Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Peroxide Blonde banned

Rooy

23-Dec-2005
6:44:34 PM

For those who are not familiar with Peroxide (21) at Mt. Buffalo it is a very popular classic at The Horn. There is no fixed climbing anchor at the top of the climb and to bring up the second or to clean the pitch climbers have always used the top guardrail. On a trip up there in early December we were advised by the ranger in charge (Felicity) that we were not to climb Peroxide. She had just advise HB and his grew who were at the time on Peroxide that she would be posting a sign subsequently banning Peroxide and would have a ranger check it regularly.

In no other climbing situation have i wanted or needed to use a fixed post that was not specific for climbing, however in this one situation climbers have been doing it for decades and their is just no other way to climb it. The ranger was following park policy which we all understand but it can't mean the end to this awesome classic. Climbers need to put some presure on having a top anchor put just outside the guardrail and stop climbing it illegially.

Anyone got some advice? Paulie welcome back to oz, I noticed you've been spending a bit of time up there lately, what do you reckon?

JamesMc

23-Dec-2005
9:19:45 PM

What about the top pitch of The Pintle, or abseiling down The Establishment?

This sounds like a bit of an abberation as the rangers at Buffalo have traditionally been a lot more sensible about climbing than rangers at other parks.

Sounds like someone needs to put some belay bolts in there, or job for the VCC access officer.

James

brat

23-Dec-2005
11:10:21 PM

It's just occured to me that climbers have a case under common law, access is given to the public where a common path is used for a period of time, it seems to me that climbs would fall under this classification, there's no specific definition relating to type of access or safety standards, I can feel a class action coming on!

There are similar problems in Qld and I've just posted on Qurank, there a three outcomes to this:
I'm wrong or the case has been tested and I can kiss my butt!
There has been no test case, we win and have access to any documented climb for eternity!
On winning, the national parks and wildlife work like mad to make sure we are restricted from climbing any undocumented areas to make sure this never occurs again!

Feedback please?

Rich

24-Dec-2005
1:16:38 AM

On 23/12/2005 brat wrote:
>It's just occured to me that climbers have a case under common law, access
>is given to the public where a common path is used for a period of time,
>it seems to me that climbs would fall under this classification, there's
>no specific definition relating to type of access or safety standards,
>I can feel a class action coming on!
>
>There are similar problems in Qld and I've just posted on Qurank, there
>a three outcomes to this:
>I'm wrong or the case has been tested and I can kiss my butt!
>There has been no test case, we win and have access to any documented
>climb for eternity!
>On winning, the national parks and wildlife work like mad to make sure
>we are restricted from climbing any undocumented areas to make sure this
>never occurs again!
>
>Feedback please?

Bad idea.. don't push government departments into a corner.

harold

24-Dec-2005
10:19:00 AM

sorry, but these laws only apply to land which has a title, not 'crown land' which is what all parks are. Lets hope someone can quickly whack in some belay bolts on these classic climbs, or even a lower off if the parks really object to climbers topping out at the lookouts.

ademmert

24-Dec-2005
11:58:31 AM

I agree rich, nothing worse than arguing with some one over these issues buy throwing a hole lot of laws at them(thay might change them), better off trying to have friendly discussion to resolve the issue.

On another note, it is my understanding the parks Vic just made a promo video of buffalo with someone climbing peroxide blonde! Hmmm food for thought!

nmonteith

25-Dec-2005
2:00:31 PM

So using the lookout anchors is illegal but not climbing the route then? Either solo it next time a rangers
on the prowl or use the body weight belay method i think - and lets see what parks vic thinks then! You
could also use a fixe rope down the other side of the block and attached to trad/or another person. Think
outside the square and show Parks Vic its still a must do classic.

Paulie

25-Dec-2005
10:27:12 PM

G'day Rooy, good to hear from you and happy Chrissy mate! You still in Porepunkah? We're heading up on Tuesday (give me a ring and we'll pick you up on the way thru) so I'll drop into the rangers station and have a word with Cameron about it.

PB is indeed a classic and Parks are unfortunately (for us, but common sense for them!) well within their rights to ban the use of the railings/posts for anchors (it's not what they're designed for), however since the bolts on PB were placed ages ago, I believe you (Ant you may have other info...) are within your rights to climb it...unfortunately there is no natural pro there to place an anchor.

lthough the addition of bolts is frowed upon, I believe that the installation of a lower off (e.g., Fixe system) at the top of the route and on the other side of the fence may be an agreeable option. This would mean that you would have to climb back out via the top pitch of the Pintle, which to me could constitute an agreeable compromise. This would be following the precedent set when Dave Chitty was no longer allowed to use the railings to operate his abseiling from the south side of the gorge, he compromised with PV to install U-bolts as anchor points thus passing any litigation onto a 3rd party (NPWS/PV etc often out-source for this very reason).

Paulie

Kingerz

27-Dec-2005
6:18:51 PM

Are there any rangers in this country that actually like the outdoors, enjoy people being there, try to help out and are not obsessed with pedantic rule enforcement?

Rich

27-Dec-2005
7:22:36 PM

On 27/12/2005 sking wrote:
>Are there any rangers in this country that actually like the outdoors,
>enjoy people being there, try to help out and are not obsessed with pedantic
>rule enforcement?

Of course there is skiing.. I'd say 90% of them love the outdoors which is why they are rangers! However it IS their job they are doing enforcing existing, albeit perhaps flawed, laws.

Paulie

27-Dec-2005
8:54:59 PM

OK...Cameron no longer works there, but had a good chat with one of the boys today.

Apparantly they're looking into (a) putting U-bolts on the top of PB and on the climb's side of the fence (as I stated earlier about Dave Chitty's compromise) or (b) ehancing the structure of the fence, on that side to be used as an anchor. The recognise that it's an important climbing icon and don't want to lose it.

The big deal was the use of PB on some movie. Parks Vic (rightly so) didn't want them using footage of the railings as anchors, the movie company turned around and said stick it and used it anyway...to cut a longish story short, the fence is not designed as an anchor and an alternative will need to be put in place.

I would urge anyone to respect this decision and not use the fence as an anchor until the U-bolts are installed. I reckon you could use a body belay (sit down and put your feet against the lower pipe on the fence) to great effect and it would enhance your "bucket seat" control for those winter routes!

Paulie

IdratherbeclimbingM9

29-Dec-2005
1:40:45 PM

On 27/12/2005 Paulie wrote:
>I reckon you could use a body belay (sit down and put your feet against the lower pipe on the fence) to great effect and it would enhance your "bucket seat" control for those winter routes!

The Ranger in Charge is a good lady who is happy to converse with climbers and understand their point of view.
I also think she would deem bracing ones feet on the railing as still 'using' the fence!
It will be interesting to see what the eventual outcome is.

IMO its another example of the litigeous society run amok.
The railing up there is mega overspec'd from a climbing anchor point of view because it was designed to prevent a CROWD of tourons from doing the lemming-dance whilst gawking at the view/climbers.
A purpose installed belay anchor would in reality be lightweight by comparison!

Access Ant

6-Jan-2006
12:39:33 PM

Please see the new thread I started on this issue Climbing on the Horn NOT banned.

IdratherbeclimbingM9

9-Jan-2006
8:06:10 AM

This is the link to Ants new thread.

http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1&MessageID=32400&Replies=5&PagePos=0&Sort=#newpost

There are 14 messages in this topic.