SWMC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Horses Cliff

2014-06-02T12:55:25Z

Ian Goudge:

[[Category:Gower]]
[[Image:Horses cliff.jpg|thumb|700px|[[Horses Cliff]]]]
'''[[Contents]]'''

'''[[Gower]]'''

'''[[Hollow Top To Port Eynon]]'''

'''GR 441857'''

== TIDAL STATUS ==
[[Horses Cliff]] itself is non-tidal. The crag in the zawn below 3 hours either side of low water.

== BOLTING POLICY ==
No-bolting.

== ACCESS ==
This is '''not''' a crag identified by "Horse Cliff" on the OS 1:25K.

Follow the directions to [[Hollow Top]] and then continue traversing the coast eastwards for about 150 metres or so. You should be able to see 'the horse' of [[Horses Cliff]] in profile on approaching the crag.

== DESCENTS ==
Walk down west from [[Horses Cliff]]. The approach to the tidal zawn below is by abseil. [[Horses Cliff]] is the second of the ridges east of [[Juniper Wall]]. It has a prominent tower at the seaward end.

== THE ROUTES ==
1. '''South West Wall''' 45m M

Scramble up a diagonal line to reach ''South Ridge'' from the left.

2. '''The Corner''' 45m S

Take the short corner on the west flank via a steep overhang, to reach and finish up ''South Ridge''.

3. '''A Night in the West''' 40m HS 4a

Start mid way between The Corner and South Ridge. Head for small corner with capping roof, passing this on the right. Up to hanging slab trending left to finish to left of skyline promentary joining South Ridge and The Corner, finish up South Ridge.

4. '''South Ridge''' 45m D

A mountaineering route following the ridge of [[Horses Cliff]].

The zawn below the east side of Horses Cliff can be accessed by abseil. It contains two slabs.

5. '''Faith''' 15m VD

The left-hand slab.

6. '''Hope''' 15m D

The right-hand slab.


''1. J.Talbot 00.00.1963''

''2. J.Talbot 00.00.1969''

''3. I.Goudge & G.Burkhardt 28.05.14''

''4. J.Talbot 00.00.1963''

''5. J.Talbot 00.00.1970''

''6. J.Talbot 00.00.1970''

Horses Cliff

2014-06-02T12:54:58Z

Ian Goudge:

Horses Cliff

2014-06-02T12:54:28Z

Ian Goudge: formatting

Horses Cliff

2014-06-02T12:53:48Z

Ian Goudge: Addition of new route

Talk:Pennard And Graves End

2013-07-31T12:44:52Z

Ian Goudge:

'''Talk'''
I have changed the location of Overlapping Wall (route 19 in the book). I believe this to be on the gully wall immediately right of A Grave End. White Wall is the next buttress to the right and has little of interest on its right wall. If I am wrong then some one has climbed a new route as the crack line had chalk on it recently! I have not climbed this route but I did do Marmite and can confirm its grade and star. Lovely!

:"''Pennard is the sweep of white rocks that dominate the far east skyline on the eastern Gower, '''opposite Oxwich Bay''' to the west.''"

: Yer wot? --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 23:18, 16 October 2011 (BST)

I went there for the first time yesterday.

The guidebook description was not helpful.

From Pennard the view / outlook is of Oxwich Quarry and Point. Conversely (having been there) Pennard is clearly visible from Oxwich quarry/point on the far eastern skyline.

: That's true, if you know where it is, Gravesend is easy spot from Oxwich. Oxwich is, of course, easy to spot from Gravesend/Pennard. This is all true given clear conditions, otherwise someone would have to be forgiven for identifying Shire Combe as Pennard.

: But anyway, you've given me an idea. Perhaps an annotated coastline pic of the crags looking east from Oxwich, (on a clear day of course) would be a good thing to have. --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 20:30, 17 October 2011 (BST)

Anything like that helps. For a visitor, the coastline of Gower is very difficult to visualise, especially without a point of reference.--[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 21:49, 18 October 2011 (BST)

Anyone object to downgrading sudan to E1? --[[User:Chris Wyatt|Chris Wyatt]] 21:50, 13 January 2012 (GMT)

Haven't done it. Seepage was to my mind bold for E1, the gear was pants. --[[User:Alan rosier|Alan rosier]] 11:59, 20 January 2012 (GMT)

I've added a new route to Graves End that I did with Joe Gallagher last week. Hopefully the formatting and that is all ok. --[[User:Ian Goudge|Ian Goudge]] 13:44, 31 July 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Pennard And Graves End

2013-07-31T12:43:51Z

Ian Goudge:

Pennard And Graves End

2013-07-31T12:40:39Z

Ian Goudge:

[[Category: Gower]]
'''[[Contents]]'''

'''[[Gower]]'''

== TIDAL STATUS ==
Lower Sea Cliffs 2½ hours either side of low water. All other crags are non-tidal

== BOLTING POLICY ==
No bolting

== PREAMBLE ==
[[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard|Pennard]] is the sweep of white rocks that dominate the far east skyline on the eastern Gower, opposite Oxwich Bay to the west.

The rock is generally very good, but there are still some loose blocks on the less compact buttresses such as [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]] and sections of [[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End Wall|Graves End]].

There is a very good collection in the E1 to E3 range in the [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard Buttress]] to [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]] section.

There are also some very good easier routes on the right-hand section of [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard Buttress]] and [[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End Wall|Graves End]].

In contrast to most other areas on Gower the easier routes are quite steep, but with reassuringly large holds. The aspect is quite good (south to south-west facing), but the crags are exposed and can catch the wind. Before embarking on the extreme routes, consideration should be given to replacing the ancient thread runners.

For the uninitiated Pennard forms an armchair-like amphitheate above sea level. To the west, Pennard Buttress has a tall seaward facing wall which when followed rightwards (east) splits into two tiers separated by a grassy sloping terrace. High Pennard lies on the eastern side of the amphitheatre and recieves sunshine from mid-day.

In the centre of the amphitheatre is a scree slope, thickly covered by virtually every species of thorny plant native to the British Isles. A path of sorts traverses the scree slope close to the seaward edge and links Pennard Buttress to High Pennard. With an hour or so of dedicated clearance this path could be restored and passable, but at present it is much more comfortable to walk up and cross between the crags via the cliff top path.

Just east of Pennard and separated by only a narrow grassy gully is Graves End, which forms a seaward facing butress with a good sized level terrace at its foot. The climbs are steep here and so fortunately they do not possess the initial scramble up vegetated rock typical of Pennard.

== ACCESS ==
{{#display_points:
{{Googlemap}}
| center=51.56327, -4.07876
| height=400
| zoom=15
| service=openlayers
| layers=osm-mapnik,osm-cyclemap,google,bing
}}
Follow the offshoot of the B4436 to its end at the roundabout in Southgate. Park in the [http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/w-global/w-localtoyou/w-wales.htm National Trust] car park. Follow the narrow road east for about 1 mile to a valley running to the sea from '''Hunts Farm''' (GR564873) just before the road becomes a private road – there is a prominent wide shallow valley running down to the sea at this point. There are two possible approaches from here:

# '''[[Pennard]]''' - The first follows a path down the valley to the coastal footpath and heads east (left) along to the base of the cliffs.
# '''[[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard]] and [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]]''' - A better, but not so obvious, approach is to follow the cliff top path past two huts on the left. Just past these a prominent rocky headland is seen (there is a small pond on the left - sometimes dry in summer). Go just past this headland and descend towards the sea. [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]] is to your left (east) and [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard Buttress]] is to your right (west).

'''[[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Pillar|The Great Pillar]]''' – as for either [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard]] approach, but follow the path below the [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]] cliffs for 100m.

'''[[Pennard And Graves End#Lower Sea Cliffs|Lower Sea Cliffs]]''' – as for [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard]] and [[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Pillar|Great Pillar]], then continue 100m further east along the coastal path, after passing in front of the great detached Tower to a smaller buttress, blocking off the profile of the coastline (Popty Ping). Under this is a smooth waterworn gully. Descend this to find the sea cliffs on the west (right when facing out to sea). A quicker approach is to gain [[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End Wall|Graves End]] from the cliff top and drop down to Popty Ping area from the East.

'''[[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End Wall|Graves End]]''' – as for [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard]] and [[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Pillar|Great Pillar]], but just east of [[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Pillar|Great Pillar]] scramble up a gully to the west end of the higher buttress. Graves End East is the natural extension to the east of [[Graves End]] itself. Once familiar with the area, a better approach is by walking along the cliff top above [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]]. [[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End Wall|Graves End]] Sea Cliff is a very small buttress at sea level about 150m east of the end of [[Pennard And Graves End#Graves End East|Graves End East]], reached by scrambling down from the path at the end of the turf.

== DESCENTS ==
See individual crags.

== THE ROUTES ==

Topos have been produced for many of the routes at this crag.

http://www.wikitopo.com/crag.php?cragId=161

=== Pennard Buttress ===
GR567866

This is the steep, high pillar at the left-hand end of the main Pennard Section, with a prominent bulge and tats on its left-hand side. Further to the right, the crag becomes two-tiered. The upper wall is very compact with excellent rock and contains the majority of the E2-E3 climbing. The smaller lower crag that continues rightwards from the base of the main pillar is very solid, with some excellent short routes of various grades, particularly good in the HS-HVS, range. The obvious wall at the right-hand side of the valley is High Pennard.

The top part of the main pillar is quite loose and for some routes (like The Throb or 5 Years To Live), it is best to either arrange a hanging rope from the top of the crag, or take a disposable sling to ab off the spike at the end of the first pitches.

'''DESCENTS:''' Descent is by walking back from the top of the crag and following a path down the east side.

1. '''The Throb''' 30m E4,6a *

Probably E5 at the moment, given the state of the second TR, which is in dire need of replacement. It is normal to clip the first TR on Five Years To Live before embarking on the route. Start below a line of thin crozzly cracks below and left of a groove through the roofs. Follow these, TR, to a hard move to gain the base of the groove. Follow the slightly rickety groove to hit vegetation and wade up a further 15m to gain a spike belay (TR). Abseil off. It is also possible to step right from the top of the groove to finish up Arosfa.

''A.Sharp, J.Harwood 25.03.1984''

2. '''Five Years To Live''' 30m E5,6b *

A near-sports route, with some interesting and complicated moves on steep ground. It used to sport a BR, but a good TR has been substituted, albeit one that could do with replacing. Start under the obvious bulge and move up to a TR in a line of pockets. Cross the bulge rightwards,TR to a PR on the arete. Climb the arete to a break, stand up, and shuffle up to the top of the groove. Scramble up to a rock spike belay. Scramble off left, with protection from the rock spike, or leave a sling on the spike (back up advised). Abseil.

''M.Crocker 04.09.1988''

3. '''Arosfa''' 45m E4,6b,5a *

The first PR on P1 has recently been glued back in. As a result it is no longer possible to use the good pocket, making the route considerably harder.

# 30m Start right of Five Years To Live at a groove, with an obvious capping overhang at 15m. Climb easily up to the groove, then make a thoroughly desperate series of moves before continuing easily up to the roof, very poor PR. Turn the roof on the right. Follow a crack up ‘rocking’ ground to reach a ledge. Belay in the corner, TR.
# 12m Turn the large overhangs above on the left and continue up the wall, PR, to join and finish up Alpha.

''E.Pardoe, R.Griffiths – Tin Tack 00.00.1968
FFA A.Sharp, J.Harwood 03.12.1983''

4. '''Alpha''' 36m HVS,4c,5a

Start at the foot of the buttress just right of ''Arosfa'', below an overhang-capped corner. Attempting this route whilst birds are nesting is highly inadvisable. Watch out for snakes as well!
# 18m Climb a rib to the corner, turn the overhang on the right and follow a rib to the upper of two ledges. It is also possible to turn the overhang on its left.
# 18m Traverse right for 5m and climb the wall steeply to a groove, which leads to the impressive square-cut corner and the top. It is recommended that the location of the finishing corner is worked out before embarking on the route – it is the prominent square groove left of Tom Tom.

''Harold Insley etc. 1958/9''

The crag is now much shorter.

5.''' Beta''' 16m VD

Start at the foot of the wide crack right of ''Alpha'', which separates the main buttress from the lower wall. Climb it to a niche below a bulge, move right and continue to ledges.

''Harold Insley,etc 1958/9''

6. '''Unnamed''' 14m E1,5a

The wall between ''Beta'' and ''Beta Plus'' can be climbed, but is rather loose and poorly protected.

''Unknown Pre-1998''

7. '''Beta Plus''' 14m HS,4b

The corner 4m right of ''Beta'', past a new PR. Turn the overhang on its left or right.

''R.Griffiths, E.Pardoe 00.06.1966''

8. '''Hun''' 14m VS,4b

Climb the arete right of ''Beta Plus'', joining that route at the top. Contrived.

''D.Thomas 00.00.1996''

9. '''Knucklefluster''' 11m E2,5c *

A technical pitch up the wall just right of ''Beta Plus''. Climb the wall until a move rightwards gains a good hold, TR, then move steeply to the break. Step left and finish up ''Beta Plus'' or over the roof.

''A.Sharp, P.Lewis 00.00.1984''

10. '''Knuckleduster''' 11m E3,6a

A bold but poor eliminate squeezed in between ''Knucklefluster'' and ''Gamma Minus''. Climb the wall and overhang
directly, PR. A side runner is used at this grade.

''A.Long 00.00.1989''

11. '''Gamma Minus''' 12m E1,5b

This climbs the prominent corner right of ''Knucklefluster''. At the roof, move right onto the arete and follow this to the top.

''E.Pardoe, R.Griffiths 00.00.1967''

12. '''Kiwis Can’t Climb''' 12m E1,5c

A contrived route taking the left arete of ''Gamma''. Where ''Gamma'' moves left, step right and pull over the roof.

''Unknown 00.00.1984''

13. '''Gamma''' 12m HVS,5b *

A well protected and exciting little pitch. Start up the next left facing corner, stepping leftwards to reach good holds. At the roof, cut through it rightwards into a short, sharp and bottomless left facing corner.

''E.Pardoe, R.Griffiths 00.06.1966''

14. '''Trundleweed''' 12m E1,5b

Climb the rib and short groove 1m right of ''Gamma''.

''P.Donnithorne, T.Meen 31.05.1987''

15. '''Delta''' 13m S,4b

The steep and delicate groove right of ''Gamma''.

''M.Hogge, J.Birch 00.00.1967''

16. '''Delta Minus''' 12m D

Takes the next obvious leftward-slanting break.

''SUMC 00.00.1966''

17. '''Flaked Ivy Chimney''' 12m VD

The steep chimney just right of ''Delta Minus''.

''C.Shorrock solo 21.09.1996''

18. '''Vandal''' 9m S

A direct line up the short steep wall just right again.

''J.Brailsford et al Pre-1960''

19. '''Girdle Traverse''' 53m HVS, 5a,4c,4b *

A right to left girdle of the lower wall.

# 18m Start as for ''Delta Minus''. Climb into the overhung corner of ''Gamma'' and make delicate moves to the arete. Enter the corner to the left and traverse below the overhang to a ledge on ''Beta Plus''.
# 14m Descend leftwards to below a bulge, then move up to the foot of the corner of ''Alpha''.
# 21m Traverse 3m under overhangs before pulling onto the wall above. Continue left across two grooves before stepping down onto a grass ledge and belay in the gully.

''J.Williams, P.Kokelaar 00.00.1967''

Directly above the lower wall is an impressive sheet of white rock which forms the right flank of [[Pennard And Graves End#Pennard Buttress|Pennard Buttress]].

20. '''Tom Tom''' 24m E2,5c

Start below the prominent square-cut corner, high on the left side of the buttress (''Alpha'' P2). Climb up to the corner, TR, then climb its right wall and arete.

''P.Donnithorne, E.Alsford 00.00.1988''

21. '''Dan Dare''' 21m E2,5c **

Enjoyable, sustained and well protected - the route of the buttress. Start from the small bush below the centre of the blank sheet of rock right of ''Tom Tom''. Gain the vague hollow and move right to the foot of a scoop, follow this with superb small wires to a sharp rock spike (thin tape runner) and the break. Traverse left to an open groove and follow this to the top.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 06.05.1982''

22. '''Desperate Dan''' 26m E3,5c **

A good sustained extension to ''Dan Dare''. As for ''Dan Dare'' to the break. Move right to below an obvious undercut
flake. Gain this with difficulty and move up the groove to finish. Hard work.

''J.Bullock, G.Royle 07.08.1984''

23. '''White Feather''' 21m E4,6a

A strenuous but contrived start with a slightly better finishing groove. Just left of ''Timorous Tarzan'' is a steep crack. Follow this, with feet on ''Timorous Tarzan'', TR, to the break and a small roof just before the final groove. The final groove is protected by 2PRs. The first is situated 1m above the break, and to the right of the groove. The second is hidden in the groove itself. An Alternative finish (E3) joins ''Desperate Dan'' at the break.

''A.Sharp, O.Jones 00.00.1986''

24. '''Timorous Tarzan''' 36m E1,5a

This climbs the calcite-encrusted layback crack on the right side of the wall. Climb the crack to its finish, then traverse right on loose-looking holds to an obvious groove. Climb this to the top.

''P.Littlejohn, J.Harwood 03.10.1980''

25. '''Timorous Tarzan True Finish''' 32m E2,5c

Climb the wall above the layback crack and clip the second PR on ''White Feather''.

''J.Harwood 1pt 28.05.1986
FFA A.Sharp, O.Jones 00.00.1986''

26. '''Bald Eagle''' 24m E4,6a

Climb the rib right of ''Timorous Tarzan'', then step left and climb the groove of ''White Feather''.
''
A.Sharp, J.Harwood 15.04.1984''

27. '''Gull Way''' 24m VS,4b

Takes the obvious steep corner, finishing as for ''Timorous Tarzan''.

''G.Evans, G.Richardson 00.00.1981''

In the right side of the steep wall, right of the wide central groove, are two holes in a broken crackline.

28. '''Digby''' 22m E2,5b

Start below the holes and follow the crack to a ledge. From the right-hand end of this climb straight up, 2TRs, to the top.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 06.05.1982, J.Bullock, G.Evans – Direct 00.08.1987''

The broken crack containing the holes provides a poor climb at VS,4b
''(Unknown Pre-1991)''

=== High Pennard ===
GR568866

'''DESCENTS:''' Descent is by scrambling down a gully on the west of the crag.

This is the obvious gently bulging buttress at the other side of the valley from Pennard buttress. It does still contain some wobbly blocks, so caution is advised. There are some excellent routes in the E1 to E3 range, making it a good companion to the upper right-hand section of Pennard Buttress. Skive is a must.

1. '''Left Edge''' 24m E1,5b

A slightly loose route up the pillar that bounds the cliff on the left side. Climb the left side of the pillar for 3m, then traverse right to a hole. Move up left past a PR and move right to a corner leading to the top.

''E.Pardoe, D.Barker 00.00.1968''

2. '''Blood First''' 24m E3,5c

Climb direct to the hole on Left Edge, then climb past it trending slightly right, PR, until it is possible to step right into the corner groove of Loony Left.

''E.Kellar, P.Nicholas 00.00.1989''

3. '''Loony Left''' 24m E2,5c/6a *

Start beneath the widest part of the half height roof. Climb past ivy to a resting spot under the right side of the roof. Using undercuts, do your best to find protection (a friend 1.5 may be helpful). Move up to the centre of the roof by technical moves and pull over it strenuously. Amble up the left facing corner then step right to avoid the obtrusive hawthorn guarding the cliff top.

''J.Bullock, L.Cain 07.06.1987''

4. '''Sudan''' 24m E2,5c *

Start at the base of the pillar which forms the vague arete of the crag. Climb up and right to the overhang under
the nose of the front of the pillar. Take the thin crack left of the nose, hard but reasonably well protected crux, then move right onto the pillar. Continue directly and boldly to the top.

''R.Leigh, T.Smith A0 00.00.1966 FFA P.Littlejohn, J.Harwood 03.10.1980''

5. '''Wandering Star''' 24m E1,5c

An indefinite line attempting to climb the shallow hanging groove right of ''Sudan''. Start just right of ''Sudan'' and climb to the break, move right and attempt to gain the groove with a brief excursion into Skive. Finish over the roof between Skive and its direct finish.

''A.Richardson, N.Gyerke 00.00.1987''

6. '''Skive''' 24m HVS,5a ***

A great route. Start 3m right of ''Sudan'' at the base of the obvious groove which splits the crag. Climb the obvious crack through two roofs. At the third, traverse left for 3m and climb deteriorating rock to the top.

''R.Griffiths, E.Pardoe 00.11.1966''

7. '''Skive Direct''' 24m E1,5b ***

A more logical finish. At the third roof finish directly up the final groove of ''Shogun''.

''R.Griffiths, J.Bayliss 00.06.1967''

8.''' Shogun''' 24m E3,6a **

A route requiring a certain amount of inner self to surmount the roof. Climb direct to the obvious weakness in the overlap just right of Skive and surmount it. Move left and climb a vague arete to reach Skive at the horizontal break. Finish up the groove above, taking care with the rock. The grade assumes that the low PR is not in situ (as on the first ascent).

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 15.09.1982''

9. '''King Rat''' 24m E3,6a *

A directissima giving good climbing. Follow ''Shogun'' over its roof to a horizontal slot in a small overlap, climb the wall direct, TR, to the horizontal break. Continue directly by a hidden layback flake, finish directly, PR.

''A.Richardson, A.Long 00.00.1987''

10. '''Samurai''' 24m E3,6a ***

The best route at Pennard. Follow ''Shogun'' over the roof to the horizontal slot as for King Rat, then step right to a shallow groove. Climb this past a small overhang, PR. Continue directly to the top.

''J.Bullock, L.Moran 02.07.1986''

11. '''Kensai''' 27m E3,5c

Start directly below the upper groove of ''Phreatic Line''. The initial groove is very serious. Climb to an obvious rightward-curving overhang and follow it to a junction with ''Phreatic Line'', below the layback groove. Pull straight over via a finger crack then step right into the ''Seepage'' groove. Finish leftwards via a curving crack under the capping overhang.

''J.Bullock, L.Moran, G.Evans 30.08.1986''

12. '''Kensai/Phraetic Line Combination''' 24m E3,5c **

Climb Kensai to join Phreatic line.

''J.Bullock 00.08.1986''

13. '''Phreatic Line''' 24m E3,5c *

Takes the layback groove in the upper wall right of ''Samurai''. Start at the right side of the crag below a pillar. Climb the groove bounding the left side of the pillar to a big square ledge. Move up to the overlap and the TR of Seepage. Traverse left for 5m and pull up to gain the base of the layback flake which is followed to the top.

''E.Pardoe 1pt 00.00.1968 FFA P.Littlejohn, J.Harwood 03.10.1980, G.Ashmore, I.Fisher ALCH 24.04.1999''

14. '''Seepage''' 24m E1,5b

From the square ledge on ''Phreatic Line'', climb the wall direct to the strip roof. Stretch left to clip an old TR, and back it up with a small wire. Step left for a further 2m and then pull easly over the roof at a thin crack. Follow the groove above until a step right onto the wall allows the capping overhang to be bypassed.

''E.Pardoe, C.Knight'' 00.00.1969

15. '''Noble House''' 24m E1,5b

Climbs the loose groove and upper wall right of ''Seepage''. From the square ledge on ''Phreatic Line'', go diagonally
right to cross and gain the top of a shattered groove. Move onto a wall above the overhang, step left and climb
to the top.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 07.11.1982''

16. '''The Amazing Bugblatter Beast Of Zarg''' 36m E3,6a *

A good right to left traverse. The route originally finished up Left Edge after a belay in Skive, but the finish described makes for a better route. Follow Seepage to the overlap and climb left along the obvious break, via a devious crux to finish up the groove of Skive.

''A.Richardson, N.Gyerke 00.00.1987 G.Ashmore, I.Fisher ALCH 24.04.1999''

To the right the cliffs deteriorate and although lines have been recorded in the past, they have now collapsed.

=== The Great Tower ===
[[Image:popty ping.jpg|400px|thumb|right|''Popty Ping'' Area]]

'''GR569866'''

'''DESCENTS''': Scramble down the gully to the east of the tower.

This is the obvious pillar right of [[Pennard And Graves End#High Pennard|High Pennard]]. Take care with the rock.

1. '''South East Chimney''' 15m D

An unpleasant climb. Climb a short wall, then move up right into a deep gully. Climb this, very unpleasant and
vegetated, then left to the top.

''Harold Insley, etc.1958/9''

2. '''Triattsdyffi''' 18m E1,5b

A well-positioned but friable route up the left side of the face. Start below and slightly right of the obvious crack at 6m. Climb the wall and crack. From the top of the crack make a hard move up and left onto the edge. Follow the wide crack above to the top.

''E.Pardoe, R.Leigh 00.00.1967''
[[Image:Gt Tower Top Brass Area.jpg|400px|thumb|right|[[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Tower|Great Tower]] and ''Top Brass'' Area]]

3. '''South East Edge''' 18m E1,5b

High on the right side of the tower is a clean crack. Climb the right edge of the wall, just left of the ivy, to a corner level with the bottom of the crack. Traverse left onto the face and up to a good ledge. Follow the crack and groove to the top.

''Harold Insley etc. 1958/59 J.Talbot - Direct A0 00.00.1968 FFA J.Bullock, G.Evans 00.00.1981''

4. '''Don’s Quiet Corner''' 24m E4,6a

Climbs the east pillar. Climb the centre of the steepening lower slab to an incipient break. Keeping between the crack on the left and the groove on the right, climb straight up the rib to a poor break. Pull onto a ledge and finish direct, taking care not to disturb Mr.Whitelock’s remains.

''M.Crocker, G.Lynch 15.04.2000''

To the right of the descent gully at the East of the [[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Tower|Great Tower]] a crag runs inland. It decreases in height as the ground rises towards its right hand end. There is quite a lot of ivy and rock samphire growing on the rock which gives the crag a scruffy appearance but the rock is generally sound and gives good steep wall climbing. The usual care needs to be taken at the top of the climbs. The safest descent is to the right of the crag.

'''Crack and Scoop''' HVS 5a

5m Right of the gully right of the [[Pennard And Graves End#The Great Tower|Great Tower]] a crack in the steep wall leads to a scoop.

''Jon Roberts Nick Smith 01/08/08''

'''Top Brass''' VS 4c

2m right of Crack and Scoop is a flat slab of rock on the ground. Climb the wall above between ivy to the left and a samphire choked crack to the right. At half height tackle a bulge just left of a small overhang to gain a groove which leads to the top.

''Jon Roberts Nick Smith 01/08/08''

The next headland East of the Great Tower lies immediately above the Pennard Lower Sea Cliffs. The buttress consists mostly of dangerously loose rock. However a crack line on the East face of the buttress gives an excellent climb on sound rock.

'''Popty Ping''' E1 5c **

The crack gives a steep, well protected climb with the crux low down.

''Jon Roberts Nick Smith 01/08/08''

=== Pennard Lower Sea Cliffs ===
'''GR569864'''

'''DESCENTS:''' Scramble down the east of the crag.

These routes take various lines on the short recessed wall above a platform, which is exposed except at high tide. The left-hand reddish diedre is taken by ''Red Corner''.

1. '''Red Wall''' 8m HVS,5a

The wall left of Red Corner.

''J.Talbot 00.00.1967''

2. '''Red Corner''' 8m VS,4b

The red diedre on the left of the crag.

''J.Talbot 00.00.1967''

3. '''Tor Wall''' 8m VS,4c

The upper wall right of Red Corner, gained from Deep Crack.

''J.Talbot 00.00.1967''

4. '''Deep Crack''' 8m S

The corner crack right of Red Corner.

''J.Talbot, B.Talbot 00.00.1967''

5. '''Cave And Wall''' 8m HVS,4c

The centre of the recessed wall right of Deep Crack is poorly protected.

''J.Talbot, B.Talbot 00.00.1967''

6. '''Scoop''' 8m S,4b

The scoop bounding the recessed wall on the right.

''J.Talbot 00.00.1967''

7. '''Great Block''' 8m VS,5a *

The block bounding the buttress on its right has a tough problem start.

''J.Talbot, B.Talbot 00.00.1967''

=== Graves End Wall ===
'''GR 570 864'''

'''DESCENTS:''' Down gullies at various points

To the east of The [[Pennard_And_Graves_End#The_Great_Tower|Great Tower]], looking up the grassy gully, is a short wall with a larger wall on the terrace above. It has an obvious horizontal break at about 4m, with the upper wall bulging gently. The climbs are described relative to a small cave at the bottom left-hand side of the main face.

1. '''Over Easy''' 13m S,4a *

The wall and groove 3m right of the small cave.

''M.Danford, G.Richardson 00.00.1978''

2. '''Too Late''' 13m S

The wall and broken crack 3m right of ''Over Easy''.

''G.Richardson, M.Danford 17.02.1983''

3. '''Marguerite''' 13m VD

The obvious broken crack 9m right of the small cave.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 00.00.1981''

4. '''Vertical Smile''' 13m VS,4c *

A popular route. Start just right of ''Marguerite''. Climb the wall to a ledge, traverse right and follow a groove to the top. There is a direct start gaining the groove/crack from directly below E1,5b.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 00.00.1981''
''N.Low, M.Low - Direct 00.00.1987''

5. '''Helter Skelter''' 13m E2,5b

Climb the wall below the top crack of ''Vertical Smile'', to a small ledge. Climb onto the wall above via a flake and continue up a crack above.

''H.Jones A.Healy 24.04.1984''

6. '''Sun Fix''' 15m E3,6a

A nice pitch up the cracks in the wall 5m right of ''Helter Skelter''. Climb through the roofs, step right at the break and climb directly up the wall.

''A.Sharp, J.Harwood 10.09.1985''

7. '''Toetector''' 15m HVS,5a

Start 2m right of ''Sun Fix'', where there is a thin crack with block overhangs at 4m. Climb to and through the
overhangs and move right onto a flake. Finish with an awkward move left from the top of the flake.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 00.00.1978''

8. '''Laissez Faire''' 15m E3,6a

The strenuous curving crack 6m right of ''Toetector''. A slight left-hand start (''Thickhead'' E2,5c A.Richardson,
A.Giles, etc 1986) starts up the left-hand crack.

''A.Sharp, J.Harwood 10.09.1985''

9. '''Fever Pitch''' 15m E3,5c

Climb the wall and bulge between ''Laissez-Faire'' and TR1 to a break, then climb the bulging wall above to join
TR1 at the recess. Contrived.

''A.Long, A.Richardson 00.00.1991''

10. '''TR1''' 15m E2,5c *

Start 3m right of ''Laissez Faire'' at a corner capped by a triangular block overhang. Climb the corner and overhang onto the obvious break, step left and up into a small recess and then direct to the top.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans, G.Richardson 26.05.1982''

11. '''Drakensburg''' 50m E2,5b

A girdle starting up TR1 and finishing up ''Vertical Smile''. Stances can be taken en route.

''J.Brown, D.Nolan 00.00.1995''

12. '''Mental Floss''' 15m E4,6a *

Climb the steep wall 2m right of TR1 to the break, move right and finish directly up the wall.

''A.Sharp, J.Harwood 10.09.1985''

13. '''Solar''' 15m E4,6a *

Climb the shallow corner 4m right of TR1, then the pocketed wall and scoop above.

''A.Sharp, J.Harwood 10.09.1985''

2m right of Solar the wall is recessed with an obvious flake up on the left and a jammed block high on the right.

14. '''Left Corner''' 13m VS,4c

The initial steep wall leads to a wide crack defining the flake.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1959''

[[image:Gravesend right corner.jpg|350px|thumb|Tim B. on ''Right Corner'']]

15. '''Brave Face''' 13m E5,6a

The wall between Left and Right Corner.

''A.Berry 00.00.1992''

16. '''Right Corner''' 13m HS,4b

The steep corner right of the recess leads to a half-height ledge. Follow the crack in the wall above.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1959''

17. '''Thorium''' 13m HVS,5b

A right-hand start to Right Corner.

''J.Kerry 00.00.1971''

18. '''Sunflower''' 13m E4,6a

The wall between ''Right Corner'' and ''Left Pillar'', with a slightly unstable lower section. RPs in the crack above the ledge prevent a ground fall, but a fall before the TR will result in sore ankles!

''J.Brown, A.Berry 00.00.1995''

19. '''Left Pillar''' 16m VS,4b

Climb the pillar left of the cave via the steep groove. Finish rightwards above the cave.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1959''

20. '''Kamin''' 13m VS,5a *

A popular problem. Climb out of the back of the cave. Finish direct from the ledge.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1958''

21. '''Friendly''' 13m HVS,5a

The wall right of ''Kamin''.

''C.Squires 00.00.1995''

22. '''Chameleon''' 13m HVS,5a

Ascend broken groove to the right of pink square cut groove (right of Kamin cave). From large ledge at approx half height, swing left round the arête of Neatfeet and go direct up head wall. (This may share some ground with Friendly)

''I.Goudge, J.Gallagher 22.07.2013''

23. '''Neatfeet''' 12m E4,5c

The arete above and right of ''Kamin''.

''M.Crocker, J.Harwood 25.03.2000''

24. '''Chasm''' 13m D

A useful descent route just right of the cave.

''Harold Insley etc. 1958/9''

25. '''Gower Gully Joke''' 7m E5,6a 􀁷

Climb the overhanging crack in the right wall of the ''Chasm'' gully.

''M.Crocker, J.Harwood 25.03.2000''

26. '''Crevice''' 9m S,4b

Climb the smooth crack right of ''Gower Gully Joke''.

''H.Insley etc. 1958/9''

The short wall to the right of ''Crevice'' has a crack and two wide corner cracks.

27. '''Ivy Saviour''' 8m VS,5a

The first crack.

''K.Wood, G.Evans 00.00.1974''

28. '''Cycle Track''' 8m VS,4c

The wide corner crack.

''G.Evans, K.Wood 00.00.1974''

29. '''Monkey''' 8m HS,4b

The next corner.

''N.Williams 00.00.1980''

Further to the right is an easy descent, followed by a long smooth wall, which boasts excellent pocketed limestone.

30. '''Miguel''' 9m E3,6b

Fight up the thin cracks 6m right of ''Monkey'', taking care with the protection.

''M.Crocker, R.Thomas 05.03.1989''

About one-third of the way along the wall is an obvious shallow groove (Sunny Surprise).

31. '''All Too Distant''' 9m HVS,5a

Start about 5m left of the groove above a small rock step and directly below the end of the small grass ledge near the top of the crag. Climb the wall on incuts and pockets, TR.

''P.Donnithorne solo 30.12.1988''

32. '''Commit''' 12m E1,5c

The smooth groove immediately right of ''All To Distant'', keeping left of the crack at 5m.

''P.Donnithorne, N.Ashcroft 30.12.1988''

33. '''Sunny Surprise''' 12m E2,5c

As for Commit, but take the crack up right at 5m.

''P.Donnithorne, N.Ashcroft 29.12.1988''

34. '''Eduoardo''' 12m E3,6b

Start below the obvious tiny overlap at half-height below a short step in the path about 2m right of Sunny Surprise. Climb to the overlap and good pockets. Move right and finish direct.

''M.Crocker, R.Thomas 05.03.1989''

About 2m right of Eduoardo is an obvious capped groove (''Slow Worm'').

35. '''The Hideaway''' 12m E3,6a

Climb the wall just left of the groove, PR missing.

''P.Donnithorne, N.Ashcroft 30.12.1988''

36. '''Slow Worm''' 12m VS,4c

Climb the groove to the capping overlap. Pull over this on its right and finish direct.

''N.Ashcroft, P.Donnithorne 30.12.1988''

37. '''Sweet, Sweet, Sweet''' 12m E3,5c

Right of Slow Worm is a small cave at the base of the cliff. Climb the flake-like feature just left of the cave, TR.

''P.Donnithorne, N.Ashcroft 29.12.1988''

The ivy covered groove to the right marks the start of Graves End East.

=== Gravesend East ===
'''GR572864'''

'''DESCENTS:''' Down gullies at various points.

This area is the natural extension to Graves End Wall and can be approached either by following the top or the base of Graves End wall eastwards. The top path drops down at the descent gully. Bear westwards to gain the left end of he crag, or east for routes right of Little ‘Un. Nettlebed buttress has some good bouldering (5b-6b) and is also surprisingly sheltered. At the far left end is a vague arete.

1. '''Baboon Traverse''' 27m VS,4c

An entertaining traverse following the obvious break line from the foot of Cornel to the end of the buttress.

''N.Williams 00.00.1980''

2. '''Cornel''' 15m VS,4b

This takes the first corner 5m right of the left end of the crag.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 00.00.1977''

To the right are two obvious flake cracks. The right-hand one contains a PR (Restful) the left-hand one is Nettlebed.

3. '''Clapham Common''' 18m E4,6a

The wall left of the flake of Nettlebed.

''M.Crocker, J.Clapham 19.03.2000''

4. '''Nettlebed''' 15m E1,5b

The leftmost of the two flake cracks is gained via a problem start and some very loose jugs.

''K.Wood, G.Evans 00.00.1974''

5. '''Restful''' 15m E3,5c

To the right of Nettlebed is an obvious curving flake. This is gained via an infamous problem using a corner to
reach the break. Make steep moves into the flake and follow it to the top. The PR at 5m is missing.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 1pt 00.00.1984
FFA M.Learoyd, R.Thomas 1986''

6. '''Ass Over Tit''' 18m E4,6a

The wall immediately right of Restful, TRs.

''M.Crocker, J.Clapham 19.03.2000''

7. '''The Toboganning Incident''' 18m E4,6b *

The left curling crack immediately left of the arete right of Ass Over Tit. Bounce up a short hanging crack to reach a break. Pockets above lead into the crack which is followed to an exit right at the top.

''M.Crocker, J.Harwood 02.01.2000''

206 Gower Gower & SE Wales
Pennard And Graves End

8. '''Little ‘Un''' 15m VS,4c

The last corner groove on the buttress.

''G.Evans 00.00.1980''

To the east of the descent gully are some definite pillars.

9. '''Where Will It All End?''' 12m E3,5c

The arete of the left pillar, finishing just left of the capping blocks.
M.Crocker solo 19.03.2000

The old route Buttress (J.Talbot, G.Jones 1959) has been superseded by other routes hereabouts.

10. '''Marmite''' 15m VS,4c *

Supersedes Slab Corner (J.Talbot, G.Jones 1959). Take the obvious groove and bulging flake on the left face of
the second pillar.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 29.06.1977''

11. '''Taipan''' 15m E1,5b

A very contrived eliminate up thin cracks right of Marmite, constantly struggling to avoid using holds in that route.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 15.09.1982''

12. '''Graves End Arete''' 15m E4,6a

An exciting, if fragile pitch up the leaning arete of the second buttress. Gain the cracks in the arete directly through the bulges at the start. Follow them with difficulty. Mean and not adequately protected before the upper crack.

''M.Crocker, R.Thomas 05.03.1989''

13. '''Coffin Crack''' 15m VS,5a *

This takes the wide crack/groove on the east side of the buttress.

''J.Bullock, G.Evans 29.06.1977''

14. '''Cleansing Agent''' 12m VS,4c

The thin crack left of the jammed boulder cave. Gain and follow the crack steeply to a ledge, then continue up
the groove above.

''G.Evans, J.Bullock 00.00.1978''

15. '''Marmolata''' 13m VS,4c

Start right of the jammed boulder cave. Turn the jammed boulder to the right and finish up the crack above.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1959''

16. '''Dial M for Merthyr''' 13m E3,5c

The right trending steep flake crack between Marmolata and Breakout.

''J.Roberts, N.Smith 09.04.2010. Gear preplaced. Grade given for onsight.''

17. '''Breakout''' 13m HVS,5b *

The obvious crack on the front face of the buttress east of Marmolata puts the hard into (Yorkshire) Hard VS.
Depending on your strengths it is either a classic test of jamming technique, or the hardest layback on Gower.
Either way it proves more difficult than it looks.

''N.Williams, P.Williams 00.00.1979''

18. '''A Grave End''' 15m E5,6a *

The blunt white arete immediately right of Breakout. Clamber up onto a ledge on the right. Grope left round the
arete, swing left onto it and finish more easily up cracks in the arete. Watch out for the block in the evemt of a fall.

M.Crocker 19.03.2000

19. '''Overlapping Wall''' 12m VS

Right of A Grave End, climb a thin overhanging crack in a wall, gain a right slanting crack, up this to a crack splitting a block and over the block to finish.

''J.White 16.04.1983''

20. '''White Wall''' 12m VD

Scramble up the front of the pillar.

''J.Talbot, G.Jones 00.00.1959''

21. '''The End of the Affair?''' 14m MS

Right of White Wall is a grass gully then another long buttress which is vegetated. There is much dwarf blackthorn and gorse at its base. There is a prominant skyline pinnacle block. Just right of the gully the route takes a steep, left facing, corner crack to a bulge at half height. The left hand groove above is climbed to the top. Finish on a ledge to the left of the pinnacle.

''Nick Smith, Pete Morgan 13.10.2009''

[[Image:Grave_end_1.jpg|400px|thumb|right|''The End of the Affair'' Area]]

=== Gravesend Sea Cliff ===

Below and 150m east of Graves End East is a small sea level promontory with a recess on its east side. It is easily identified by the arete of Greystone, which has a thin flake on its landward side.

20. '''Greystone''' 7m E2,5c

The east facing arete of the promontory.

''M.Crocker, J.Harwoood 25.03.2000''

21. '''Unnamed I''' 7m D

The corner crack to the right.

''Unknown Pre-2000''

22. '''Unnamed II''' 7m VD

The arete to to the right.

''Unknown Pre-2000''

23. '''Unnamed III''' 7m VS,4b

The arete right again.

''Unknown Pre-2000''

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

2011-06-30T11:37:19Z

Ian Goudge:

'''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?'''
<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

There is also a few quotes from Pat here that are VERY relevant to the bolt debate in South Wales:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3563
--[[User:Steven Delaney|Del]] 19:15, 20 March 2011 (GMT)

== Penny worth ==

Stuart Llewellyn (stuart.llewellyn@gmail.com)

Read all of the above posts with interest, and from my point (ignoring my involvement with BMC) of view the bolt policy is antiquated and needs an update. This needs to be on a crag by crag process, and build upon what’s already in place, rather than a start from scratch scenario.
 

Some bolting in recent years has ignored the bolt policy in my personal opinion for the better and produced excellent sport climbing venues (Watch House Slab), and others are a step too far (Lower Bowen’s Parlour & Lower Golden Wall).
 

I believe both aspects of climbing can co-exist, and more importantly develop without impinging or hindering each other. At the moment new easier controversial sport routes are in existence because there isn’t scope for easy (sub 6b) sport routes to be developed.
 

Bowen’s parlour can be used as an example of what I’m trying to get at. The upper section, to look at seems an obvious sport climbing venue, it offers little natural protection, with unstable top outs. The 2000 bolt policy included this to allow new sport routes. The lower tidal section is not part of bolt policy, the sport routes have not retro’d previous trad routes, they are new routes, but the lines in most part offer plentiful of natural protection. The venue has since become very popular because of the grade range available.
 
With regards to First ascensionists permission, I share similar views to other posters, but I can’t provide an alternative system.
 

Anyway problems are easy to find, so here’s my attempt at some solutions.
 

'''Rhossili''' Trial Wall, the back side of this (round the corner from the Adultress) has 2 trad routes on it, following crack weakness’ on the quarried face. At the moment the policy states no new sport routes for the crag. My suggestion would be to allow new sport routes and bolt lower offs for this section. The existing trad routes could use these lower offs also, but leaving these lines bolt free and get some recent ascents.
 

There are also ‘New’ quarried faces, at least 2 possibly 3 other quarried faces, which to my knowledge have no trad lines on them, and don’t offer natural protection. They are a lot shorter and probably insignificant in some peoples eyes, but as a collection could make a nice venue. They are in effect new crags, and the policy assumes no bolting for new crags. Suggestion of altering these to new sport routes allowed.
 

All tidal lower faces (Sheepbone, Terrace, Poser etc..etc..) should remain bolt free. On the other upper sections (silent Fright area etc) as much as I’d love to do all those soaring arete’s (Silent Fright, Audience with Sheep etc) as sport, I believe they should be left alone and not turned into clip ups.
With these possible suggestions the Rhossili quarries could offer easy – mid range sport climbing without drilling natural cliffs.
 

'''Paviland Far Far West;''' I would also support bolt lower offs on this crag, but would not want it bolted into a clip up. The lines should remain trad, the lines look brilliant, but I’m completely put off by the top out. I might be wrong but reading the guide, it sounds as if pegs were used as lower off stations when first developed?
 

'''Bucketland;''' At present the bolt policy allows sport climbs here, I’d suggest removing this and to allow bolt lower offs only. Some new trad routes have been done here, ill pass details onto SWMC wiki

As a general remark to other future crags;
Natural rock – bolt free, bolt lower offs acceptable if top out is difficult to get out of.
Quarried rock – sport routes allowed, as long as they don’t interfere with existing trad lines.

Thanks for reading, so nearly deleted everything when trying to post this!
Stu

'''Suggestion of Saturday 4th June 2011 for the meeting. This avoids a few BMC events and May Bank Holidays, and hopefully plentifull notice? Not a confirmed date, I need to book a venue. Please give some comments, thanks Stu'''

== ==

I'd like to propose:
For new routes- that no bolts should be placed in tidal crags, or where the protection available is inkeeping with the technical grade of the route.
This still allows pleanty of new and existing crags to be developed, but should protect existing, and possible new Trad venues.

For exiting routes:
Bolts should not replace pegs on exiting traditional lines on a "point for point basis". If a route is to be bolted then
lets make it a fully equiped sports route. Pegs should not be activly removed, but no more should be placed, save them for winter elsewhere.
Routes should be allowed to be retro bolted where the protection available is not inkeeping with the technical grade of the route, and after
consultation with the first assensioist where posible. I think that first ascensionist input is important but not the only factor to consider.

Aexample of protection inkeeping with technical grade would be the uppercliff at Bowens, where the nature of the rock does not easily accept
any level of traditional protection. The lower section however, could mostly be protected in a traditional manner inkeeping with the grade.
Here the topouts would be awful and so perhaps just bolt lower offs could have been used.

I see no reason why a crag can not contain both sport and trad lines, depending on the nature of the crag.

Matt Woodfield 20/4/11

== ==
'''June 4th will not be the date for the meeting''' I've struggled to get few things together, and it looks as if the meeting may be moved towards the end of July, to fit in with a venue on Gower and a possible chair for the meeting. If you have a suggestion on this topic please add it to the wiki, as I am attempting to pull it together in one document which will form a basis for the meeting. Ill keep this page updated with info on the meeting. - Stuart Llewellyn

== ==
''' Saturday 23rd July, 7.30pm North Gower Hotel''' Is the new date for this meeting. Will do a UKC and BMC community post by end of the week. Has everyone got to create an account to be able to add to this thread now?

: Yes, everyone will need to create an account, preferably using their full name, e.g. "Fred Bloggs", etc... --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 21:49, 7 June 2011 (BST)

<hr>

In order to try and make a comment/response to each point in Chris’s original list, I feel I need to start with the last point/question as this forms the basis of a lot of my views:

7) Is the general wording of the policy in the guide book correct?

Since I first started climbing (around five years ago) I have heard on numerous occasions from different circles of people that the bolting policy as outlined in the guide book is actually incorrect in places. However other than the guide book the policy itself is not a freely available document. I have tried, with no success, to obtain a copy of the bolting policy. Unless I have been asking the wrong people. Therefore in response to Chris’s question, I do not know. Perhaps what is required is for the policy to be made freely available enabling people to judge this fairly.
Until the wording of the current policy has been confirmed then a lot of the other questions and subsequent decisions can not be made. For example Chris’s first question:

1) Are there any crags on Gower which are ‘no bolting’ which should be ‘New spotrs routes allowed’?

Clarification of the policy itself should be made first before people can be asked to make comment on individual crags.

4) Are there any trad crags where old pegs and threads should be replaced by bolts?

No, if it is a trad crag keep it that way. The pegs and threads were likely to have been placed on lead (or possibly absail). There is a clear danger, based on activity elsewhere, that once one bolt appears then more will follow regardless of policy.

5) Are there any trad crags which should be cleared from threads and pegs?

This was dicsussed at the 17th April 2008 bolting discussion and I feel that what was stated and agreed at that meeting should still stand.

3) Are there any trad crags which would benefit from fixed lower offs for climbing or environmental reasons?

Not knowing every single crag on the Gower it is difficult to comment on. This should only be considered once the policy has been determined and agreed to, then crags should considered on an individual basis. If there are clear benefits on environmental or safety reasons to be gained then it should be considered.

6) Is there anywhere where debolting should be considered?

Yes, e.g. Minchin Hole. Climbers should not even be in Minchin Hole, it is a banned venue. I have personnally seen quickdraws hanging from bolts in Minchin Hole. Before anyone asks, I was in a boat offshore. This blatant disregard for the climbing restrictions jeapordises access to other climbing areas on the Gower for everyone. However the removal of bolts does create its own problems.

2) What say should first ascensionists have in the treatment of their routes?

I feel that out of politeness that a decent effort should be made to contact the first ascensionist. However I do appreciate that this is not always possible, for various reasons, and then the opinion of the local climbing community should be considered. This does not mean just asking your mates. It would need discussion in a wider forum to gain a fuller spectrum of views.

There currently seems to be an approach by some members of the climbing community of a ‘bolt first – ask later’. An example of this has been outlined in a previously post, Bowen’s Parlour I believe. There is also a creep of bolting from one crag to the next. Bolting occurs at one crag, and then ‘creeps’ round to the next, even if this was designated as a non-bolting venue.
Not every square inch of rock needs to have a climb. If the rock quality is poor why put up a route? Sport or otherwise. There is the attitude of poor rock = bolts. If there are complaints that some trad routes get few repeats because the rock quality is poor, what difference does putting a few bolts on it make? Is it a case of putting the bolts in to boost individuals’ egos and first ascents totals?

I am not against the use of bolts and the creation of sports venues. I have willing climbed at some of the existing venues and appreciate the time and effort that individuals have committed to make this possible. However, at present there seems to be a minority group that are making their own decisions (bolt anything) without the concensus of the wider climbing commuinty. As a result of this attitude and until the policy is clarified, there should be no further bolting at all on the Gower.

Ian Goudge 27/06/11

: Ian, regarding Minchin Hole, limited access has been agreed... see http://www.thebmc.co.uk/bmccrag/ViewCrag.aspx?id=963 --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 14:05, 29 June 2011 (BST)

: Apologies all, and thank you Tim for spotting my error. I meant to refer to Bacon Hole and not Minchin Hole. -- Ian Goudge 30/06/11

: Also, I don't believe the excuse of "poor rock" is used to justify placing bolts. It is usually a complete lack of traditional methods of protection that is used to provide justification. In these cases, the rock is often quite sound and is anything but poor quality. --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 14:17, 29 June 2011 (BST)

: We have a copy of the General Policy on the website http://www.southwalesmountaineering.org.uk/en/bolting_policy . For more specifics you'd have to ask Mark Winder who attended the meetings. --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 14:53, 29 June 2011 (BST)

: Thank you Tim for pointing me the right direction. Can I check that this is the correct version and not the one from the current guide book (if that version does indeed contain errors)? -- Ian Goudge 30/06/11

== Crag rights and responsibilities ==

Having read the previous posts, I was struck by the assumption that climbers can decide what happens on cliffs and crags.

As far as I am aware, climbers only own a few crags across the UK (e.g., Tremadog). Even then, they do not have soul responsibility for deciding what happens, e.g., Tremadog is assertively managed with wildlife and conservation at the very heart of crag restoration. This can be summed up by the phrase that yes, people may have rights, (e.g., to decide what happens on their property, in this case a crag) but with those rights come responsibilities. The BMC should be complimented on its approach to juggling rights versus responsibilities, and other climbing areas would benefit from taking heed of this.

I am not aware of climbers owning any crags in South Wales, so climbers cannot be the soul decision-makers of what happens on what is not ours! Discussions about crag management (e.g., bolting) needs to happen IN CONJUNCTION WITH other interested parties. For example, when discussing Gower crags, interested parties may include the National Trust and other landowners, the RSPB, CCW (as many areas of Gower are SSSI, including Bowen’s Parlour and other Southgate crags), Archaeology and Geology departments in Swansea and Cardiff Universities, local residents. Having informally spoken to some of these people, they are very, very interested in what happens. Has any efforts been made to formally invite them to the table for discussion?

Secondly, in terms of responsibilities, members of the public (including climbers) are legally bound to honour certain terms and conditions. For example, Bowen’s Parlour is in a bird nesting restriction area for the majority of the spring and summer. If this is case, how come did the original first assecionist dates initially published on the WIKI fall within the dates of the nesting restrictions? I also noted that these were hastely withdrawn when this was pointed out! It was also noted that certain commercial organisations were advertising climbing days at Bowen’s Parlour within the nesting restriction dates (a practice that seems to have recently changed). If climbers wish to maintain the rights to climb at sensitive areas, they also have the responsibility to prove they are responsible climbers! Otherwise a few fool-hardy folk could jeopodise hard-earned rights for the rest of us.

In terms of removal of gear, I would whole-heartedly agree with gear removal from areas where climbing is banned, e.g., several routes that fall outside the agreement for Minchin Hole (removal of temptation!?!) and most definitely the tat, hanging quick-drawers and bolts in Bacon Hole. I also agree with the view expressed several times that sea-cliffs should not be bolted. It would be good to re-visit the bolting policy, so long as ALL interested parties are invited to the table and their views taken on-board before decisions are made. I commend the Cornish climbers’ approach of asking the local community (including other climbers) BEFORE doing anything, and the fact that they have honoured any decisions made. This is a far cry from the (at best) negligent “bolt first, talk later” approach in South Wales.

I would welcome any information about why East of Shirecomb is not considered to be of “wild” character, therefore deemed okay to bolt. Just ask the chuffs, peregrins and rare flora and fauna that make this area their home (and the people who appreciate such things) and I’m sure they’d disagree! If there is factual information that this is NOT considered as a wild area (which seems to go against the area being designated a SSSI!), then people need to own their opinions, otherwise opinions are in danger of becoming “facts” in unreliable institutional memories.

Sara Davies

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

2011-06-29T12:58:32Z

Ian Goudge:

'''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?'''
<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

There is also a few quotes from Pat here that are VERY relevant to the bolt debate in South Wales:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3563
--[[User:Steven Delaney|Del]] 19:15, 20 March 2011 (GMT)

== Penny worth ==

Stuart Llewellyn (stuart.llewellyn@gmail.com)

Read all of the above posts with interest, and from my point (ignoring my involvement with BMC) of view the bolt policy is antiquated and needs an update. This needs to be on a crag by crag process, and build upon what’s already in place, rather than a start from scratch scenario.
 

Some bolting in recent years has ignored the bolt policy in my personal opinion for the better and produced excellent sport climbing venues (Watch House Slab), and others are a step too far (Lower Bowen’s Parlour & Lower Golden Wall).
 

I believe both aspects of climbing can co-exist, and more importantly develop without impinging or hindering each other. At the moment new easier controversial sport routes are in existence because there isn’t scope for easy (sub 6b) sport routes to be developed.
 

Bowen’s parlour can be used as an example of what I’m trying to get at. The upper section, to look at seems an obvious sport climbing venue, it offers little natural protection, with unstable top outs. The 2000 bolt policy included this to allow new sport routes. The lower tidal section is not part of bolt policy, the sport routes have not retro’d previous trad routes, they are new routes, but the lines in most part offer plentiful of natural protection. The venue has since become very popular because of the grade range available.
 
With regards to First ascensionists permission, I share similar views to other posters, but I can’t provide an alternative system.
 

Anyway problems are easy to find, so here’s my attempt at some solutions.
 

'''Rhossili''' Trial Wall, the back side of this (round the corner from the Adultress) has 2 trad routes on it, following crack weakness’ on the quarried face. At the moment the policy states no new sport routes for the crag. My suggestion would be to allow new sport routes and bolt lower offs for this section. The existing trad routes could use these lower offs also, but leaving these lines bolt free and get some recent ascents.
 

There are also ‘New’ quarried faces, at least 2 possibly 3 other quarried faces, which to my knowledge have no trad lines on them, and don’t offer natural protection. They are a lot shorter and probably insignificant in some peoples eyes, but as a collection could make a nice venue. They are in effect new crags, and the policy assumes no bolting for new crags. Suggestion of altering these to new sport routes allowed.
 

All tidal lower faces (Sheepbone, Terrace, Poser etc..etc..) should remain bolt free. On the other upper sections (silent Fright area etc) as much as I’d love to do all those soaring arete’s (Silent Fright, Audience with Sheep etc) as sport, I believe they should be left alone and not turned into clip ups.
With these possible suggestions the Rhossili quarries could offer easy – mid range sport climbing without drilling natural cliffs.
 

'''Paviland Far Far West;''' I would also support bolt lower offs on this crag, but would not want it bolted into a clip up. The lines should remain trad, the lines look brilliant, but I’m completely put off by the top out. I might be wrong but reading the guide, it sounds as if pegs were used as lower off stations when first developed?
 

'''Bucketland;''' At present the bolt policy allows sport climbs here, I’d suggest removing this and to allow bolt lower offs only. Some new trad routes have been done here, ill pass details onto SWMC wiki

As a general remark to other future crags;
Natural rock – bolt free, bolt lower offs acceptable if top out is difficult to get out of.
Quarried rock – sport routes allowed, as long as they don’t interfere with existing trad lines.

Thanks for reading, so nearly deleted everything when trying to post this!
Stu

'''Suggestion of Saturday 4th June 2011 for the meeting. This avoids a few BMC events and May Bank Holidays, and hopefully plentifull notice? Not a confirmed date, I need to book a venue. Please give some comments, thanks Stu'''

== ==

I'd like to propose:
For new routes- that no bolts should be placed in tidal crags, or where the protection available is inkeeping with the technical grade of the route.
This still allows pleanty of new and existing crags to be developed, but should protect existing, and possible new Trad venues.

For exiting routes:
Bolts should not replace pegs on exiting traditional lines on a "point for point basis". If a route is to be bolted then
lets make it a fully equiped sports route. Pegs should not be activly removed, but no more should be placed, save them for winter elsewhere.
Routes should be allowed to be retro bolted where the protection available is not inkeeping with the technical grade of the route, and after
consultation with the first assensioist where posible. I think that first ascensionist input is important but not the only factor to consider.

Aexample of protection inkeeping with technical grade would be the uppercliff at Bowens, where the nature of the rock does not easily accept
any level of traditional protection. The lower section however, could mostly be protected in a traditional manner inkeeping with the grade.
Here the topouts would be awful and so perhaps just bolt lower offs could have been used.

I see no reason why a crag can not contain both sport and trad lines, depending on the nature of the crag.

Matt Woodfield 20/4/11

== ==
'''June 4th will not be the date for the meeting''' I've struggled to get few things together, and it looks as if the meeting may be moved towards the end of July, to fit in with a venue on Gower and a possible chair for the meeting. If you have a suggestion on this topic please add it to the wiki, as I am attempting to pull it together in one document which will form a basis for the meeting. Ill keep this page updated with info on the meeting. - Stuart Llewellyn

== ==
''' Saturday 23rd July, 7.30pm North Gower Hotel''' Is the new date for this meeting. Will do a UKC and BMC community post by end of the week. Has everyone got to create an account to be able to add to this thread now?

: Yes, everyone will need to create an account, preferably using their full name, e.g. "Fred Bloggs", etc... --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 21:49, 7 June 2011 (BST)

== ==

In order to try and make a comment/response to each point in Chris’s original list, I feel I need to start with the last point/question as this forms the basis of a lot of my views:

7) Is the general wording of the policy in the guide book correct?

Since I first started climbing (around five years ago) I have heard on numerous occasions from different circles of people that the bolting policy as outlined in the guide book is actually incorrect in places. However other than the guide book the policy itself is not a freely available document. I have tried, with no success, to obtain a copy of the bolting policy. Unless I have been asking the wrong people. Therefore in response to Chris’s question, I do not know. Perhaps what is required is for the policy to be made freely available enabling people to judge this fairly.
Until the wording of the current policy has been confirmed then a lot of the other questions and subsequent decisions can not be made. For example Chris’s first question:

1) Are there any crags on Gower which are ‘no bolting’ which should be ‘New spotrs routes allowed’?

Clarification of the policy itself should be made first before people can be asked to make comment on individual crags.

4) Are there any trad crags where old pegs and threads should be replaced by bolts?

No, if it is a trad crag keep it that way. The pegs and threads were likely to have been placed on lead (or possibly absail). There is a clear danger, based on activity elsewhere, that once one bolt appears then more will follow regardless of policy.

5) Are there any trad crags which should be cleared from threads and pegs?

This was dicsussed at the 17th April 2008 bolting discussion and I feel that what was stated and agreed at that meeting should still stand.

3) Are there any trad crags which would benefit from fixed lower offs for climbing or environmental reasons?

Not knowing every single crag on the Gower it is difficult to comment on. This should only be considered once the policy has been determined and agreed to, then crags should considered on an individual basis. If there are clear benefits on environmental or safety reasons to be gained then it should be considered.

6) Is there anywhere where debolting should be considered?

Yes, e.g. Minchin Hole. Climbers should not even be in Minchin Hole, it is a banned venue. I have personnally seen quickdraws hanging from bolts in Minchin Hole. Before anyone asks, I was in a boat offshore. This blatant disregard for the climbing restrictions jeapordises access to other climbing areas on the Gower for everyone. However the removal of bolts does create its own problems.

2) What say should first ascensionists have in the treatment of their routes?

I feel that out of politeness that a decent effort should be made to contact the first ascensionist. However I do appreciate that this is not always possible, for various reasons, and then the opinion of the local climbing community should be considered. This does not mean just asking your mates. It would need discussion in a wider forum to gain a fuller spectrum of views.

There currently seems to be an approach by some members of the climbing community of a ‘bolt first – ask later’. An example of this has been outlined in a previously post, Bowen’s Parlour I believe. There is also a creep of bolting from one crag to the next. Bolting occurs at one crag, and then ‘creeps’ round to the next, even if this was designated as a non-bolting venue.
Not every square inch of rock needs to have a climb. If the rock quality is poor why put up a route? Sport or otherwise. There is the attitude of poor rock = bolts. If there are complaints that some trad routes get few repeats because the rock quality is poor, what difference does putting a few bolts on it make? Is it a case of putting the bolts in to boost individuals’ egos and first ascents totals?

I am not against the use of bolts and the creation of sports venues. I have willing climbed at some of the existing venues and appreciate the time and effort that individuals have committed to make this possible. However, at present there seems to be a minority group that are making their own decisions (bolt anything) without the concensus of the wider climbing commuinty. As a result of this attitude and until the policy is clarified, there should be no further bolting at all on the Gower.

Ian Goudge 27/06/11

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

2011-06-29T12:56:57Z

Ian Goudge:

'''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?'''
<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

There is also a few quotes from Pat here that are VERY relevant to the bolt debate in South Wales:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3563
--[[User:Steven Delaney|Del]] 19:15, 20 March 2011 (GMT)

== Penny worth ==

Stuart Llewellyn (stuart.llewellyn@gmail.com)

Read all of the above posts with interest, and from my point (ignoring my involvement with BMC) of view the bolt policy is antiquated and needs an update. This needs to be on a crag by crag process, and build upon what’s already in place, rather than a start from scratch scenario.
 

Some bolting in recent years has ignored the bolt policy in my personal opinion for the better and produced excellent sport climbing venues (Watch House Slab), and others are a step too far (Lower Bowen’s Parlour & Lower Golden Wall).
 

I believe both aspects of climbing can co-exist, and more importantly develop without impinging or hindering each other. At the moment new easier controversial sport routes are in existence because there isn’t scope for easy (sub 6b) sport routes to be developed.
 

Bowen’s parlour can be used as an example of what I’m trying to get at. The upper section, to look at seems an obvious sport climbing venue, it offers little natural protection, with unstable top outs. The 2000 bolt policy included this to allow new sport routes. The lower tidal section is not part of bolt policy, the sport routes have not retro’d previous trad routes, they are new routes, but the lines in most part offer plentiful of natural protection. The venue has since become very popular because of the grade range available.
 
With regards to First ascensionists permission, I share similar views to other posters, but I can’t provide an alternative system.
 

Anyway problems are easy to find, so here’s my attempt at some solutions.
 

'''Rhossili''' Trial Wall, the back side of this (round the corner from the Adultress) has 2 trad routes on it, following crack weakness’ on the quarried face. At the moment the policy states no new sport routes for the crag. My suggestion would be to allow new sport routes and bolt lower offs for this section. The existing trad routes could use these lower offs also, but leaving these lines bolt free and get some recent ascents.
 

There are also ‘New’ quarried faces, at least 2 possibly 3 other quarried faces, which to my knowledge have no trad lines on them, and don’t offer natural protection. They are a lot shorter and probably insignificant in some peoples eyes, but as a collection could make a nice venue. They are in effect new crags, and the policy assumes no bolting for new crags. Suggestion of altering these to new sport routes allowed.
 

All tidal lower faces (Sheepbone, Terrace, Poser etc..etc..) should remain bolt free. On the other upper sections (silent Fright area etc) as much as I’d love to do all those soaring arete’s (Silent Fright, Audience with Sheep etc) as sport, I believe they should be left alone and not turned into clip ups.
With these possible suggestions the Rhossili quarries could offer easy – mid range sport climbing without drilling natural cliffs.
 

'''Paviland Far Far West;''' I would also support bolt lower offs on this crag, but would not want it bolted into a clip up. The lines should remain trad, the lines look brilliant, but I’m completely put off by the top out. I might be wrong but reading the guide, it sounds as if pegs were used as lower off stations when first developed?
 

'''Bucketland;''' At present the bolt policy allows sport climbs here, I’d suggest removing this and to allow bolt lower offs only. Some new trad routes have been done here, ill pass details onto SWMC wiki

As a general remark to other future crags;
Natural rock – bolt free, bolt lower offs acceptable if top out is difficult to get out of.
Quarried rock – sport routes allowed, as long as they don’t interfere with existing trad lines.

Thanks for reading, so nearly deleted everything when trying to post this!
Stu

'''Suggestion of Saturday 4th June 2011 for the meeting. This avoids a few BMC events and May Bank Holidays, and hopefully plentifull notice? Not a confirmed date, I need to book a venue. Please give some comments, thanks Stu'''

== ==

I'd like to propose:
For new routes- that no bolts should be placed in tidal crags, or where the protection available is inkeeping with the technical grade of the route.
This still allows pleanty of new and existing crags to be developed, but should protect existing, and possible new Trad venues.

For exiting routes:
Bolts should not replace pegs on exiting traditional lines on a "point for point basis". If a route is to be bolted then
lets make it a fully equiped sports route. Pegs should not be activly removed, but no more should be placed, save them for winter elsewhere.
Routes should be allowed to be retro bolted where the protection available is not inkeeping with the technical grade of the route, and after
consultation with the first assensioist where posible. I think that first ascensionist input is important but not the only factor to consider.

Aexample of protection inkeeping with technical grade would be the uppercliff at Bowens, where the nature of the rock does not easily accept
any level of traditional protection. The lower section however, could mostly be protected in a traditional manner inkeeping with the grade.
Here the topouts would be awful and so perhaps just bolt lower offs could have been used.

I see no reason why a crag can not contain both sport and trad lines, depending on the nature of the crag.

Matt Woodfield 20/4/11

== ==
'''June 4th will not be the date for the meeting''' I've struggled to get few things together, and it looks as if the meeting may be moved towards the end of July, to fit in with a venue on Gower and a possible chair for the meeting. If you have a suggestion on this topic please add it to the wiki, as I am attempting to pull it together in one document which will form a basis for the meeting. Ill keep this page updated with info on the meeting. - Stuart Llewellyn

== ==
''' Saturday 23rd July, 7.30pm North Gower Hotel''' Is the new date for this meeting. Will do a UKC and BMC community post by end of the week. Has everyone got to create an account to be able to add to this thread now?

: Yes, everyone will need to create an account, preferably using their full name, e.g. "Fred Bloggs", etc... --[[User:Tim Hoddy|Tim Hoddy]] 21:49, 7 June 2011 (BST)

In order to try and make a comment/response to each point in Chris’s original list, I feel I need to start with the last point/question as this forms the basis of a lot of my views:

7) Is the general wording of the policy in the guide book correct?

Since I first started climbing (around five years ago) I have heard on numerous occasions from different circles of people that the bolting policy as outlined in the guide book is actually incorrect in places. However other than the guide book the policy itself is not a freely available document. I have tried, with no success, to obtain a copy of the bolting policy. Unless I have been asking the wrong people. Therefore in response to Chris’s question, I do not know. Perhaps what is required is for the policy to be made freely available enabling people to judge this fairly.
Until the wording of the current policy has been confirmed then a lot of the other questions and subsequent decisions can not be made. For example Chris’s first question:

1) Are there any crags on Gower which are ‘no bolting’ which should be ‘New spotrs routes allowed’?

Clarification of the policy itself should be made first before people can be asked to make comment on individual crags.

4) Are there any trad crags where old pegs and threads should be replaced by bolts?

No, if it is a trad crag keep it that way. The pegs and threads were likely to have been placed on lead (or possibly absail). There is a clear danger, based on activity elsewhere, that once one bolt appears then more will follow regardless of policy.

5) Are there any trad crags which should be cleared from threads and pegs?

This was dicsussed at the 17th April 2008 bolting discussion and I feel that what was stated and agreed at that meeting should still stand.

3) Are there any trad crags which would benefit from fixed lower offs for climbing or environmental reasons?

Not knowing every single crag on the Gower it is difficult to comment on. This should only be considered once the policy has been determined and agreed to, then crags should considered on an individual basis. If there are clear benefits on environmental or safety reasons to be gained then it should be considered.

6) Is there anywhere where debolting should be considered?

Yes, e.g. Minchin Hole. Climbers should not even be in Minchin Hole, it is a banned venue. I have personnally seen quickdraws hanging from bolts in Minchin Hole. Before anyone asks, I was in a boat offshore. This blatant disregard for the climbing restrictions jeapordises access to other climbing areas on the Gower for everyone. However the removal of bolts does create its own problems.

2) What say should first ascensionists have in the treatment of their routes?

I feel that out of politeness that a decent effort should be made to contact the first ascensionist. However I do appreciate that this is not always possible, for various reasons, and then the opinion of the local climbing community should be considered. This does not mean just asking your mates. It would need discussion in a wider forum to gain a fuller spectrum of views.

There currently seems to be an approach by some members of the climbing community of a ‘bolt first – ask later’. An example of this has been outlined in a previously post, Bowen’s Parlour I believe. There is also a creep of bolting from one crag to the next. Bolting occurs at one crag, and then ‘creeps’ round to the next, even if this was designated as a non-bolting venue.
Not every square inch of rock needs to have a climb. If the rock quality is poor why put up a route? Sport or otherwise. There is the attitude of poor rock = bolts. If there are complaints that some trad routes get few repeats because the rock quality is poor, what difference does putting a few bolts on it make? Is it a case of putting the bolts in to boost individuals’ egos and first ascents totals?

I am not against the use of bolts and the creation of sports venues. I have willing climbed at some of the existing venues and appreciate the time and effort that individuals have committed to make this possible. However, at present there seems to be a minority group that are making their own decisions (bolt anything) without the concensus of the wider climbing commuinty. As a result of this attitude and until the policy is clarified, there should be no further bolting at all on the Gower.
Ian Goudge 27/06/11

Heatherslade Bay

2009-05-28T19:23:39Z

Ian Goudge:

== TIDAL STATUS ==

== BOLTING POLICY ==

== PREAMBLE ==

== ACCESS ==

== DESCENTS ==

== THE ROUTES ==
HEATHERSLADE BAY
GR552872 to 553872
By Goi Ashmore
TIDAL STATUS: Heatherslade Buttress and Little Corner are non-tidal. Other crags 3 hours either side of low water.
BOLTING POLICY: No bolting.
PREAMBLE
This is a small climbing venue, consisting of a few easy tidal routes scattered around the west side of Heatherslade
bay and the non-tidal Heatherslade Buttress above the east side of the bay. The rock at sea level is good, and
Heatherslade is a well known beach for family picnics. The climbing may provide an hour or so of entertainment for
family climbers, beginners, or those wanting to finish the day with some pleasant soloing.
ACCESS
Park in the National Trust Car Park at Southgate (see Foxhole Cove for details). For the crags at sea level, follow the
path straight down from car park, to meet a path running westward above high tide level. Follow this path, dropping
down just before the sandy conglomerate corner at the back west end of the beach. A prominent narrow zawn lies
below this conglomerate corner. Headland Slabs are the two-tiered grey white slabs to the west of the zawn. Little
Corner is slightly further on to the west and Great Corner 75m west again. Note that 100m on from Great Corner is
Grey Slab, which gives routes of grades more in keeping with the Heatherslade area. For convenience, however,
it is described under the Fox Hole Cove section.
For Heatherslade Buttress, take the second gully eastwards from the NT car park at Southgate. The crag forms the
east wall of the gully, and is obvious from the cliff top path.
DESCENTS: Are by easy scrambling at various points hereabouts.
THE ROUTES
These are described from left to right, i.e. in the opposite direction to the approach.
Great Corner
This is the prominent wide angled corner on the west headland of Heatherslade Bay about 75m west of Headland
Slab. It is easily recognised by a prominent corner crack and a strip of pink rock above the left-hand slab, where the
roof originally taken by some of the climbs once was. The rock is clean and good throughout. The climbs described
do not exactly correspond to the original lines, due to the loss of the roof.
1. West Rib 15m M
Climb the rib that stands proud of two easy grooves towards the left-hand end of the slab.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
2. Square Cut 15m D
Climb the groove halfway between Central Corner Crack and West Rib. Follow the prominent crack bounding
the left-hand end of the pink patch.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
The cracks at either side of West Rib provide some good fun, but do not merit a grade.
3. Direct 15m S
Pull onto the slab directly below the centre of the upper pink patch and move directly up to it. Pull onto the pink
section and follow a thin crack up its centre. Not well protected.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
The old route Twin Slab (J.Talbot, G. Jones 1958), has now fallen down.
Gower & SE Wales Gower 185
Heatherslade Bay
4. Central Corner Crack 15m M
The obvious corner crack.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
5. Black Slab 15m HVD
Climb the corner passing the initial bulge, move right onto the sidewall, then follow vague overlaps to the top.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
Little Corner
West of the Headland Slab and well above the high tide level is a prominent corner.
1. Block 12m HS,4b
Direct over an obvious overhang.
J.Talbot, G. Jones 00.00.1958
Headland Slab
1. Route One 7m VD
The front face of the slab, passing through an overlap.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
2. Route Two 7m HD
Follows a vague groove up the white slab right of Route One.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
3. Route Three 9m D
Starting in the base of the gully, climb the groove left of the prominent white quartz ramp.
J.Talbot 00.00.1959
Heatherslade Buttress
This prominent buttress situated above the eastern side of Heatherslade bay is not particularly inspiring.
1. GBH 13m HVS,4c
Start below a grassy ledge on the left side of the cliff. Gain a ledge and pull into a depression on its right side.
Continue leftward then rightward to the overhang. Take this on the right, then move rightwards to the top.
R.Small, P.Carling 00.00.1974
2. Felony 13m HVS,5a
Start below and right of the grassy ledge. Climb to a bulge and gain a small ledge below an overhang. Traverse
right to a loose groove, climb it and bear left over the next overhang.
D.Butler, C.Davies 00.00.1975
3. Indecent Exposure 11m HVS,4c
Start 6m left of an indefinite corner bounding the buttress on the left. Climb to small ledges at the foot of a corner
capped by a block overhang. Gain the overhang, traverse left for 1½m and finish direct.
R.Small, P.Carling 00.00.1974
4. Petty Larceny 11m S
Climb the indefinite corner on the right and the loose groove above.
P.Carling, R.Small 00.00.1974
5. Bandolier 24m VS,4c
A left to right girdle at half-height.
R.Small, P.Carling 00.00.1974

File:Shelob.JPG

2009-03-11T12:22:35Z

Ian Goudge: Ian Goudge approaching exit hole on Shelob HS 4b, Paviland

Ian Goudge approaching exit hole on Shelob HS 4b, Paviland