Sponsored By
ROCK
HARDWARE
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Prints |
Chockstone Forum - General Discussion
General Climbing Discussion
| Author |
|
|||||
3:07:32 AM |
You can do some pretty fun things on or via a static rope... gotta learn somewhere. http://www.david-noble.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/HC-3.jpg http://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5323/8777905107_9243a99cb7_b.jpg As long as they aren't being dicks (trundling etc) and show some awareness of others.... who cares? If there's a competition for wall space, maybe you need to actually have a conversation... |
|||||
8:53:08 PM |
On 21/07/2017 Karl Bromelow wrote: > But amongst the climbing community "recreational >abseilers" will always be considered rather goofy, sad and into it for >silly fairground thrills or deluded perceptions of toughness rather than As opposed to climbing? One man's thrill is another man's dawdle... >for any genuine physical challenge or the beauty of movement and the pleasure >of complex problem solving in a usually magical environment. Surely you could apply that same sentence to abseilling? It requires mental and physical toughness; some problem solving and usually in a magical environment. I love the abseil into Pierces Pass via Mirrorball Pinnacle - i've heard Weaselburger is quicker, but Mirrorball is such a fun experience. Same with the cave network around Boar's head. I can see the appeal of just doing that for the sake of it. |
|||||
8:05:24 AM |
On 25/07/2017 martym wrote: >On 21/07/2017 Karl Bromelow wrote: >> But amongst the climbing community "recreational >>abseilers" will always be considered rather goofy, sad and into it for >>silly fairground thrills or deluded perceptions of toughness rather than >As opposed to climbing? One man's thrill is another man's dawdle... > >>for any genuine physical challenge or the beauty of movement and the >pleasure >>of complex problem solving in a usually magical environment. >Surely you could apply that same sentence to abseilling? It requires mental >and physical toughness; some problem solving and usually in a magical environment. > >I love the abseil into Pierces Pass via Mirrorball Pinnacle - i've heard >Weaselburger is quicker, but Mirrorball is such a fun experience. Same >with the cave network around Boar's head. I can see the appeal of just >doing that for the sake of it. And as I said, "I realise this is just my biased perspective." |
|||||
10:57:19 AM |
Abseiling is in the same catagory as bungy jumping. I've never been bungy jumping, but would probably give it a go. It looks exciting........once or twice. Abseiling once or twice for a thrill makes total sense. Being an abseil instructor, slinging newbs off a cliff makes sense. Being a long-term recreational abseiler makes slightly less sense to me than being a recreational bungy jumper. Does a recreational bungy scene even exist? I have no problem at all with abseilers using climbing areas, as long as they tread lightly and look after the place. However, if you're doing it long term as a hobby, I'll assume that you have an intellectual disability or something. |
|||||
11:23:21 AM |
I had a go at a bloke running a rope access course at Lindfield years ago. He had slung trees high so the clients had it easy over the edge. The place isn't even an adequate abseil area, and the arse is doing his best to kill trees, and setting a bad example to clients, you sling a tree at its base. Abseiling terrifies me. It also allows access, a means to an end, never been and end to itself |
|||||
3:16:24 PM |
Disclaimer: my wife is a semi-recreational abseiler. A couple of points: Abseilers have just as much right to (responsibly) use a crag as climbers do; we don't have a monopoly on moving vertically across rock. Obviously there is etiquette about that, but if there's wear-and-tear on a rock from someone else using it, that's just how life works. Environmentalists probably experience similar annoyance about the paths and foot pads that climbers create while accessing crags in national parks. We should also view abseiling as an opportunity to introduce rock activities to more people; it's a gateway activity. Finally, abseiling is a relatively common outdoor activity for schools and youth groups because it builds character. Unlike, say, trail-bike riding, if there's any damage to the environment, at least it's to a good cause. |
|||||
3:55:30 PM |
On 28/07/2017 ldshield wrote: >Disclaimer: my wife is a semi-recreational abseiler. Does she have any other symptoms of brain damage? >Obviously >there is etiquette about that, but if there's wear-and-tear on a rock from >someone else using it, that's just how life works. No it isn't. Abseilers can get their thing done on cliffs which are of no interest to climbers. If overuse by abseilers was shufflebuffing a classic climb, I would consider that pretty rude. (note that I've never seen evidence of this occuring) >Environmentalists probably >experience similar annoyance about the paths and foot pads that climbers >create while accessing crags in national parks. Which is something climbers ought to be concerned about, and we should all seek to minimise our impact. > >We should also view abseiling as an opportunity to introduce rock activities >to more people; it's a gateway activity. Why? Explain why more people in climbing is better. >Finally, abseiling is a relatively common outdoor activity for schools >and youth groups because it builds character. Does it though? I know the outdoor ed robots repeat this line endlessly, but what does it even mean? How do you measure 'character'? >Unlike, say, trail-bike riding, >if there's any damage to the environment, at least it's to a good cause. I like to rip on bogans as much as anyone, but is trailbiking really that bad? In most of the national parks I visit, the bush is too dense for easy walking, let alone riding a bike. How much damage can a trailbike do to the environment, if they're being ridden on bulldozed and regularly graded fire roads? Can you really sit there and say that trailbikers have more negative effect on parks than all the stupid climbers who don't bury their shit? |
|||||
8:56:19 AM |
On 28/07/2017 One Day Hero wrote: >On 28/07/2017 ldshield wrote: >>Disclaimer: my wife is a semi-recreational abseiler. > >Does she have any other symptoms of brain damage? > >>Obviously >>there is etiquette about that, but if there's wear-and-tear on a rock >from >>someone else using it, that's just how life works. > >No it isn't. Abseilers can get their thing done on cliffs which are of >no interest to climbers. If overuse by abseilers was shufflebuffing a classic >climb, I would consider that pretty rude. (note that I've never seen evidence >of this occuring) I agree, but there's currently no system to identify to abseilers that line X is problematic but lines Y and Z are not climbable and they should abseil there instead of on X. They're hardly going to go out and buy a climbing guidebook, so how are they supposed to know? > >>Environmentalists probably >>experience similar annoyance about the paths and foot pads that climbers >>create while accessing crags in national parks. > >Which is something climbers ought to be concerned about, and we should >all seek to minimise our impact. >> >>We should also view abseiling as an opportunity to introduce rock activities >>to more people; it's a gateway activity. > >Why? Explain why more people in climbing is better. It's a value judgement, but activities which have more participants have a higher profile, and thus receive more assistance from government with less external regulation. The prime (but not only) example is AFL; they receive millions and millions of dollars in direct and indirect assistance from State and local government (stadium redevelopments, open space in suburban reserves, money for local footy club rooms, volunteer grants, etc). As far as I can tell they are subject to very little external regulation beyond the things like Working With Children Checks which apply to everybody. By contrast, fishing has a lower public profile and thus receives little external funding compared to AFL, but is still regulated through fishing licences. If climbing was supported at an equivalent level to the AFL, it would probably mean something like greater local government support for local bouldering walls; fewer areas where climbing is restricted because of Parks Vic under-resourcing; and better availability/more diversity in climbing gyms. If you want climbing to remain a niche activity, that's a perfectly valid position to take. However, the community perception of climbing is that it is risky, and that makes us vulnerable to over-regulation. > >>Finally, abseiling is a relatively common outdoor activity for schools >>and youth groups because it builds character. > >Does it though? I know the outdoor ed robots repeat this line endlessly, >but what does it even mean? How do you measure 'character'? You can't measure character easily, but there are numerous studies (I couldn't post links, but you can Google it) confirming that participation in outdoor ed programs improves self-esteem, life outcomes, etc. > >>Unlike, say, trail-bike riding, >>if there's any damage to the environment, at least it's to a good cause. > >I like to rip on bogans as much as anyone, but is trailbiking really that >bad? In most of the national parks I visit, the bush is too dense for easy >walking, let alone riding a bike. How much damage can a trailbike do to >the environment, if they're being ridden on bulldozed and regularly graded >fire roads? >Can you really sit there and say that trailbikers have more negative effect >on parks than all the stupid climbers who don't bury their shit? Yes, absolutely. If trailbikes were being ridden on fire roads that would be fine, but they're not. In the Little Desert NP, for example, it's common to see trailbike riders blatantly ignore 'no trailbikes' signs at track junctions and erode the fragile sandy surface, or damage walking tracks in Baw Baw NP. At Lal Lal Historic Area trailbike riders have spread phytophthera fungus throughout the park, while at Enfield State Park they've created new trails; some of these have eroded into new gullies at creek crossings. While failing to bury faecal waste is obviously unacceptable, at least the impacts are relatively localised and time-limited, rather than being spread out over ten kilometres or more. |
|||||
1:20:39 PM |
On 1/08/2017 ldshield wrote: >I agree, but there's currently no system to identify to abseilers that >line X is problematic but lines Y and Z are not climbable and they should >abseil there instead of on X. Just deal with it when it comes up, have a civil conversation about it and hope the abseilers aren't tools. >It's a value judgement, but activities which have more participants have >a higher profile, and thus receive more assistance from government with >less external regulation. The prime (but not only) example is AFL; This is so ridiculous, I can't believe you've just written it. When numbers go up in AFL, you build more playing fields, more stadiums. How do you plan to build more cliffs? Comparing an urban team sport to an outdoor/wilderness activity is retarded. >By contrast, fishing has a lower public profile and thus receives little >external funding compared to AFL, but is still regulated through fishing >licences. Fishing is actually a very good example to compare with climbing. You have a 'sport' where the participants are competing for limited natural resources, while impacting areas which are enjoyed by a variety of user groups. I challenge you to find anyone who thinks that the increase in popularity of fishing has been a good thing. In fact, the obvious lesson from fishing is that when increasing numbers of participants are pumped into 'wild' areas, strict regulation is required to prevent things going to shit. > >You can't measure character easily, but there are numerous studies (I >couldn't post links, but you can Google it) confirming that participation >in outdoor ed programs improves self-esteem, life outcomes, etc. I don't buy into the idea that outdoor ed is better for kids than footy or playing music or whatever other activity they might be into. Kids should be given the opportunity to try things and decide for themselves. The notion that it's good to force kids into the outdoors (when they'd rather not) is self-serving shite brought to you by Outward Bound and other vested interests. >Yes, absolutely. If trailbikes were being ridden on fire roads that would >be fine, but they're not. Often they are though. Blaming all participants for the misbehaviour of a minority isn't fair. >At Lal Lal Historic Area trailbike riders have spread phytophthera >fungus throughout the park I've heard that bushwalkers might very well have spread phytophthera to the Wollemi Pines. Does this make all bushwalkers bad? >While failing to bury faecal waste is obviously unacceptable, at least >the impacts are relatively localised and time-limited, rather than being >spread out over ten kilometres or more. I'm not suggesting that the total impacts of climbing are as great as the total imacts of trailbiking, nor that the average climber is as destructive as the average trailbiker. Just that you have an obvious bias against the activity, and would probably be happy to have it banned because it wouldn't affect you personally. |
|||||
5:05:25 PM |
>This is so ridiculous, I can't believe you've just written it. When numbers go up in AFL, you build more playing fields, more stadiums. How do you plan to build more cliffs? Comparing an urban team sport to an outdoor/wilderness activity is retarded. You can't build more cliffs, but you can provide easier access to under-used cliffs. You're also assuming that climbing mostly occurs on natural cliffs, whereas (in terms of numbers of participants) indoor gym climbing is probably the predominant form. My general point is that a small, 'boutique' activity is more vulnerable to external impacts (regulation, insurance, community perception of risk) than a large and well-supported one. I take your point about fishing, though; you're correct there. I don't want to ban trail-bike riding; I just want them to obey park regulations like everybody else manages to. |
|||||
7:08:03 PM |
Indoor climbing is not rockclimbing. Cliffs can be made, minning. | |||||
12:22:20 AM |
On 1/08/2017 ldshield wrote: >You can't build more cliffs, but you can provide easier access to under-used >cliffs. Like better roads and hardened walking tracks and more bolts? Lots of climbers (including me) are really against most of that stuff. >You're also assuming that climbing mostly occurs on natural cliffs, >whereas (in terms of numbers of participants) indoor gym climbing is probably >the predominant form. Probably true, but there's no way to push numbers up indoors and not have the growth spill out to the cliffs. > >My general point is that a small, 'boutique' activity is more vulnerable >to external impacts (regulation, insurance, community perception of risk) >than a large and well-supported one. > Back to the fishing....they have massively more participants than climbing ever will. They have single issue reps in state government for christs sake! Still regulated way more than climbing. I think that a small target approach is likely to yield better access outcomes in the short term. Like, actually be able to tell land managers how low impact climbing is, without having to lie. Europe and North America are sitting there as demonstrations of what to expect with greater numbers and greater regulation. There are some very good outcomes, e.g. climbing organisations buying crags from private landowners. Also some very bad outcomes, e.g. whole crags getting polished to the point of worthlessness. On the whole, I way prefer the low-density Australian climbing situation. |
|||||
1:02:40 PM |
On 1/08/2017 ldshield wrote: >.... but there's currently no system to identify to abseilers that >line X is problematic but lines Y and Z are not climbable and they should >abseil there instead of on X. They're hardly going to go out and buy a >climbing guidebook, so how are they supposed to know? Umm, it's a bit hard to miss the chalk all over the line, and most likely, bolts and anchors. Abseilers generally avoid aretes, cracks and corners, and like slabs and overhangs, which are the climbs most likely to be bolted. If grumpy bushwalkers can spot chalk and bolts, abseilers haven't got an excuse. |
|||||
9:35:21 PM |
>On 2/08/2017 One Day Hero wrote after midnight....... blah blah bah Hey my hero - are you in between girlfriends at the moment or were you kicked out of bed again for farting? |
|||||
9:45:21 PM |
No to part A, maybe to part B. Trying to skype with euro mates, for trip beta. You chockstone wankers got any tips on car hire in europe? |
|||||
10:11:29 PM |
You could ask your friend Gerry what he's doing with his van. |
|||||
9:48:41 AM |
On 2/08/2017 rocksinmyhead wrote: >On 1/08/2017 ldshield wrote: > >>.... but there's currently no system to identify to abseilers that >>line X is problematic but lines Y and Z are not climbable and they should >>abseil there instead of on X. They're hardly going to go out and buy >a >>climbing guidebook, so how are they supposed to know? > >Umm, it's a bit hard to miss the chalk all over the line, and most likely, >bolts and anchors. Abseilers generally avoid aretes, cracks and corners, >and like slabs and overhangs, which are the climbs most likely to be bolted. >If grumpy bushwalkers can spot chalk and bolts, abseilers haven't got an >excuse. > > True, but I suspect the presence of fixed anchors at the top probably increases the chance an abseiler might descend that line. |
|||||
11:05:18 AM |
On 2/08/2017 One Day Hero wrote: >No to part A, maybe to part B. > >Trying to skype with euro mates, for trip beta. You chockstone wankers got any tips on car hire in europe? There's a kinda Air B&B style of thing for cars. You rent the car off of the person who owns it. We rented a van, and it was reasonably cheap - can't remember the name off the top of my head though |
|||||
10:45:05 AM |
I'm too lazy to find the thread, so I will apologize if I misattribute the following quote to ODH. "Bum-first Wankers! Your sport is entirely piggy-backed on one small aspect of our own." Or something like that. I took the 9 year old nephew abseiling this week. He loved it, pronounced climbing back up "too hard" and proceeded to run laps on it. So, as M9 mentions, perhaps a good entry point? | |||||
5:32:27 AM |
Using masturbate and nephew and bum in one post is suss |
| There are 41 messages in this topic. |
Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia
Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.
Australian Panoramic |
Australian Coast |
Australian Mountains |
Australian Countryside |
Australian Waterfalls |
Australian Lakes |
Australian Cities |
Australian Macro |
Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo |
Landscape Photography |
Landscape Photography Australia |
Fine Art Photography |
Wilderness Photography |
Nature Photo |
Australian Landscape Photo |
Stock Photography Australia |
Landscape Photos |
Panoramic Photos |
Panoramic Photography Australia |
Australian Landscape Photography |
High Country Mountain Huts |
Mothers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Mothers Day |
Mothers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Mothers Day |
Wedding Gift Ideas |
Christmas Gift Ideas |
Fathers Day Gifts |
Gifts for Fathers Day |
Fathers Day Gift Ideas |
Ideas for Fathers Day |
Landscape Prints |
Landscape Poster |
Limited Edition Prints |
Panoramic Photo |
Buy Posters |
Poster Prints