Des Hannigan has written an open letter in response to Barnaby's article - this can be found here
... and read Barnaby's reply here
... and another reply here
... And Pat Littlejohns reply
... and Lee Bartrops reply
Regaining a Sense of Perspective
A Personal View of Cornwall’s Bolt Controversies
by Barnaby CarverCornwall is a fine traditional area offering sea-cliff climbing as good, and hard, as anywhere else in Britain. But sadly appreciation for the quality of its routes, and the achievements of its climbers, has all too often been lost in bitter controversy over the use of bolt protection. Now that the British Mountaineering Council (BMC), South West Area Committee has organised yet another Cornish debate I fear we might once again lose something very important – our sense of perspective!
It was the re-equipping of Monster Munch (graded F8b+), an amazingly overhanging, hard and very long sport-route at Carn Vellan that prompted the BMC’s decision. In the past use of bolts at Carn Vellan was not the local climbers’ main concern but here our disagreements were detrimental to the crag environment. In order to stop further damage occurring it’s important that the forthcoming meeting is well attended and that an agreement is reached.
A local climber working Monster Munch on the spectacular roof at Carn Vellan. Arguably the hardest route ever climbed in Cornwall but a dark cloud hangs over its future.
Photo © UE Images.
So what’s the big deal? Why is the use of bolts in Cornwall so contentious when elsewhere in Britain debate is amicable and agreements are made? To find the answers to those questions you have to delve deep into Cornish climbing’s murky past.
Once upon a time, 1966 in fact, revered climbers Peter Biven and Trevor Peck used bolts for protection and aid on the first ascent of Beowulf at Bosigran. It caused little fuss. Furthermore north coast pioneer Keith Darbyshire’s placement of a bolt and ‘glorified lavatory chain’ abseil anchor at Carn Gowla seems to have been accepted as true to the area’s adventurous spirit.
Other climbers in Cornwall also used bolts with little fuss. But in the 1980s Rowland Edwards and his son Mark began placing the occasional bolt in preference to pegs, or as abseil anchors to avoid damage to the cliff-top environment. Bolts on Atlantic Ocean Wall at Land’s End, Rats in a Rage at Chair Ladder and elsewhere, caused eyebrows to be raised. So by 1988, when Mark Edwards climbed Red Rose – a three-bolt route on Sennen’s sacred granite, everyone’s brows where so high something had to be done!
A BMC meeting in 1990 agreed that ‘drilled placements had no place on Cornish granite’. The meeting was held in full knowledge of the fact that there was bolt protection on the killas (not granite) cliff at Carn Vellan. It was bolts on granite and the use of environmental lower-offs in wild areas like Pendower Cove that had caused concern; Carn Vellan was not even an issue. The ambiguity of this resolution led Mark Edwards to believe it was permissible to develop the crag’s great roof as a sport-venue. This section of cliff had in the past been purely the preserve of aid climbing and was on one of the most heavily mined stretches of coast in Cornwall.
Between ’91 and ’93 four sport-routes were climbed at Carn Vellan. 1025 F7c, Monster Munch F8b+, Nuts Are Not The Only Fruit F8b and Blue Sky Lightning F8a. A further project was also equipped. These routes were among the hardest in the South West and their quality and significance was drastically overlooked in the ensuing controversy. Monster Munch is arguable the hardest route ever climbed in Cornwall; overhanging 45° for a length of 140ft it presents a challenge rarely seen in British climbing.
The routes did not contravene the existing BMC area policy when first bolted, but they didn’t stay in their original state for long. A further meeting changed the policy to cover all sea-cliffs, but again Carn Vellan was not the main topic of discussion. Shortly after, in what has been called the ‘Day of Action’, all the bolts were chopped leaving them in a twisted, useless state. They were not removed! No official BMC sanction for this action was given; it was pure vigilantism. Such an act would not be tolerated anywhere else – if all the bolts at Malham, Kilnsey or Raven Tor were smashed there would be outrage! Other areas even have BMC policies against bolt chopping, like the Wye Valley where ‘All forms of bolt smashing or spoiling are condemned.’
The ‘Day of Action’ at Carn Vellan was the lowest point in this controversy. It was confrontational and exacerbated climbers’ environmental impact, dividing the local community. Little thought was given to the consequences or the time, money and effort – both physical and mental – that was put into establishing these routes.
Above: ‘A step too far in climbers’ intrusion.’ Badly chopped bolts at Carn Vellan. All of the anchors on the five original sport-lines here are in a similarly useless and unsightly state. “Chopping bolts and chipping holds harm the climbing resource and the climbing experience. The physical acts can permanently scar the rock itself, and often result in division among members of the climbing community.” – The Access Fund (USA), Position on Irresponsible Climbing, 2001.
Photo © Barnaby Carver.
My criticism of this action is in no way a criticism of the people responsible. I know and have climbed with some of those involved; indeed they are friends. I fully understand the frustration and anger that drove them to do what they did. Reasonable people who acted unreasonably – they’d lost their sense of perspective!
In 1995 well respected South West climbers Tim Dennell and Paul Twomey proposed that an exception to Cornwall’s bolt policy be made for the roof section (only) at Carn Vellan. Their petition, signed by nearly 100 climbers from the area, was defeated by just 21 votes. Democracy Cornish bolt controversy style! Hardly the ‘decisive defeat’ that has been claimed.
Even the Land’s End Climbing Club (LECC), the main lobby organisation against the use of bolts in Cornwall whose members organised the ‘Day of Action’, acknowledged division over the issue. Its 25th Anniversary Journal, published in 1997, says: “There are a few LECC members and associates who do not necessarily object to the use of bolts in various forms and who believe that the ‘bolt debate’ has not been conducted in the best way.” It was against this backdrop of deep division and increased criticism over the bolt chopping that a five-year moratorium (ban!) on any further discussion was agreed (1995) following a proposal by the then LECC Chairman.
The moratorium was respected by all and there was peace throughout the land. But it led to Cornwall’s climbing development falling far behind the rest of the country and stopped any balanced, considered approach to the issues. So that was our dark and distant past and I hope its re-telling has not opened old wounds!
Now, ten years after the last debate, a growing number of people are expressing approval for more sport-climbing in the county and in particular allowing Carn Vellan’s roof to be re-equipped. They are greatly accomplished climbers like Ken Palmer who has said he “...would enjoy and approve of bolts at Carn Vellan, probably the only venue in Penwith I think it would be worthwhile and aesthetically acceptable.” Others are prepared to test the policy like Culm coast climber Simon Young – a LECC member himself – who has recently completed his sport-project Die Umkehrung der Fuge F8b+ at Menachurch Point, Bude.
One of the original resin anchors lies chopped and smashed next to its replacement on Monster Munch. If this destructive cycle of bolt chopping continues it will harm the cliff environment and tarnish the image of Cornish climbing. Without compromise and co-operation a sustainable solution to this problem cannot be found.
Photo © Barnaby Carver.
There remain a few who are firmly opposed to bolting on Cornish sea-cliffs. They maintain that ‘bolting is a step too far in climbers’ intrusion’ and that ‘bolts on Cornish sea cliffs debases and damages the rock.’ I hope these traditionalists can respect the current consensus view because co-operation and compromise is the only way to resolve these difficult issues. That fact is not lost on Rowland or Mark Edwards. They’ve not placed any bolts on new routes in Cornwall since the 1995 moratorium. Furthermore they showed commendable restraint by not placing bolt lower-offs at Basher’s Harbour, in deference to the area policy, even though it went against their fundamental ecological beliefs. It remains to be seen if the area’s traditionalists will show a similar concessionary respect for others.
Such concession is important to the integrity of the BMC area policy. If sport-climbing is not allowed on the roof of Carn Vellan a large proportion of the local climbing community will be marginalized. Why should those people show any respect for a policy that shows no respect for them?
Due to their quality and difficulty there will always be climbers prepared to re-equip Carn Vellan’s routes if the bolt smashers continue to impose their will. Allowing this destructive cycle to continue will harm the crag environment and blacken the reputation of Cornish climbing. Our division will also tarnish the image of all climbers in the eyes of conservationists and landowners so it’s crucial that a sustainable agreement is reached.
This is why I too am in favour of allowing sport-climbing on the roof section – and only the roof section – at Carn Vellan. I grew-up climbing the traditional routes of West-Penwith but I know an awesome sport-crag when I see one! Carn Vellan will truly be the envy of the rest of the country, a major sport-crag of which the South West can be justifiably proud. I also hope the BMC can clarify its position regarding the existing sport-routes in the area. Considering less than 0.7% of the 3294 or so routes in Cornwall are sport-routes then there’s clearly a disparity with the rest of the country that needs addressing.
In Cornwall there is quality sport-climbing, bouldering that’s receiving international interest, talented young climbers like Jake Storm and Stella Stabbins who are achieving great results in national competitions – there’s even a recorded ice climb! Cornwall is a fine traditional area but it’s time to show we have so much more to offer!
The BMC South West Area Open Meeting and Cornish Bolt Policy debate is being held on Saturday 7th May 2005, at 6.30 p.m., Cape Cornwall School, Cape Cornwall Road, St. Just, Cornwall, TR19 7JX.
CORNISH BOLT CONTROVERSY - THERE ARE OTHER PERSPECTIVES
AN OPEN LETTER TO BARNABY CARVER
Dear Barnaby Carver;
It’s good to see you so passionately concerned about bolts in Cornwall. Now that you have gone public with your opinions I hope that other opinions will be given the same publicity as yours.
You start by giving us a thumbnail sketch of a decade and a half of what you call ‘Cornish climbing’s murky past.' Since it's you who has brought up the past, I hope you'll accept some light being cast on all this 'murkiness' by someone who was around for a part of the time.
In reviewing the use of bolts in Cornwall, from Peter Biven’s rather antique bolt onwards, (controversial at the time, but soon dispensed with), you state:
‘Other climbers in Cornwall also used bolts with little fuss. But in the 1980s Rowland Edwards and his son Mark began placing the occasional bolt in preference to pegs, or as abseil anchors to avoid damage to the cliff-top environment’
During the 1980s and early 1990s, 80 bolts and drilled pegs were placed on over 40 routes on 18 cliffs in West Penwith. Are you telling us, Barnaby, that this is occasional? No local climber of conscience could possibly have stood by and allowed this amount of drilling to continue without protest. It was the overheated reaction to this protest that led to 'controversy'. The protest had nothing to do with ‘personalities’ or ‘traditional’ versus ‘progressive’. The reality of the ‘Cornish bolting controversy’ starts and stops with the action of excessive drilling; (for climbing purposes and not because of any lately discovered 'ecological' fundamentalism). These 80 drilled placements do not include the Carn Vellan bolts, which bring the number to 130 or so; although there are certainly more unaccounted for.
For once let us shake off the fudge and look at the facts. The above is a startling lesson in how easy it is for bolting to spread unilaterally and secretively and how the big picture is lost amid feverish debate about individual bolts and cliffs, such as the debate over Carn Vellan. The spread of drilling in West Penwith was the sole reason for the bolt meetings of the past that resulted in repeated votes against bolting and drilling. You blur the perspective by suggesting that it was all about an ‘occasional’ bolt, or that protection bolts or drilled pegs on Art of the Slate, 29 Palms, Red Rose, Lunatic Owl, The Lobster, Rats in a Rage, and many more were placed in preference to pegs?
In your article you state:
In 1995 well respected South West climbers Tim Dennell and Paul Twomey proposed that an exception to Cornwall’s bolt policy be made for the roof section (only) at Carn Vellan. Their petition, signed by nearly 100 climbers from the area, was defeated by just 21 votes. Democracy Cornish bolt controversy style! Hardly the ‘decisive defeat’ that has been claimed.’
You criticise the ‘democracy’ of debate, yet your claim that one hundred climbers from the area signed the petition is misleading. What area, Barnaby? Only a handful of the signatories to this petition were even based in Cornwall. Several were Dutch or Spanish holidaymakers on climbing courses; many were Plymouth based and there was a fair number with military addresses as far afield as Germany and the Middle East! Most of those who signed the very confusing and badly-worded petition had little idea of what it was all about.
You also state that the moratorium on annual bolt discussion:
'Led to Cornwall’s climbing development falling far behind the rest of the country and stopped any balanced, considered approach to the issues.
You’re surely not suggesting that Cornwall’s climbing development should be measured solely in terms of sport climbing, bolts, bouldering, climbing walls and competitions? With respect Barnaby, you and I both know that there are scores of fantastic unclimbed lines, long and short, still to go in Penwith. They may be for the bold rather than the bolt, but they are out there still. Does Cornwall have to be 'in line' with the rest of the country -or the world - with some kind of must-have sport climbing franchise? And I thought Cheesewring was an agreed bolt venue, or have we run out of potential there?
Finally; the old chestnut of votes in the early 1990s being against bolts ‘on granite’ did not cover Cornish cliffs of other rock types has always been a distortion of the truth. The use of the word ‘granite’ was a careless term that at the time was used loosely to cover all Penwith's sea cliffs. (A major environmental organisation once even described Zennor Head in a publication as being granite!) However, everyone at those meetings knew full well that it was all of Cornwall’s sea cliffs - in line with Pembroke and other wilderness areas - that were being discussed as bolt-free areas. A key meeting saw a vote against bolting by 50 or so people with only three voting in favour of bolts. And I’m afraid there was not much fastidiousness about the rock types that were bolted after the meetings. The convenience bolts at Cribba Head spring to mind. I don’t think Cribba is ‘slate’, is it? With such a relentless contempt for consensus, small wonder bolts have been chopped. And chopping, believe me, is a reluctant last resort. It is neither the work of 'vigilantes' nor is it 'vandalism'. The vandalising of a cliff starts when the drill goes in.
These events are all in the past, but it was you who brought them up. They certainly need clarification, considering the number of climbers who are unaware of the realities. But the matter at hand is the forthcoming meeting on May 7th. Now, with Carn Vellan up for debate, I see that the sport route at Menachurch has been tagged on. Perhaps the mystery bolts at the top of West Crag, Trewavas should be thrown into the pot as well? And are there any other ongoing bolt ‘projects’ for discussion?
Debate, with a seasoning of passionate opinion is healthy. But to dismiss opponents of bolting in Cornwall as being ‘vigilantes'' unreasonable' and 'traditionalist' is to hugely misjudge and misrepresent a great number of climbers, both in Cornwall and throughout Britain. There are climbers of all standards and styles who oppose bolting of Carn Vellan and of Cornish sea cliffs and do so with sincerity and justification. .
Despite having no objections to sport climbing within its context, I believe that drilling of Cornwall’s sea cliffs debases those cliffs and devalues the wider context of a wilderness coastal area such as Cornwall’s. This aesthetic goes well beyond climbing's narrow perspective; but we shall have no clear judgement if we do not look beyond our self-interest as climbers.
Mining activity in the past is irrelevant to the bolting of today. The world has moved on from industrial intrusion on Cornwall’s coastal cliffs. Ironically, Carn Vellan is part of a soon to be designated World Heritage Site, an awesome designation that brings huge amounts of cash to the local area, underwritten by serious conservation measures and controls. The enlightened view is surely that we should be working even harder to minimise our impact on the Cornish cliff environment. 'Scaffolding' a sea cliff with bolts is frankly regressive, especially when leading British climbers who climb sport routes as well as adventure routes are even calling for pegs to be banished from wilderness sea cliffs.
The argument that the Carn Vellan roof section can be climbed only by bolting, ignores what has already happened at the cliff. The transformation of the original sport route Blue Sky Lightning into the non-bolted route Rewind proves the case that no one can predict the future. You rob the future if you deny the possibility that climbers twenty years ahead (perhaps even using futuristic non-damaging pro) may eventually climb the Carn Vellan overhang without drilling.
Many people believe that, even now, the sanctioning of sport routes at Carn Vellan (and at Menachurch) would lead to bolt creep elsewhere, to yet other 'projects', and to the retrospective justification for many bolt placements of the past. You yourself have already mentioned areas such as Pendeen and Botallack as being so-called ‘industrial’ areas fit for bolting. This vague and dangerous criterion could be easily applied to plenty of sea cliffs in the West Country, never mind West Cornwall. There would be a free-for-all of self-justifying bolting by individuals.So, there are alternative 'perspectives' to yours, Barnaby. But the way to move debate forward is to offer alternative solutions. So here's a fairly uncomplicated proposal. Instead of trying to win ‘official’ sanction for a few sport routes, why not go for some of those unclimbed fantastic lines that I mentioned earlier and keep Cornwall in the forefront of serious adventure routes and bold climbs without fixed gear? Why not have real freedom and individuality on Cornwall's sea cliffs, a freedom and individuality that does not bring those cliffs down to our level by drilling them. It's another perspective, and I wouldn't call it ‘traditional’ or unreasonable'.
In the end, the cliffs matter more than the climber, and much more than the drill.
Best regards,
Des Hannigan
A CLARIFICATION from Barnaby Carver
Despite any mischievous suggestions to the contrary I do not consider crags such as Pendeen or Botallack as being ‘fit for bolting’ and have said no such thing. I am solely in favour of allowing sport climbing on the roof section – and only the roof section – at Carn Vellan.
Whatever my own personal view, or the views of others, it is important to recognise that opinion in Cornwall is divided on this issue. Co-operation and compromise is crucial to ensure a sustainable solution and stop the damaging cycle of bolt chopping and replacing from continuing.
STU LITTLEFAIR (aka Midgets of the World Unite!)
The history of Cornish bolting has been long and involved. There's been heated discussion and bad feeling between both sides in the past. It's also something which I feel is entirely unrelated to this debate. This debate is, or should be, about whether to allow the bolting of routes on the roof section of Carn Vellan. A side issue is Simon Young's recent bolting on the Culm. Things have moved on since the past, and I think that bringing it up here can only cause bad feeling and prevent us from reaching a decision we can all respect. With this in mind - let's look at the issues.
One argument presented by the "no-vote" will be an environmental one. That bolting degrades and de-values the wilderness. To my mind, this is clearly bunk. All forms of climbing degrade and devalue the wilderness. We carve paths through vegetation, clean rock, leave trails of chalk whose visual impact is a thousand times worse than a smattering of bolts. A fact we have to face as climbers is that we have a negative impact on the environment we love. To level this accusation at bolting any more than another type of climbing is blindness at best.
No - to my mind the relevant topic of debate is this. A minority of sport climbers, operating at the higher levels, want to bolt a section of cliff to provide themselves with routes to climb. This section of the cliff is not currently being used. To give an analogy it's rather like falling asleep in front of the TV, but waking up and crying "I was watching that!" when your child switches to the Teletubbies. My position is that if we are to deny them this there has to be a very good reason.
So let's look at some of those reasons. I've already discussed environmental concerns. Another argument commonly proposed is that if we allow bolting in one place it will all too quickly and easily spread to other cliffs. The very fact that this discussion is occurring now, after the bolting of a very small number of routes, proves that this is not the case. The climbing community is very effective at policing itself. In fact, I believe that by allowing the bolts to remain in Carn Vellan will be to help limit the spread of bolts, as it shows that the two communities can reach sensible compromise solutions. These solutions will minimise the chance that some nutter bolts Bosigran out of frustration, which is something I would hope no-one at this meeting wants! Meetings like this one will ensure that the bolting remains limited to very specific cases which are of interest to sport climbers, but currently of no use to trad climbers.
But there's that word - currently. Another argument is that these routes will one day be cutting edge trad climbs. That's fine. They can still be enjoyed today as world-class sport routes. "The Big Issue" is no less a classic today because it was once bolted, is it? If someone removes the bolts with a view to trad-climbing the pitch it is something I would wholeheartedly support, but it is a different issue to the one we are discussing at this meeting.
So, in summary. The bolting of these routes at Carn Vellan would provide me and others with world-class routes to climb, and I am selfishly and personally in favour of seeing them bolted. I see no problem with this however, as I am taking nothing away from any climbers operating today. If, in the future, someone climbs these routes on traditional gear, this should be supported, and the bolts removed. Given this, I see no good reasons why a small section of the climbing community should not be allowed to have the routes they have asked for.
BOLTS AT CARN VELLAN by Pat Littlejohn
The photographs taken at Carn Vellan are indeed shocking. Whoever drilled that metalwork into a natural sea cliff will only bring shame on himself, and ultimately on the local climbing community if it supports or tolerates this action.
The Cornish coastline is a national treasure. The National Trust and other conservation bodies devote huge efforts and resources to preserving it in its natural state. If we as climbers can't refrain from littering the cliff environment with drilled metal fixtures then we have no right to operate there at all.
When we conduct our sport leaving little or no trace on the cliffs, we can hold our heads high knowing that we're not damaging that bit of the coastal environment we're most closely involved with - the rock. If we start rigging the cliffs with artificial fixtures we will soon be regarded as philistine vandals by the bodies that care for and in many cases own the Cornish coastline.
FIXED GEAR by Lee Bartrop
I think we should make the debate about fixed gear [1] in general (as is
intonated in advert for the Cornish Bolt debate event on BMC's
website.[2] ) not just confine it to bolts.Fixed gear – what are the factors?
A. Environmental impact (visual and mechanical)
B. Climbing ethics – (climbing difficulty and style, can it be done
without fixed gear)C. Climbers responsibility – (climbing and leaving fixed gear for the
next climber)D. Creating a climbing experience (and what proportion of climbers will
benefit)
All climbing has an environmental impact and all climbing has some
knock-on effect to the next climber or other user. Climbing is a
valuable human activity and should be one that is promoted and its
freedoms preserved.The impact of most climbing is acceptable because many of us get a
worthwhile experience from it. In other words we are prepared to cause
some degree of change to the rock in order to enjoy climbing it.We are not going to stop climbing and climbing will not stop affecting
the environment.So the questions are: what levels are we happy with - what actions are
acceptable?
That being; Acceptable environmental impact, acceptable climbing style
and acceptable provision for future climbers, in return for a worthy
climb?Those who want to share some common view on what is best practice for
the community, need to arrive at a fair and detailed working policy for
that practice. It seems that the mountaineering commission are doing so
for alpinism, [3] shouldn’t we do the same for UK rock climbing?If we had a scoring or decision method, we can weigh up the scales of
creating a climbing experience against other factors A,B,C (or
combinations of) and use this to help us choose how to make the climb
acceptable.We need some hard evidence to help attach numbers to our swaying
balance. To know that, we need to know the actual effects of climbing
and the actual effects of using different types of fixed gear?This is difficult to quantify and may be difficult to reach consensus,
but ought to be tried. Certainly a community who seek a shared best
practice agreement should try.Of course there are, and probably always will be some climbers who think
that climbing should never be regulated, and all this has no meaning to
them.But if we are to reach an agreement in some club, it has to be through
the development of a fair and practical policy for placing fixed gear in
the UK.I think just saying ‘no bolts’, is not enough.
Also, it could quite possibly be an unfair treatment of a person or
group on the basis of judgment or opinion formed before the facts are
known.
This statement may change without notice, and is a personal view of Lee
Bartrop.[1]
Fixed gear could (and it is debatable whether it should) include:
Pegs, slings, rope, chipped holds, bolts, pegs, wooden blocks, bedknobs
and other ironmongery, trees, chockstones, glued on rock, glued on
holds, ladders.[2]
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/events.asp
07/05/05 Cornish Bolt DebateFollowing the Dorset Bolt Debate (2nd April), it’s Cornwall’s turn to
review the issue of bolting. The discussion will include clarification
of the fixed gear policy and the bolts placed on Carn Vellan/Menachurch
Point.[3]
http://www.thebmc.co.uk/world/alps/bolt.htm
REGULATING A CAN OF WORMS & FOREVER SHARPENING PENCILS
There is something of a problem with petitions and pub chats and a
gathering of people taking a vote.Do all the accurate facts get put on the table, does everyone get a
equal share of the debate, do all points of view get aired, does the
collection represent the whole community ?I'm no statistician, but it is going to be very difficult. Perhaps this
is why even though some meetings in the past have come out with a no
bolting policy, bolts are still appearing periodically.I tried to think about a method of arriving at a fair decision, by
looking at fixed gear in general and weighing up the odds of creating a
climbing experience against the resulting factors.It takes the premise that it is ok to climb even though it causes
damage. It then is a way of arriving at a level of acceptable damage.THE TROUBLE IS, (here you will see me downclimb a bit before moving on)
if a body like BMC are going to work with something like that, what does
it mean for the freedom of expression as a climber?And if we have a regulatory body formalising all this stuff, will that
then open up the area of litigation? If there is a defined set of
acceptable actions, and they are then crossed, is there then a potential
for liability?Will climbers then need to have a climbing license, gained after tests,
before they can put up a new route, or climb at all?Will climbers have to pay a toll to get to the crag, to pay climbing
police and gardeners and fixed gear fixers?When we try to draw a line around the issue of bolts we find ourselves
going back and getting a sharper and thinner pencil and drawing another
line - the closer we look at the edges of the line the more fuzzy it
seems to get.NON REGULATION, FREEDOM OF CLIMBING & FLUFF
there is no fixed gear policy at present, I don't think there will be.
Not sure I would like there to be.This debate is persistent and full of fuzzy logic, I expect it will be
around as long as climbing is.Whilst climbers are free to climb they will be free to make climbs, some
of them will climb like alot of other people, some will do their own
thing.If we are to remain free, then we must accept our differences.
If we choose to regulate our sport we must lose some freedom.
THESIS, ANTITHESIS & COIN FLIPPINGI appear to have gone round in circles!
At the moment there are bolters and choppers, opposites of the same coin
one could argue. There are also spenders and taxers and minters. Which
one are you?
this statement may change without notice and is the personal view of Lee
Bartrop
