to an arch!)
>that isn't all over the Blue Mountains.
>
>

Haha. Yeah you're right it does lie outside their jurisdiction...

But I think my point is still valid...

My previous talks with OEH reps and NPWS reps don't relate to this area (Dargans arch) specifically, and with how it is being handled from what someone above has mentioned I don't want to continue this further as the parties involved have their own headaches specific to this situation to deal with now...

Good luck to everyone involved having this resolved more amicably.

climberman

5-May-2015
9:13:21 PM

It appears to be resolved.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

5-May-2015
9:29:01 PM

On 5/05/2015 climberman wrote:
>It appears to be resolved.

At least we hope NPWS thinks so.
... till next time.


Macciza

5-May-2015
9:33:42 PM

Snacks - For further specific info see the plans OEH & NPWS have for managing places . . . Oh and the Pomm they were possibly mentioned in your previous discussions with them was actually a POM . . .


snacks

5-May-2015
9:45:01 PM

On 5/05/2015 Macciza wrote:
>Snacks - For further specific info see the plans OEH & NPWS have for managing
>places . . . Oh and the Pomm they were possibly mentioned in your previous
>discussions with them was actually a POM . . .

If you could send a specific link with the bolting and climbing rules you referred to that'd be great. Thanks


rodw

5-May-2015
10:00:24 PM

2 seconds search via Google..

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkmanagement/BlueMountainsNPMgmtplan.htm

Wendy

5-May-2015
10:18:11 PM

On 5/05/2015 rodw wrote:
>On 5/05/2015 Wendy wrote:
>>On 5/05/2015 Samcross wrote:
>> Why don't you take the opportunity to explain
>>to them why using gay terms as abuse is offensive? Kids need to be taught
>>to assess and manage this stuff for themselves, not molly coddled around
>>it.
>
>Simply not saying will suffice...seems to me your excusing ODH who is
>a serial offender because hes a friend ?..maybe take the opportunity to
>say to ODH to stop being a bigot and not Molly coddle him?
>
>Samcross is right to call him out on this issue, but ODH will ignore as
>usual, but you saying Samcross attitude needs to change is a bit rich and
>hypocritical IMHO, by someone who is normally very politically correct
>on other issues.

I've told Damo on here and in person what I think - what I object to is this "think about the children" line- have his kids been on Twitter? I read rape and death threats against women for just holding a feminist opinion and gay and racist slurs are abundant. f---, just look at what mainstream media and politicians seem to think it's ok to say sometimes. Tell Damo what he thinks about it, sure, but not carrying on about his children - it's his responsibility to educate his children about it so they think twice before doing it themselves (which no shortage of teenagers do) and are armed with the skills to respond to it when they inevitably encounter it and other forms of clap trap elsewhere. I mean, is it OK to say this sort of stuff if children aren't listening?????


Macciza

5-May-2015
10:31:09 PM

On 5/05/2015 rodw wrote:
>2 seconds search via Google..
>
Thanks, I thought he was IRATA 3 for some reason, and thought the clues were enough as well . . .


snacks

5-May-2015
10:57:32 PM

On 5/05/2015 rodw wrote:
>2 seconds search via Google..
>
>http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkmanagement/BlueMountainsNPMgmtplan.htm

Thanks Rod. Though that is a 14 year old document.

There is reference to more specific operational guidelines that would be a matter for ongoing review... do you have links to the these?

So many changes have occurred since 2001 in rock climbing, OEH risk management, height safety... that makes that plan very dated.

Three action item directives that come from this particular document that Ive discussed with some people are:

• Assess/implement/review permit systems for canyoning and rock climbing
• Remove unauthorised rock climbing routes
• Remove unauthorised bolts following safety assessment

Maccas reference to rules gave me the impression that more specific guidelines were in place on how these points are now handled and that's not what I've heard elsewhere...

But they might not be available so easily via Google searches... and could also be stored locally on the person's hard drive that was once tasked to come up with them... Though as before links would be nice if anyone has them.

Thanks

Jdodds

6-May-2015
6:07:59 AM

Angry old beardstrockers running around the bush with a grinder, this sounds messy

climberman

6-May-2015
6:56:32 AM

snacks, perhaps you need to write to Parks rather than expecting others to provide internal Parks docs to you.

The 2001 POM is the current doc, for better or for worse.


rodw

6-May-2015
7:21:40 AM

Yeah sorry snacks that is what Parks work off and what we need to deal with. Maybe down the track they will review it and we can have some input but until that time its the framework that all decisions will be made under.

maxdacat

6-May-2015
7:36:14 AM

On 5/05/2015 Stuartt wrote:

>Angus Farquhar....Seems like the work of a sad, bored old man with poo in his beard if you
>believe recent studies.
>Hopefully no one chops the routes he bolted in retaliation.
>
>

What an outrageous slur!

The poo-beard myth has been completely disproven:

"However, as far as I can tell there was no proper study, no team of microbiologists and no poo in beards."
http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2015/may/04/no-need-for-men-to-get-flush-faced-about-faeces-in-beards

I'm not sure about your other allegations :p


Snacks

6-May-2015
7:47:44 AM

On 6/05/2015 climberman wrote:
>snacks, perhaps you need to write to Parks rather than expecting others
>to provide internal Parks docs to you.
>
>The 2001 POM is the current doc, for better or for worse.

I explained why I was asking... in truth I doubted something more specific and current existed.

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.

The commercial side was a higher priority for various reasons and you'll find more stuff on that quite easily. It's easier to handle and was important for Parks to have plenty of commercial operators to take care of people without increasing their liability...

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

Stuartt

6-May-2015
8:05:24 AM

Haha sorry about the poo beard comment.
I heard the same thing on the radio this morning.
Oops.

climberman

6-May-2015
8:50:04 AM

On 6/05/2015 Snacks wrote:
> It doesn't deal with the specifics and only recommends that processes are put in place.

That's pretty much all POM's do.

Not all the actions planned in them get done either, for a range of financial, policy and other dull reasons.

Life's like that.

There are 186 messages in this topic.