SWMC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

2011-03-16T17:02:04Z

Gwynevans: /* Paviland Far Far West */

<font size="3">
'''Just to get etiquette sorted out.

Can we leave discussion of the pros and cons to this page.

When we have the BMC meeting the front page will form the agenda OK? --[[User:Chris Wyatt|Chris Wyatt]] 17:26, 13 November 2010 (GMT)19:40, 6 November 2010 (GMT)'''

'''Also - Can we all say who we are?'''</font>
<hr>
here are my initial thoughts: Chris Wyatt : 5/11/10

. Paviland Main cliff and Juniper wall should have a zero fixed gear policy. ie no renewals and preferably removal of existing fixed gear including abseil ring

. Fall bay should have a zero fixed gear policy. ie no renewals and preferably removal of existing fixed gear.

. The assumption for all crags west of oxwich should be no new sport routes. Any crags with 'new sport routes allowed' should be revised to 'No new sport routes allowed.'

. Shirecombe to Pennard should be 'New sport routes allowed'. (Note after environmental impact is considered)

. New sport routes in Pennard/Graves End to Pwll Du should be allowed provided they do not interfere with existing trad routes.

. Bolts should be allowed to replace existing Pegs and threads in Pennard to Pwll Du

<hr>

: My thoughts --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 23:30, 5 November 2010 (GMT)
: Agree with Chris on this... except, and Chris will probably agree, it should be that the assumption for all crags west of [[Shire Combe]] should be 'No New Sports Routes'. except for [[Oxwich Quarry]].

: Agree with Chris too on [[Paviland Main Cliff]] and [[Juniper Wall]] moving towards becoming completely clean.

<hr>

Hi, you all know my current stance on trad climbing, unless it's a great and safe line, I can't be bothered. I don't particulary enjoy fiddling with my nuts whilst climbing and I can't afford to fall off and hurt myself. Anyway as you ask...

I'm not sure a blanket 'ban' is appropriate. If whole stretches of coastline are banned and sport route free, doesn't this imply that all the other areas are 'open' to sport route development? Surely Debs and Trial Wall are not to be de-bolted? Better done on an ad-hoc basis I think. Some crags would just be better as trad or sport based upon angle, rock quality (yes, as usual,if really crap rock sport routes allowed), protection, top outs.

If no retrobolting in areas, how about glued bolt lower offs on trad routes at places such as hairy dog wall, conglomerate cliff and eyeball wall? ( & bolted lower offs at Ogmore!!)

What worthwhile sport route additions would be available in Pennard/Gravesend?

The questions raised regarding first ascentionists permissions for retrobolting, are very sticky and I'm sure much has been written on it. The first ascentionist does have a record of the date and style of their ascent, but does this make this piece of rock their 'property' and if so must they take ownership? If so what is the 'price' of such ownership? Shouldn't the question of retrobolting be left to the myriad of individuals, with diverging interests, or to the 'local' climbing community as a whole? Clearly, there are issues of representation even at this scale of discussion. Anyway not my area but these questions raised do transend geographical location. --[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 10:16, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

:: ''"I'm not sure a blanket 'ban' is appropriate. If whole stretches of coastline are banned and sport route free, doesn't this imply that all the other areas are 'open' to sport route development? Surely Debs and Trial Wall are not to be de-bolted? Better done on an ad-hoc basis I think."''

: I didn't mean [[Deborah's Overhang]] and [[Trial Wall]] should be de-bolted, but I think a 'blanket-ban' (unfortunate phrase) on further sports route development would not be inappropriate. A blanket-ban in one area '''does-not''' imply that a ''free-for-all'' (also unfortunate) exists outside it. There are excellent arguments for more sports routes east of [[Shire_Combe_Buttress_and_West_Slab|Shire Combe]]. However, there are equally good ones for maintaining the wild and remote character of the coastline west of Port Eynon. --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 12:24, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

I just came across this but have become very interested. I think a good starting point would be to publish some kind of 'meeting minutes' from the BMC area meeting held on 3/11/10. What exactly was the general view mentioned on the front page? Who was there? Were these biased? Did the majority get to speak over the minority views? ... and then the whole raft of issues from there on! Personally i'd like to see the minutes, as a starting point, before making comment. I had no idea bolts were on the BMC's agenda. --[[User:Steven Delaney|Del]] 07:09, 8 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

I agree with Steve, we should have the minutes and current bolt policy at the bottom of the page for reference.--[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 09:39, 9 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

Stu .. If you are reading this could we have some minutes?? Cheers --[[User:Chris Wyatt|Chris Wyatt]] 20:27, 9 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

::Hi. As a climber who has climbed extensively in the Gower over the past ten tears (both Trad and Sport) I would just like to make a few points.

1. I am a firm believer in good Trad venues (Lewis Castle, Pennard, Yellow Wall to name a few) should remain trad as the rock quality and gear is "solid" and the sense of adventure is great. However there are crags where the gear is sparse or non existent, does this mean they should be left unclimbed or turned into excellent sport venues (Deborah Zawn)?

2. A number of trad routes (Crockers routes at 3rd Sister) rely heavily on pegs which were "bomber" protection for the First Ascensionist "back in the day" but have been left to rot in the coastal breeze and can no longer be relied upon. Why cant a bolt be placed instead as after all a thread or peg is "fixed" protection? Lets not have the "threads and pegs can be removed" as we all know they never are.

3. Why is there a Trad versus Sport conflict? If a climber wants the adventure of placing gear with Trad or pushing they're limits safely with Sport they should be able to seek out the relevant crags. I don't think it should be up to a few individuals climbing preferences to decide what every climber must do. isn't that elitist?

4. There is enough rock in the vast area of The Gower to accommodate both styles of climbing, let both of them thrive!

Cheers

Dean Howard

<hr>

=== Bolt Policy: Gower ===

The current bolt policy on Gower is antiquated and should be scrapped and replaced by a protection of trad policy. This would be simpler to operate and more in line with the development of the area.

It also represents the current position; very few people seem to be interested in establishing new traditional routes on 'new' crags discovered.

The underlying assumption should be sports climbing development should be allowed anywhere on Gower with the exception of protected traditional climbing areas. These should be defined simply:

Fall Bay to Thurba Head inclusive,
Paviland Main Cliff to Juniper Wall inclusive,
Boiler Slab,
The Three Tors and Three Cliffs (except Odin's Cave),
Pennard to Graves End Wall (inclusive)

Trad climbing areas should not have any bolts placed at all except for lower offs. There should be no compulsion that trad routes must be completely free of fixed gear.

The issue about consulting the first ascenionist is a tricky one. In the past I have given some support to this line, but I have been disappointed where the first ascensionist of a redundant trad line wandering across the crag has obstructed the development of a worthwhile sports climbing venue, e.g. Taffs Well. I would be interested to see how this debate develops.

Goi Ashmore

<hr>

Having done probably an equal share of new trad and new sport routes on Gower, and having repeated a lot, if not most of the routes on Gower, I'd like to add my opinion to this discussion. I'll try and keep it brief.

1) I am not in favour of any 'trad-only' areas - crags need to taken on an individual basis. For example, I'd never dream of placing bolts in Paviland, but the areas to its immediate west are clearly enhanced by bolts, and I want to propose the retro-bolting of Far Far West where it's nearly all rotten in-situ gear and needs lower-offs anyway.

2) I do not feel that the opinion of the first ascentionist is any more valid than anyone elses, whether a line is retrobolted is a matter for people who climb there, and no-one else.

3) I feel that fears of trad climbing being replaced by sport climbing are unfounded, bolting is really hard work and takes a lot of time, if something can be protected by trad gear then of course trad gear will be used. I can't help but feel that it is the idea of routes being bolted that is objected to and not that actuality - does anyone have an example of a line they wished to climb trad that was subsequently bolted? I don't.

4) I do feel that expansion bolts and chains can be visually intrusive, and I feel that glue-ins should be used from now on.

5) I feel that protection should either be trad or bolts - the idea of replacing the odd peg with a bolt just sounds ugly, though ultimately it's not something that anyone should rule out. I do however feel that belays are different, and that many crags could be improved considerably by placing bolt lower-offs.

Adrian Berry

<hr>

<hr>

== Paviland Far Far West ==

I agree with Adrian's comments on Paviland Far Far West. I have done some routes there in the past when they were in a better state and they were always intended to be clip ups.
Goi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly disagree with a no blolts west of oxwich 'proposal' in fact there are many crags/ cragets that would be amazing bolted and not take anything away from the trad climbing in the area.
i do not see why sport climbing cannot take place in beautiful, wild locations just as traditional style routes.
Lower offs on routes such as those at Bucket land, Far Far West and other non top-outable (or just not a good idea to top-out crags) i would see a great step and would rekindle some intrest in many of these tradionaly protected routes.
As far as asking permission from first ascent climber, I belive its polite - but the Local climbing community as a whole should be considered as well.
on this subject i would like to 'propose' bolting Giant Killer at Dinas as the fixed kit is decayed and i belive under current policy i could replace with bolts?

it would be 3star 7b bolted, stay clean and become a regional classic

or it gets left and climbed once or twice in the next twenty or so years, stays filthy

Maybe this is the wish of the local community. but when i have spoken to several local climbers they are all keen on bolting the line. any way just a proposal as i find this part of the policy interesting and atm very open for interpritation.

next id like propose bolting Giants cave - not any of the trad routes (Divine guding light, Napalm etc should remain trad as they are strong, classy trad lines) im talking about the routes from the back of the cave (the Sistine Ceiling) that were done on bolts and then chopped by ???? and has seen no ascents (or at least very very few) since. ''This is the very route which initiated the bolting debate back in the early/mid 90s. The NT spotted the glinting line of bolts in the back of the cave and wanted to know who was 'disfiguring' their rock. The rest is history! Gwyn''

Bolting of areas such as Pennard,graves end seem a bit to far even for a sport climber like myself. but there are areas along this coast that could be looked at including Bantam Bay.

as far as bolts being intusive id agree they can be and glue ins (when done well) can look alot more tidy and are much harder to spot than a big chain (for the genral public etc...)

Looking at the policy again on a crag by crag basis seems a logical way to go as every turn of this coast is so differnt to the last and it would be hard to apply one rule to fit.

Simon Rawlinson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to the minutes from the meeting on 3rd November;
http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=292
Apologises for delay, work has been getting in the way. Respond with my penny worth soon
Stuart Llewellyn

<hr>

* I feel that FAs should have the 'say' so to speak as to whether or not a route is bolted. If that prevents a crag from being bolted, then so be it.
* I would prefer a soft and light touch to bolting crags/routes, i.e. the absolute bare minimum of bolting and obviously there should be a no bolting on existing trad crags eg Fall Bay, Three Cliffs, Boiler Slab etc
* Personally I would rather that no bolting went on, but I'm aware that others do want sport climbing on the Gower, so I'm ok with it happening. But would like to see some of the hard trad climbs stay as hard trad climbs. I'd like to have the option to do some of the harder lines in the future and would rather not see them bolted.
* It would be nice to see some more new routes as trad routes on 'new' trad crags. Sadly I'm a c**p climber, so I'm unlikely to be doing that anytime soon.

Matthew Moore (matt-swmc@matthewmoore.org.uk)

== A contribution to the general bolt debate by Pat Littlejohn. ==

You might be interested to read the views of a well-known local activist on bolting in South Wales. Pat Littlejohn gave this interview when he was in Cardiff as guest speaker at the SWMC's 50th anniversary celebrations. Here is the link: http://www.outdoorequipmentonline.co.uk/categories/resources

Gwyn Evans

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

2011-02-27T17:10:11Z

Gwynevans: /* adding a contribution to the general bolt debate by Pat Littlejohn. */ new section

<font size="3">
'''Just to get etiquette sorted out.

Can we leave discussion of the pros and cons to this page.

When we have the BMC meeting the front page will form the agenda OK? --[[User:Chris Wyatt|Chris Wyatt]] 17:26, 13 November 2010 (GMT)19:40, 6 November 2010 (GMT)'''

'''Also - Can we all say who we are?'''</font>
<hr>
here are my initial thoughts: Chris Wyatt : 5/11/10

. Paviland Main cliff and Juniper wall should have a zero fixed gear policy. ie no renewals and preferably removal of existing fixed gear including abseil ring

. Fall bay should have a zero fixed gear policy. ie no renewals and preferably removal of existing fixed gear.

. The assumption for all crags west of oxwich should be no new sport routes. Any crags with 'new sport routes allowed' should be revised to 'No new sport routes allowed.'

. Shirecombe to Pennard should be 'New sport routes allowed'. (Note after environmental impact is considered)

. New sport routes in Pennard/Graves End to Pwll Du should be allowed provided they do not interfere with existing trad routes.

. Bolts should be allowed to replace existing Pegs and threads in Pennard to Pwll Du

<hr>

: My thoughts --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 23:30, 5 November 2010 (GMT)
: Agree with Chris on this... except, and Chris will probably agree, it should be that the assumption for all crags west of [[Shire Combe]] should be 'No New Sports Routes'. except for [[Oxwich Quarry]].

: Agree with Chris too on [[Paviland Main Cliff]] and [[Juniper Wall]] moving towards becoming completely clean.

<hr>

Hi, you all know my current stance on trad climbing, unless it's a great and safe line, I can't be bothered. I don't particulary enjoy fiddling with my nuts whilst climbing and I can't afford to fall off and hurt myself. Anyway as you ask...

I'm not sure a blanket 'ban' is appropriate. If whole stretches of coastline are banned and sport route free, doesn't this imply that all the other areas are 'open' to sport route development? Surely Debs and Trial Wall are not to be de-bolted? Better done on an ad-hoc basis I think. Some crags would just be better as trad or sport based upon angle, rock quality (yes, as usual,if really crap rock sport routes allowed), protection, top outs.

If no retrobolting in areas, how about glued bolt lower offs on trad routes at places such as hairy dog wall, conglomerate cliff and eyeball wall? ( & bolted lower offs at Ogmore!!)

What worthwhile sport route additions would be available in Pennard/Gravesend?

The questions raised regarding first ascentionists permissions for retrobolting, are very sticky and I'm sure much has been written on it. The first ascentionist does have a record of the date and style of their ascent, but does this make this piece of rock their 'property' and if so must they take ownership? If so what is the 'price' of such ownership? Shouldn't the question of retrobolting be left to the myriad of individuals, with diverging interests, or to the 'local' climbing community as a whole? Clearly, there are issues of representation even at this scale of discussion. Anyway not my area but these questions raised do transend geographical location. --[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 10:16, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

:: ''"I'm not sure a blanket 'ban' is appropriate. If whole stretches of coastline are banned and sport route free, doesn't this imply that all the other areas are 'open' to sport route development? Surely Debs and Trial Wall are not to be de-bolted? Better done on an ad-hoc basis I think."''

: I didn't mean [[Deborah's Overhang]] and [[Trial Wall]] should be de-bolted, but I think a 'blanket-ban' (unfortunate phrase) on further sports route development would not be inappropriate. A blanket-ban in one area '''does-not''' imply that a ''free-for-all'' (also unfortunate) exists outside it. There are excellent arguments for more sports routes east of [[Shire_Combe_Buttress_and_West_Slab|Shire Combe]]. However, there are equally good ones for maintaining the wild and remote character of the coastline west of Port Eynon. --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 12:24, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

I just came across this but have become very interested. I think a good starting point would be to publish some kind of 'meeting minutes' from the BMC area meeting held on 3/11/10. What exactly was the general view mentioned on the front page? Who was there? Were these biased? Did the majority get to speak over the minority views? ... and then the whole raft of issues from there on! Personally i'd like to see the minutes, as a starting point, before making comment. I had no idea bolts were on the BMC's agenda. --[[User:Steven Delaney|Del]] 07:09, 8 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

I agree with Steve, we should have the minutes and current bolt policy at the bottom of the page for reference.--[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 09:39, 9 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

Stu .. If you are reading this could we have some minutes?? Cheers --[[User:Chris Wyatt|Chris Wyatt]] 20:27, 9 November 2010 (GMT)

<hr>

::Hi. As a climber who has climbed extensively in the Gower over the past ten tears (both Trad and Sport) I would just like to make a few points.

1. I am a firm believer in good Trad venues (Lewis Castle, Pennard, Yellow Wall to name a few) should remain trad as the rock quality and gear is "solid" and the sense of adventure is great. However there are crags where the gear is sparse or non existent, does this mean they should be left unclimbed or turned into excellent sport venues (Deborah Zawn)?

2. A number of trad routes (Crockers routes at 3rd Sister) rely heavily on pegs which were "bomber" protection for the First Ascensionist "back in the day" but have been left to rot in the coastal breeze and can no longer be relied upon. Why cant a bolt be placed instead as after all a thread or peg is "fixed" protection? Lets not have the "threads and pegs can be removed" as we all know they never are.

3. Why is there a Trad versus Sport conflict? If a climber wants the adventure of placing gear with Trad or pushing they're limits safely with Sport they should be able to seek out the relevant crags. I don't think it should be up to a few individuals climbing preferences to decide what every climber must do. isn't that elitist?

4. There is enough rock in the vast area of The Gower to accommodate both styles of climbing, let both of them thrive!

Cheers

Dean Howard

<hr>

=== Bolt Policy: Gower ===

The current bolt policy on Gower is antiquated and should be scrapped and replaced by a protection of trad policy. This would be simpler to operate and more in line with the development of the area.

It also represents the current position; very few people seem to be interested in establishing new traditional routes on 'new' crags discovered.

The underlying assumption should be sports climbing development should be allowed anywhere on Gower with the exception of protected traditional climbing areas. These should be defined simply:

Fall Bay to Thurba Head inclusive,
Paviland Main Cliff to Juniper Wall inclusive,
Boiler Slab,
The Three Tors and Three Cliffs (except Odin's Cave),
Pennard to Graves End Wall (inclusive)

Trad climbing areas should not have any bolts placed at all except for lower offs. There should be no compulsion that trad routes must be completely free of fixed gear.

The issue about consulting the first ascenionist is a tricky one. In the past I have given some support to this line, but I have been disappointed where the first ascensionist of a redundant trad line wandering across the crag has obstructed the development of a worthwhile sports climbing venue, e.g. Taffs Well. I would be interested to see how this debate develops.

Goi Ashmore

<hr>

Having done probably an equal share of new trad and new sport routes on Gower, and having repeated a lot, if not most of the routes on Gower, I'd like to add my opinion to this discussion. I'll try and keep it brief.

1) I am not in favour of any 'trad-only' areas - crags need to taken on an individual basis. For example, I'd never dream of placing bolts in Paviland, but the areas to its immediate west are clearly enhanced by bolts, and I want to propose the retro-bolting of Far Far West where it's nearly all rotten in-situ gear and needs lower-offs anyway.

2) I do not feel that the opinion of the first ascentionist is any more valid than anyone elses, whether a line is retrobolted is a matter for people who climb there, and no-one else.

3) I feel that fears of trad climbing being replaced by sport climbing are unfounded, bolting is really hard work and takes a lot of time, if something can be protected by trad gear then of course trad gear will be used. I can't help but feel that it is the idea of routes being bolted that is objected to and not that actuality - does anyone have an example of a line they wished to climb trad that was subsequently bolted? I don't.

4) I do feel that expansion bolts and chains can be visually intrusive, and I feel that glue-ins should be used from now on.

5) I feel that protection should either be trad or bolts - the idea of replacing the odd peg with a bolt just sounds ugly, though ultimately it's not something that anyone should rule out. I do however feel that belays are different, and that many crags could be improved considerably by placing bolt lower-offs.

Adrian Berry

<hr>

<hr>

== Paviland Far Far West ==

I agree with Adrian's comments on Paviland Far Far West. I have done some routes there in the past when they were in a better state and they were always intended to be clip ups.
Goi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I strongly disagree with a no blolts west of oxwich 'proposal' in fact there are many crags/ cragets that would be amazing bolted and not take anything away from the trad climbing in the area.
i do not see why sport climbing cannot take place in beautiful, wild locations just as traditional style routes.
Lower offs on routes such as those at Bucket land, Far Far West and other non top-outable (or just not a good idea to top-out crags) i would see a great step and would rekindle some intrest in many of these tradionaly protected routes.
As far as asking permission from first ascent climber, I belive its polite - but the Local climbing community as a whole should be considered as well.
on this subject i would like to 'propose' bolting Giant Killer at Dinas as the fixed kit is decayed and i belive under current policy i could replace with bolts?

it would be 3star 7b bolted, stay clean and become a regional classic

or it gets left and climbed once or twice in the next twenty or so years, stays filthy

Maybe this is the wish of the local community. but when i have spoken to several local climbers they are all keen on bolting the line. any way just a proposal as i find this part of the policy interesting and atm very open for interpritation.

next id like propose bolting Giants cave - not any of the trad routes (Divine guding light, Napalm etc should remain trad as they are strong, classy trad lines) im talking about the routes from the back of the cave (the Sistine Ceiling) that were done on bolts and then chopped by ???? and has seen no ascents (or at least very very few) since.

Bolting of areas such as Pennard,graves end seem a bit to far even for a sport climber like myself. but there are areas along this coast that could be looked at including Bantam Bay.

as far as bolts being intusive id agree they can be and glue ins (when done well) can look alot more tidy and are much harder to spot than a big chain (for the genral public etc...)

Looking at the policy again on a crag by crag basis seems a logical way to go as every turn of this coast is so differnt to the last and it would be hard to apply one rule to fit.

Simon Rawlinson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to the minutes from the meeting on 3rd November;
http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=292
Apologises for delay, work has been getting in the way. Respond with my penny worth soon
Stuart Llewellyn

<hr>

* I feel that FAs should have the 'say' so to speak as to whether or not a route is bolted. If that prevents a crag from being bolted, then so be it.
* I would prefer a soft and light touch to bolting crags/routes, i.e. the absolute bare minimum of bolting and obviously there should be a no bolting on existing trad crags eg Fall Bay, Three Cliffs, Boiler Slab etc
* Personally I would rather that no bolting went on, but I'm aware that others do want sport climbing on the Gower, so I'm ok with it happening. But would like to see some of the hard trad climbs stay as hard trad climbs. I'd like to have the option to do some of the harder lines in the future and would rather not see them bolted.
* It would be nice to see some more new routes as trad routes on 'new' trad crags. Sadly I'm a c**p climber, so I'm unlikely to be doing that anytime soon.

Matthew Moore (matt-swmc@matthewmoore.org.uk)

== adding a contribution to the general bolt debate by Pat Littlejohn. ==

You might be interested to read the views of a well-known local activist on bolting in South Wales. Pat Littlejohn gave this interview when he was in Cardiff as guest speaker at the SWMC's 50th anniversary celebrations.

Here is the link:
http://www.outdoorequipmentonline.co.uk/categories/resources

Talk:Barland Quarry

2008-03-04T10:26:05Z

Gwynevans: New section: Sport and Trad grades

This is just an important of the current guide's info on Barland Quarry

Feel free to test, etc.

Just added some photos. [[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 09:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sport and Trad grades ==

"Do we need trad grades on bolted routes? I think that any fully bolted
sport route should just have a technical, F, grade. There is little
objective danger and the E for effort is purely related to the technicality.

This is an ideal crag for a phototopo (with a good photo!! sorry Tim I just had to say it even though you explained its inclusion in your intro.)
--[[User:Gwynevans|Gwynevans]] 10:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)