The SWMC Wiki is currently under review.

Talk:Bolt policy on Gower

From SWMC Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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? --Chris Wyatt 17:26, 13 November 2010 (GMT)19:40, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

Also - Can we all say who we are?

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. --Del 07:09, 8 November 2010 (GMT)

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

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

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


MEETING DETAILS

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... --Tim Hoddy 21:49, 7 June 2011 (BST)


GENERAL BOLT POLICY

Let's be clear. There was not really a general bolt policy agreed for Gower. It was all done on a crag by crag basis, so if there is any conflict between the general policy and the policy specific to a crag, the crag policy is the correct one.

The general policy was an attempt to retro-fit some over-arching themes to the crag specifics, so in this case, it seems to have failed.

Let's not waste any time going over this particular issue at the meeting on the 23rd July.

Goi

From p. 14 of the guidebook. "The following aspects of the policy are more general. Please keep to the policy, which reflects the wishes of local climbers." This is followed by bullet points 1 to 7. --Tim Hoddy 16:34, 1 July 2011 (BST)


In fact I'll copy that section from the guidebook: Gower & S.E. Wales, Goi Ashmore and Roy Thomas, pages 14-15. --Tim Hoddy 15:58, 2 July 2011 (BST)

AREA BOLTING POLICY

South East Wales and Gower has a bolt policy agreed at a series of Open Meetings at WICC in 1999-2000, chaired by Wayne Gladwin (brave man) and minuted by Stuart Thompson. The bolting policy is listed seperately for each crag, except for the sandstone, where it is noted at the start of the section. The following aspects of the policy are more general. Please keep to the policy, which reflects the wishes of local climbers.

  1. Bolting will be defined as the placement of any ‘drilled gear’ assumed to be bolts.
  2. De-bolting/smashing/spoiling of bolts is totally condemned.
  3. New sports routes should avoid interfering with existing traditional routes.
  4. Where (3) might occur, the first ascensionist of the traditional route should be consulted. It is left to the conscience of the leader to consult with the others on first ascent.
  5. Retro-bolting, where permissible, requires the permission of the first ascensionist. Retro-bolting for the purposes of this policy, means making a route into a clip up, rather than replacing worn placements with bolts.
  6. Replacement of worn placements with bolts should be on a ‘point for point’ basis and only at specified crags.
  7. Bolting at crags discovered in the future should assume the following:
Natural Sandstone – No Bolting
Gower – No Bolting
Quarried Sandstone – Sports routes allowed.
Quarried Limestone – Sports routes allowed.
Other rock types – Apply common sense, i.e. do not bolt up adequately protected cracks on natural limestone, for instance.

Bolts should be at least 8.8mm or staples and for sea-cliffs should always be BS316 stainless steel.

Those of you who have climbed on the fabulous South East Wales sandstone and other bolted crags will no doubt have thought about the time and expense that has gone into bolting and equipping. Put your hand in your pocket and make a donation the South East Wales Bolt Fund. Without it and your contributions, there will be no quality sports routes or quality bolts for you to fall on. Please send your vital contributions c/o, Roy Thomas, 90 Robins Hill, Brackla, BRIDGEND CF31 2PS.

It would be a good idea to bring any future problems to the attention of the correct forum of discussion, namely the BMC Committee of Wales area meetings. Your input is vital and welcomed.


Yet again I will repeat, the general statements WERE NEVER AGREED AT THE 2000 MEETINGS.

BOLT POLICY DEBATE

1

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

2

My thoughts --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.
"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. However, there are equally good ones for maintaining the wild and remote character of the coastline west of Port Eynon. --Tim Hoddy 12:24, 6 November 2010 (GMT)

3

Thanks Ian [12] for pointing out the usefulness of using Chris' original list to clarify the debate. My response.


1) Are there any crags on gower which are 'no bolting' which should be 'New sport routes allowed'?

Probably. Hairy dog wall sounded good for it. I don't know the whole coastline well enough to comment on every bit of rock though.


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

Maintaining or changing an individual routes character, is to me, less important than the overall crags character. Off hand, I can't think of any worthwhile routes that have been spoiled by bolting. Possibly by debolting ;-) Yes, politeness dictates that first ascentionist should be informed/consulted where possible.


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

For safety reasons - yes! Why on earth would anyone want to risk pulling out of a climb on rubble and loose earth and then belay on little gorse bushes and bunny burrows! Anyway, also I think the damage to the cliff top environment/ecosystem is very visible at popular areas such as carreg y barcudd, st govans and the wye valley but not so visible at many less popular areas such as gower and ogmore. They are being damaged, they just aren't trashed yet. Will lower offs only be considered after the damage is already done?


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

In my opinion, new pegs and threads would normally be sufficient to replace old ones. Maybe first ascentionists should maintain their routes (I know I do), or is the wider climbing community (i.e. someone else) expected to do this? The options are don't replace, replace on an ad-hoc basis or replace with a bolt. If replacement is deemed appropriate, maybe a stainless glue-in would be better and more permanent than continued (NON)replacement?


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

Don't pegs just rot away and snap off anyway? Tatty old threads should be cleaned off when replaced and then replaced with something not too gaudy - maybe grey rope.


6) Is there anywhere where debolting should be considered?

Can't think of anywhere off-hand. Bolted areas I have seen appear to have been pretty well thought out and dare I say it - appropriate.


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

Generally. However, I sometimes don't see the reason for all the banned crags, is it just because they are on gower/sea cliffs/natural outcrops. The rest of the UK seems to get along pretty well with a mix of trad and sport on sea cliffs.

I like Goi's idea of preventing bolting to maintain established trad climbing areas. Why try to prohibit an individual from climbing/developing new areas without good reason? This will probably just fragment the closely knit climbing community we have here in SE Wales.

I also get the feeling that some of the arguments against the use of fixed bolt protection are just plain strange. Especially the environmental ones, I mean, how is sport climbing any more damaging to the environment than traditional climbing?

Thanks Danny [14] for providing some clarity on the sensitivity of 'very particular' rock features. This mirrors my belief that the millions/billions of tonnes of Welsh Carboniferous Limestone (the type quarried extensively to provide cement and aggregates) are not being 'ruined' by a few tiny artificial holes in hidden corners of Gower.

--Alan rosier 16:38, 4 July 2011 (BST)

4

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

5

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

6

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


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

7

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

8

  • 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 ([email protected])

9

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 --Del 19:15, 20 March 2011 (GMT)

10

Stuart Llewellyn ([email protected])

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

11

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

12

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 --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. --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. --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
The General Policy (as on the club website and on p. 14 of the current guidebook) is, I believe, quite accurate. When the guidebook came out, I heard, through the grapevine (possibly Steve Lewis), that the NT, who also took part in the meetings, were not happy with some of the individual crags' bolting policies as described in the guidebook. I spoke to Mark Winder about this and he seemed to think that everything was (more or less) ok. If you want a definitive answer regarding how specific crags fit within the current policy, you could contact Wayne Gladwin who chaired the meetings. Gwyn Evans and Mark W. of course could be helpful too. --Tim Hoddy 13:26, 30 June 2011 (BST)

13

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

Can we make clear that:

  1. There is no nesting restriction at Bowen's Parlour.
  2. There has been neither overt nor surreptitious changes to the first ascents info at BP.

This second point can be confirmed by checking the "View history". --Tim Hoddy 22:56, 2 July 2011 (BST)


The only" bird nesting restriction" at Bowens and the other tidal southgate zawns are the one imposed by a tide rising twice a day.No sensible bird is going to nest 4m above the high tide level.Sport routes and their use of lower offs also help save clifftop trampling and cut down the wear on access paths.Trad areas like Paddling Pool Buttress and Bucketland are in the Seasonal Bird Restriction Area directly below the chough site and rely on setting up lower off ropes(footpath erosion) or climbing over the delicate clifftop vegetation and bird sites. This of course would only become a problem as their popularity with "adventure seekers"increased. Roy Thomas

Bacon Hole - Is Banned, and actions of one person ignoring this was a blow to the relationship we were re-kindling with the National Trust. This site was discussed thoroughly at November meeting (Gower) with climbers and Sian Musgrave of the National Trust in attendance and as such the BMC Regional Access Database has been updated. Minutes of this meeting can be found here; http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=292. This was also emphasised in February’s meeting at Cardiff.

Some equipment has been removed (expansion bolt hangers and in-situ quickdraw) the glue inns remain. After a discussion with Sian Musgrave and Elfyn Jones (BMC Wales Acess and Conservation) due to difficulty of removing equipment and likely damage to rock during the process.

Involvement of non-climbers /interested partys - Myself and Elfyn have tried our best to involve key people and over the last year or so, meeting with the National Trust wardens four or five times. This includes site visits with them to Minchin Hole with Danny McCarrol professor of Geology at Swansea University, which re-gained limitted access to this venue. For full climbing and historical information please see the topo; http://www.southwalesmountaineering.org.uk/g_book/dloads/minchin_hole.pdf


On a separate visit prior to the November meeting we took a step by step approach of Southgate area in particular, to identify bird nesting areas, areas of importance, and those areas that are sensitive in terms of conservation and the impact of bolting. The outcome of that can be seen in the presentation I put together for that evening and have uploaded to the BMC’s website. File can be found here; http://community.thebmc.co.uk/GetFile.ashx?did=373

A Gower National Trust warden will be in attendance on the 23rd July, unfortunately Sian is not available.


To avoid confusion can we remove comments about Bowen’s Parlour being bird banned?

Regards Stuart Llewellyn

I don't think we should remove comments at all. Roy Thomas and I have stated that there is no bird ban at BP and I've tried to make my comments as simple and straightforward as possible lest there any possibility for mis-interpretation.
You've stated the facts very clearly and in much more detail and in the process answered many of a previous posters objections too. Thanks very much Stuart! --Tim Hoddy 14:22, 6 July 2011 (BST)

14

A few thoughts for the debate from one of the active bolters.

1. Sport climbing is a legitimate activity that is very popular and getting ever more popular. It is not the same as trad climbing. Some people do both, but many people only want to climb sport. I accept that sport climbers are a minority, but does that mean that they have no rights? Do they have to accept the will of some ‘majority’ that are not interested in sport climbing? I do not think that is fair.

2. Sport climbing in not worse- or better- than trad climbing, it is just different. Where bolting is done properly the aim is to remove as much of the danger element as possible so that the focus is completely on the climbing. No distractions of placing gear or calculating risk, just the pure joy of moving on rock. Sport climbers can climb to and beyond their physical limits, just having fun and without worrying about injury or death. If some people are more interested in dangerous adventure climbing, with skinny gear on poor rock, then that is fine, good luck to them. They may think sport climbing is for wimps but I don’t mind, I think that attitude is just pious and elitist.


3. Sport climbing should not be relegated to quarries and areas of poor rock. Some people take the view that ‘if you can climb it on trad then you should not place bolts’, but I do not accept that at all. Why should trad climbers be allowed to keep all the good rock, surely sport climbers have a right to have some of it, even if they are a minority group?

4. I have been responsible (with John Bullock) for bolting routes at Watchouse crag, watchhouse east, Fox Hole, Bowens Parlour and Golden Wall. We have not tried to hide our activities, we have nothing to be ashamed of, on the contrary I think we have made a positive contribution to the variety of climbing that is available on Gower. I know that some people think these crags should not have been bolted, so let me explain why we did it.


5. Bolting at Watchhouse was specifically banned in the old policy. I was at the meeting where that was decided and I think it was a complete joke. The room was full of people (supposedly ‘climbers’) who I have never seen before or since, hardly any had even heard of the crag and they just followed the lead of one of the local anti-bolting trad climbers. Watchhouse did have a few old trad lines, with pegs and tat on them, but they were complete and utter rubbish. I doubt they had even had a second ascent. It was described in the old guide as only suitable for the ‘jaded locals’. John and I spent a whole winter cleaning and equipping the crag and Stefan and Sabina kindly supplied nice stainless lower-off rings. It is now described on the Wiki as ‘a little gem’. Go down to Watchouse on a sunny weekend and see for yourself how much fun people are having, especially youngsters and people who are new to climbing.


6. Bowens Parlour was in the old policy as ‘new sport routes allowed’. John and I wanted to do the steep routes near the cave and that involved a lot of work to remove loose blocks from the choss higher up. Having completed the harder routes we debated whether to add a few easy lines lower down. Of course some of those lines could have been climbed using trad gear, or just soloed at high tide, but we decided to bolt them to produce a sport climbing venue with easier lines on very good rock. Having been there many times and watched lots of people having fun on them I am convinced that we made the right decision. If we had claimed them as trad lines (much cheaper for us!) it would be just another of the hundreds of Gower trad venues that rarely get climbed on. Access is difficult, it is very tidal and the top out is a bit grim. A few of the keenest locals might have gone there once but that is all. Instead we have a lovely little sport crag, which gets all of the winter sun, with routes ranging from F5 to 7C. For sport climbers Bowens parlour is a really valuable addition to the range of options on Gower. If you are not interested in sport climbing then just don’t go there. Trad climbers never showed any interest before we went there so there is no need to make a fuss now. If you want to climb trad there are hundreds of Gower crags you can go to, so please leave this one to the sport climbers. The same applies to nearby Golden Wall (topo being produced soon), where there are a few spectacularly good sport routes on perfect tidal rock below a huge wall of choss.


7. What about the environmental implications of bolting? I agree with Roy that the impact of sport climbing is actually far less than that of trad climbing. In particular there is less impact on the cliff-top soils and vegetation, which often includes the rarest plants. I have never knowingly broken a bird ban. Drilling a few 10mm holes in a limestone cliff does not cause any real damage, and if placed properly an expansion bolt can be removed invisibly when it needs to be replaced. Of course there are some sites on Gower that are sensitive because of the geology and archaeology, and we need to be very careful not to do any damage. As a professor of Geography and Geology with a specific interest in the Gower caves and deposits I am quite well placed to consider those issues, and have worked with the BMC and National Trust (e.g. at Minchin Hole) to ensure than climbers have access but do not do any damage. I was not responsible for the recent bolting of Bacon Hole, which I think was very ill-advised and has upset both the National Trust and the local geology warden (though it has not actually damaged the very important deposits in the cave).


8. What next? In this discussion John and I have been criticized for our ‘bolt first and ask later’ attitude and I think that is fair comment. The problem is who should we ask? Do we just call a meeting and ‘ask’ whoever is available to turn up? Sport climbers are in a minority. If someone calls a meeting that is dominated by trad climbers and armchair climbers and there is a vote to remove all bolts on Gower, do we have to accept that decision? If someone else calls a meeting of all Gower residents and interested parties, including bird watchers and NT members, and there is a vote to ban all climbing of any kind on Gower, do we accept that as well? I am not sure where we go next, but I think it is a good thing to have this discussion and to let people air their views openly. I suspect that the views of the keen, active local climbers are actually not too far apart. There will also be views from people who are not keen, active or local, but to be honest those do not interest me.


Happy Climbing Danny McCarroll

15

ROY THOMAS
First could I point out to Stu that deleting reference to any "bird ban at Bowens" would not really be in keeping with the spirit of "an open forum".Myself and Tim have both pointed out to Sara Davies that there is no such ban and it is important for all to see how others views on this matter are often based on their mis information or mis interpretation of fact To sanitse the record for whatever purpose would not be right.Those of us who are informed know that the "bird ban" applies only to the area extending from Bacon to Boscoes and it's because of the nesting Choughs.
Could I just point out that the birds nest in the upper reaches of the cliffs in the grassy corniced area well away from the low 15m of smoother tidal rock(often seperated by 40m of vertical grass)The sport climbers are only interested in this lower area and can only approach at low tide level causing no more disturbance than the locals who are often to be found at this time harvesting the prawns and crabs in the rockpools.Do these bans then apply to people walking along the foreshore or even on the numerous cliff top paths which is a far more frequent occurence than visits by climbers.To allay the fears of those with environmental concerns could I point out that "bolting" will not turn the "wild" Southgate area into a climbers zoo(like 3 cliffs,boiler slab etc) because to climb there requires that weather and tide are both favourable and you must be able to climb 5+ or above.I'm not well up on statistics but as they say "you do the math"(we are talking welsh weather,bristol channel tides and the local climbing population here).
As far as geological concerns relate to this bolting issue any raised beach,cave conglomerate formations have long been pounded away by the sea in the areas at sea level of interest to the sport climber in the Southgate tidal zawns.The incursion into Bacon hole has soured relations in an area which we might have gained some limited climbing access.

16

CHRIS WYATT


I think a lot of good points have been made here. After a discussion with Simon Rawlinson can I point out that my objection to bolts in west gower is primarily aesthetic and nothing to do with an assumed superiority of the trad ethic. Hence if the general view is that bolting some of these cliffs is OK can we agree to stick to glue ins?! You can hardly see them . On the other hand expansion bolts chains and hangers are a visual intrusion in my humble opinion.

17

Information!

My post certainly provoked response!

Thank you to Tim, Stu, Danny and Roy for providing clear summaries of the current situation, links to relevant information, and expression of opinions within the broad church of both climbing and approaches to conservation.

In this respect, I'll stand by my original post (including the errors!??! - but in the context of apologies duely being given for mis-interpretation of 2011 nesting restrictions), as the replies from Stu, Danny and Roy have brought forward and collated information that may not have been known/easily accessed by the wider community (climbing or not). By collating and concisely summarising the many issues and opinions here, future discussions with all interested parties will be better informed rather than sitting with a few very motivated individuals. I hope this is perceived as an acheivement towards transparency and open, honest discussion rather than obstruction? i.e., aiming to work towards a compromise that takes on-board various opinions, is acceptable in the context of all interested parties (sport/trad/wider community - whomever that may be) and workable for the foreseeable future.

Sara

18

First Ascensionist, and Revision to Clause 6

On behalf of Martin Crocker, via email correspondence (Stuart Llewellyn)

Just one point regarding what I've been told is a growing ambivalence locally towards the relevance of the first ascenionists' viewpoint. The capacity of guys who make first ascents to help safeguard the character of their ascents is one of the cornerstones of British climbing history and the ethics that protect it. (You should have access to BMC Officers who will explain at the meeting, if necessary, why nationally this is so - and the serious implications if this principle were eroded.) The principle is especially pertinent where climbs have not become 'established' or settled in character i.e. you'd expect first ascentionists to be able to have much more of a say where a route has remained unrepeated or has had few repeats when compared to a more popular route the style of which has been embraced by the wider climbing community; for example I would not remove the bolts of 'my' Power Struggle if I climbed it bolt-free because its character as a sport route is well established.

Those into no-holds-barred retro-bolting might say first ascenionists should have no more say as to what happens to 'their' climbs than anyone else. They need only consider first-hand the chaos if the position were to be turned around: i.e. first ascenionists of new sport routes could correspondingly not complain if 'their' bolt routes were repeated without bolts and the bolts removed. Then the situation would become completely daft, acrimonious, and time-wasting. There is still plenty of unclimbed rock on Gower without the need for anyone to interfere with existing routes, and even when ultimately that dries up it just takes a little imagination to discover other ways to enjoy climbing - or to move on.


Changes to existing policy wording;


Suggestion to replace the existing clause 6; Replacement of worn placements with bolts should be on a ‘point for point’ basis and only at specified crags.


A revision to clause 6 that deals with the problem (of permission of fixed gear replacement) while still reflecting the spirit of the policy is:

The replacement of any fixed gear, other than existing bolts (i.e. pegs, threads) with bolts constitutes retrobolting and therefore requires the consent of the first ascentionist. It should be on a point for point basis only and at specified crags only.

19

ROY THOMAS-I must agree with Martin that the opinion of the first ascentionist with regards to the change in character of the route is important,if they wish to preserve the character of the first ascent -fine,if they are not averse to having it"sported"- fine. After some initial confusing exchanges I think we should ensure first ascentionists are asked "do you want your route regeared?"or "do you want your route retroed?"ie "sported". If there is confusion or ambiguity concerning the wishes of the first(if living)ascentionist they(the routes) should be left to rot.This is the recent(last 3 years) policy of the South wales bolt fund hence the omission of his routes at Cwmamman, Taffs west,Third Sister etc from the regearing crag rejeuvanation process.Thus a possible change to clause 6 could be -After consultation with the first ascentionist concerning the character of the route and the consequent nature of gear replacement bla bla(I leave it to you wordsmiths to complete)

I can empathise with Martin as I am often amazed at the ignorance of climbers with regard to the original nature of the routes(such as at the Gap or Dinas etc) or even their Knowledge of by whom/what year it was done but with age we should become pragmatic and vanity should fade.I often see/hear comments like "ooh first bolts a bit high" well if you are young jump down,if your old and fragile and/or incompetent/or sensible buy a clip stick.

If he wants only a bolt for a bolt may I suggest he does it himself as his suggested clause 6 changes assumes that his rusted old 8mm's will be renewed. No one wants to "emasculate" his style of ascent but if we follow his suggested amendement and only change the bolts and leave the pegs,situ nuts,threads,bootlace round sapling belays to crumble aspirant leaders would face an even "bigger deal"

Martin has played an important role as the pioneer of the establishment of true sports climbing on Gower with his ground breaking(not literally) opening up of sports routes on Pwllddu and Foxhole in the early 90's so I think his views should be given due consideration and he should make known which routes and to what extent he wishes his GOWER routes regeared.

CLAUSE 7 amendment-with regard to new crag developement, I suggest the NO BOLTING on Gower be removed furthermore at Paviland Far Far West in addition to bolt lower offs the routes be regeared with the first ascentionists permission(I give this now to anyone prepared to do it for my routes there as they were mostly peg/thread clip ups.)Similar for Deborah's Zawn and also that new sport routes be allowed in both zawns.

At Paddling Pool buttress and Bucketland there could be bolt lower offs,retro bolting,new sport routes allowed(this latter already applies at Bucketland.)

ROY THOMAS

20

I would like to propose that fixed gear on all routes on yellow wall can be replaced with bolts. If this is not accepted then I would propose that this should apply to specified routes, namely Heroin, Chasing the dragon, Hard liner, man of the Earth, Yellow Regeneration and skyhedral wall.

I support new sport routes at Pennard.

I support the retrobolting of routes at Paviland far far west.

I support the bolting of the back wall of giants cave.

First ascentionists permission is a tricky one, the first ascentionist does not own the route, and if it fits in with the general consensus of people to retrobolt a particular crag then so be it. A route can still be climbed on trad gear even if it is bolted, maybe guidebooks should allow for a sport and trad grade. e.g. Devolution F7c or E6 6b.

The Gower bolting policy will have to be very crag and even route specific if we are to continue with good quality development and protecting the integrity of some of the existing outstanding trad climbs (some of which may become unacceptably dangerous with continued rotting of fixed gear that when originally placed was deemed to be secure and capable of holding a fall and would now benefit from being replaced with secure glue in bolts on a point for point basis, this will positively encourage people to visit and repeat these routes)

Cheers

Martyn Richards

21

Having been responsible (with Danny McCarroll) for a few of the more recent bolted developments down the Gower I feel I ought to respond to the sentiments expressed in the interview with Pat Littlejohn (see links in section 9) and some of the points made by other people.

Pat's reputation as an outstanding mountaineer and pioneer of bold, often onsighted, trad climbs is undisputed, however, I disagree strongly with his views that trad or adventure climbing is the most rewarding form of the sport and that Gower bolting is vandalism. He seems to believe that the most memorable and enjoyable form of rock climbing is the most dangerous whereas for lots of people it is the most technically difficult; not everybody wants the degree of danger which is a necessary part of trad climbing at whatever level one practices it at and at E7-E9 (which he seems to want people to aspire to) the risks are undoubtedly high. For an increasing number of climbers, what they find more rewarding is solving technical moves and climbing at their limit in comparative safety. In any case, these things are not exclusive, most of the top trad climbers (and many others!) also climb sport routes as a way of improving their technical abilities. The popularity of sport climbing in areas such as Kalymnos are a testament to these attitudes. Kalymnos, like Gower, is an area of outstanding natural beauty, however, I don't think visiting climbers consider this island to be despoiled in any way neither do they feel short changed by the fact that they are not risking life and limb by not climbing the routes on trad! Regarding the visual impact of bolts, everything mankind does has some effect on the environment and we have to balance the pros and cons. Some well used footpaths can be visible for miles in Snowdonia and the Lake District (or even Gower...), for example, but this is considered acceptable by most people. Taken to its extreme we wouldn't climb trad either since putting gear in and out eventually damages the rock.

Moving on to some of the other points in the discussion page. It is true that some of the routes on the lower section of Bowens Parlour and Golden Wall could have been climbed on trad at about E1/E2 although neither crag would have had good belays to finish on. But above what trad grade does it become acceptable to bolt a line? With the hardest trad grade currently at E12 there are some very bold climbers who could probably eventually trad climb/solo almost any sport route in some areas. So if we accept sport routes at all I would argue that there is no grade below which they shouldn't exist. Why shouldn't sport climbers have easier sport climbs? Isn't this a good idea for those climbers wanting to move from indoors to outside? Slabby Watchhouse seems to be very popular for example. I don't consider the trad climbing world has been robbed of any great venues by bolting these places and have no desire to gradually bolt all the Gower. What has been done is to develop restricted areas, which for many reasons, have not been attractive to most climbers to trad climb but have produced, in my opinion, good sport crags.

Regarding the say-so of first ascensionists in deciding route style/retro bolting I am in agreement with the opinions of Martyn Richards and others in that they do not own the route and this should be decided by a consensus of active local climbers (of which the first ascensionist may be a member or not). In contrast to Martin Crocker I do not think British Climbing will collapse if we do this and don't think that the ascent style of a few should determine that of everybody else. If we were to remain true to this principle then sticky boots, chalk and modern gear would have no place on many older routes and we would have to climb them in daps or worse!

I completely agree with Goi Ashmore's suggestion to change any future policy to a protection of trad one and would be happy to have fixed points of protection (and or lower offs) on these crags replaced with stainless bolts as Martyn suggested.

Several contributers have suggested that glue-ins should be the standard for bolting as they are less visibly intrusive. Although the visible portion can be smaller than the normal bolt-on hanger I don't think it makes much practical difference to the casual observer at the normal viewing distances involved. Certainly I have often had difficulties spotting bolts with hangers that I have placed myself (no ageist jokes please!). Obviously homemade glue-in staples are attractive because they are cheap to make, although in this case they are larger than the hanger option. It is only some of the commercially made varieties that are smaller. In my opinion I don't think some of these small glue-ins make good lower offs as not only is their diameter small (bad for metal and rope wear) but it is impossible to thread the rope through doubled when lowering off. Regarding the use of unsightly chains Danny and I have started using two stainless steel rings (thanks Sabine and Stefan !) for lower offs and have replaced most of the old (galvanised) chains ; these can be threaded with the rope doubled. In the future perhaps some enlightened local council or organisation would consider donating nice (quick to clip) stainless carabiner lower offs like the ones provided to route equipers by the Good Burghers of Kalymnos...............

Best Regards, John Bullock

PS Sorry this is so late.

22

Notes and outcomes of this meeting can be found here in a word doc, under the documents sections. Thanks to all those that turned up and supported the event, I have taken on board comments emailed to me after the first draft of the notes from the meeting.

http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Event.aspx?id=551

It must be emphasised that the approved changes to the policy need a site visit with the National Trust before acted upon. If you have had proposals approved please get in touch for arranging of this site visit.


Cheers

Stuart [email protected]

Important news about Gower climbing (esp. bolting)

See recent link from the BMC / National Trust

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/News.aspx?id=4519

Retrieved from "https://swmc.org.uk/g_book/index.php?title=Talk:Bolt_policy_on_Gower&oldid=13214"