Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Wild Country : "Oxygen" Quick Draw Set. (Assorted dogbones...) Straight Gate Anodised "Royal Blue" - Bent Gate Anodised "Light Blue" Strength = 26 8 9kN $18.00
47% Off

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Dargan Creek (Dams Cliff) Plan of Management

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
9:09:01 AM

Neil

For a whole heap of reasons access via Donald Ave (the buddhist place) is only likely to get worse. It crosses three different private properties and none of the owners wants it used. There are local issues involved and it is not necessarily climbers they are locking out, we are more collateral damage but they are determined to ensure the railway right of way does not become a public thoroughfare.

The Dam Cliffs access is our best option. After all it is Crown Land and we are the public.

SRC Access Officer

4/02/2012
9:36:23 AM

Hiya

I am planning to call the Crown Lands Office in Orange early next week to try and have an informal chat with one of the officers referred to in the DPoM (section 3.1). I'll let you know what I find out.

Happy to be part of an e-mail group to discuss/plan this, but (sadly) will not be able to get up Blackheath this month.

If you are planning on making a submission, pls heed climberman's comments!

Cheers
Andrew

climberman

4/02/2012
9:41:54 AM

MrPp - Organised is good - agree with using crown lands dedicated for recreation as access to recreation lands (makes sense I reckon !) over private lands. RoW's over private lands are a pain in the proverbial for all concerned.


ratherbeclimbinV9

4/02/2012
9:52:01 AM

On 3/02/2012 superstu wrote:
>The only bone of contention is that new routes within the reserve need
>approval. Well obviously no climber is going to like that, but I can understand
>why this statement is there. It is a plan of management, you can't exactly
>manage an area if you have no control over expansion of activities within
>the area. We should oppose this proposal in our submissions, the question
>is what exactly should we offer in its place to address their concerns?

The question of whether bolting should be regulated is one that we should be asking the Trust to establish as much as they are asking us to respond. Put simply, has there been new routing undertaken that is demonstrably to the detriment of the area?

I'll leave that to others to consider/discuss. It is not my local area.

Regarding regulation itself, there are generally two reasons to put it in place: a funding imperative (wanting to ensure the regulator/taxpayer receives value for money); or a moral imperative (wanting to ensure that people do not undertake activities that are bad for them or for others). Bolting is not a value for money proposition - as it is almost never funded by Governments or trusts - so I see this issue as being a moral issue; one of aesthetics of the area and safety.

Researching this morning, I came across a number of plans of management nationally and internationally that dealt with this issue of making an application to bolt a new route. This approach is not commonly used across plans of management; it is generally used where there are wilderness areas in need of special care and attention above and beyond what climbers would normally undertake, i.e. highly fragile ecosystems. Where it is used, the most common way to go about it is either through partnership between local climbers and the Government/trust, or where bolting is directly managed by climbers. Noting, of course, that climbers have long standing informal systems for managing bolting and safety in any case, and that aesthetics is just as important to climbers as any other user or owner of the land.

Climbers are the experts; in order to make a good decision about whether bolting should go ahead (on both aesthetic and safety grounds), a climber will need to be consulted. You wouldn't advise your doctor whether he/she should undertake surgery; nor would you tell your plumber the best approach to cleaning your blocked drains. Requiring climbers to apply to the trust would involve unnecessary red tape when climbers generally discuss bolting routes among themselves (hence the Safer Cliffs area of the forum) and indeed, learn the best and safest ways to do it from other climbers.

It could be inferred that the trust by regulating bolting is taking responsibility for the safety of the bolts themselves. This is a sub-optimal solution, as climbers currently take full responsibility for their own bolting, and their own decisions whether to use a route, bolted or un-bolted.

I would suggest that the question of 'why regulate?' should be answered. If it is considered regulation is needed, then the simpler approach is that the experts themselves (climbing clubs) should be the ones considering and approving new routes, in consultation with the trust as appropriate.

If safety turns out to be the burning issue, there's statistics available (SES reports for example, and the climbing accident register) showing how much safer and cheaper climbing is for the taxpayer than other outdoor activities.

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
9:57:24 AM

You think climbing clubs are the experts about putting up new routes/repairing old ones??


Climboholic

4/02/2012
9:59:59 AM

I just emailed this submission before reading the most recent posts on a "united front".

To the Dargan Creek Reserve Trust,

I am a rock climber who uses the cliffs surrounding the Lower Dam of the Dargan Creek reserve known as ‘Dam Cliffs’ regularly. I became aware of the draft Plan of Management through the rock climbing website www.chockstone.org.

I would like to thank you for a well written and considered PoM, but there are a few concerns I would like to raise.

Firstly, in my opinion the location of the proposed day use carpark is too far from the main recreation areas and would discourage people from using the reserve. I understand the need to manage the use of the Rail Corp road but surely a better solution could be found.

The option I recommend would be to liaise with Rail Corp to allow continued use of the small section of their road or develop an agreement for the crown to buy this road back off Rail Corp and ensure they still have full access. The issue of erosion in the hanging swamp area could easily be avoided by installing gates and signage. I was not aware of the swamp until reading the PoM and researching its location. I have always accessed the Dam Cliffs via the longer route to the south as is commonly accepted practice in the climbing community.

If this solution is not possible, I would propose that the day use car park and associated walking tracks be constructed further to the South East on Chifley Road where the road comes within 300m of the lower dam. This would have the added advantage of minimizing the environmental impact of walking tracks and discourage people from creating informal tracks for ease of access.

Secondly, allowing commercial guides special access is not equitable. I don’t believe the PoM provided sufficient justification for the preferential treatment. Large guided groups will be significantly increasing the traffic in the area with beginners who do not necessarily appreciate the access, may not conform to the climbing code of conduct and have no vested interest in looking after the park.

Finally, I support the proposal to have climbers seek permission to bolt new routes in principal. But I hope the Trust has members who have rock climbing experience and are qualified to administer this.

I appreciate you taking my input into consideration. Please contact me if you would like to discuss further.


Climboholic

4/02/2012
10:03:49 AM

As for the issue of swimming being banned; I expect that putting signs up is an arse covering exercise and (from what I read between the lines) it's not going to be enforced.

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
10:13:09 AM

SRC ACCESS wrote:
Stu

The Freezer, Railway Cliffs and at least the "closer" part of Cosmic are in the reserve.

Actually, the current reserve does not include the County or Freezer, the draft proposes to establish a public trust to consolidate those crown lands into one reserve.

This is a good thing, because in the past they have been fragmented and only the Dam Cliffs were in a reserve. This would protect all the areas, but restrict the access by vehicle.

The DPoM doesn't include bolting restrictions at the Freezer or County, as it says they are mostly protected by natural gear.

I would argue that there is no need to restrict bolting at the Dam Cliffs - self regulation has worked there. All the bashies have been removed and replaced with ss glueins by various sectors of the climbing community. Individual climbers might not like the sports climbing nature of the place, but it is hard to see how land managers could argue that it is dangerous - we've taken care of that aspect ourselves.

They state that they don't have an issue with us climbing there - the existing bolting doesn't seem to be an issue for them, so why regulate??

Why on earth would a climber argue to regulate climbing?? We should argue that it is not needed. Explain to me why it is needed???

G.


rodw

4/02/2012
10:16:38 AM

The dams cliff area is one of the most frequented climbing areas in the blueys.....take away the damage to the road down to the dams (east fixed with a proper blockade etc)...the dams area really hasn't changed that much in all the years I've climbed. Climbing is localized, the area is holding up very well and all this without rules and regulation in regards to what new stuff can and can't be done.

The POM doesn't show why these measures are needed...in fact the many years of use for the climbing areas shows it isn't needed......maybe that should be the plan of attack?

climberman

4/02/2012
10:48:55 AM

On 4/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:
>As for the issue of swimming being banned; I expect that putting signs
>up is an arse covering exercise and (from what I read between the lines)
>it's not going to be enforced.

And so, is highly innapropriate to propose.

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
10:59:25 AM

A few people I've spoken to have already flashed off letters, emails etc.

Can I suggest that we all hold off just for a little while until some decent responses are worked through and posted for people to consider, just so that any submissions are as detailed as possible and take into account all the arguments we can think of.

We need to nut out the real issues and options really well before responding. This is just the start of it.

G.


Sonic

4/02/2012
12:05:12 PM

On 4/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:

>Finally, I support the proposal to have climbers seek permission to bolt
>new routes in principal. But I hope the Trust has members who have rock
>climbing experience and are qualified to administer this.

Wow. I hope you like the huge target you just tattooed to yourself! Who, in their right freaking mind, SUPPORTS bolting approval by an outside body?!?!?! Mate, I think you should seriously consider taking up Croquet.

In any case, Glenn, I'll talk to you during the week but I think you're onto something. Well written and seemingly united letters may be the best way to approach this. But that statement above makes me feel like we just shot ourselves in the foot!

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
12:08:05 PM

Madness.
We all climb other people's routes. Now some people are proposing we tell them how they can and can't put them up for us???? LOL

I'm just grateful when someone puts one up I think I might be able to haul myself up!

G.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

4/02/2012
12:24:12 PM

Mr Poopypants

4/02/2012
3:55:49 PM

>Wow. I hope you like the huge target you just tattooed to yourself! Who,
>in their right freaking mind, SUPPORTS bolting approval by an outside body?!?!?!
>Mate, I think you should seriously consider taking up Croquet.
>

Don't laugh, there is a croquet club next door to the Blackheath Bouldering Club!


Climboholic

4/02/2012
4:18:36 PM

On 4/02/2012 Sonic wrote:
>On 4/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:
>
>>Finally, I support the proposal to have climbers seek permission to bolt
>>new routes in principal. But I hope the Trust has members who have rock
>>climbing experience and are qualified to administer this.
>
>Wow. I hope you like the huge target you just tattooed to yourself! Who,
>in their right freaking mind, SUPPORTS bolting approval by an outside body?!?!?!

Read again, that's not what I'm saying.

>Mate, I think you should seriously consider taking up Croquet.
>
>In any case, Glenn, I'll talk to you during the week but I think you're
>onto something. Well written and seemingly united letters may be the best
>way to approach this. But that statement above makes me feel like we just
>shot ourselves in the foot!

M9 is on the right track. These things work better if you show the 'authorities' that you support their position but point out the flaws in their plan and leave it up to them to make the decision.

As Stu said earlier: Well obviously no climber is going to like that, but I can understand why this statement is there. It is a plan of management, you can't exactly manage an area if you have no control over expansion of activities within the area. We should oppose this proposal in our submissions, the question is what exactly should we offer in its place to address their concerns?


Sonic

4/02/2012
5:39:49 PM

On 4/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:

>Read again, that's not what I'm saying.

I must have missed something here -
'Finally, I support the proposal to have climbers seek permission to bolt
new routes in principal.'

The word 'Support' carries a lot of weight, espescially coming from a climber in this instance. Look, I don't agree that putting that sentence into a submission is entirely clever. I think showing them I DON'T support their position and backing that up with the fact that self-regulation has worked effectively for christ-knows-how-long is a better way to go.


Climboholic

5/02/2012
8:55:28 AM

Maybe I just hate sports climbers...

Linze

6/02/2012
11:31:44 AM

On 4/02/2012 Sonic wrote:
>On 4/02/2012 Climboholic wrote:
>
>>Read again, that's not what I'm saying.
>
>I must have missed something here -
>'Finally, I support the proposal to have climbers seek permission to bolt
>new routes in principal.'
>
>The word 'Support' carries a lot of weight, espescially coming from a
>climber in this instance. Look, I don't agree that putting that sentence
>into a submission is entirely clever. I think showing them I DON'T support
>their position and backing that up with the fact that self-regulation has
>worked effectively for christ-knows-how-long is a better way to go.

Then write your own submission... that is the point of the submissions process, you can input whatever you want, and it will be considered as part of the assessment process.
Climbaholic's submission includes some engagement with the policy, which is about 10000x more informed than many submissions from the public, which are often based on assumptions that the policy making body is as adversary that needs to be opposed at all costs. Like most policy makers, whoever is doing this work probably wants to do a good job and work out a way to manage a complex bunch of competing interests, maybe forget the "their position" mentality and use the submissions process as a way to share knowledge.

SRC Access Officer

16/02/2012
12:25:02 PM

Hi again

Just a reminder that there is now only just over 2 weeks to get in your submissions regarding this draft Plan of Management. I have spoken with the Crown Lands Officer (John Davies) and he is really keen to receive some "professional" submissions, with constructive criticisms, rather than one line e-mails saying don't ban swimming.

John indicated that vehicle access to the reserve is a thorny issue. Access is along the rail corridor and is under RailCorp's management. They are apparently unhappy with the current situation. John wants to sort out the Plan of Management first, and then sort out access to the reserve. John has been involved with access issues in this area for many years now (10+), and said that he would really like to see access to Cosmic, the Freezer and the Dams Cliffs sorted out for climbers (and definitely before he retires in 5 years!?).

Please take the time to make a submission. The deadline is Friday 2 March 2012.

Cheers
Andrew

There are 71 messages in this topic.