Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Sydney National Parks - Climbing & POM Review

christof

17-Dec-2010
4:50:22 PM

Does anyone know what the story is with climbs at the southern end of the Gap, like Boyzone and Duelling Biceps. From the map in the recently released plan of management it appears that they are not actually within the national park, but rather in Gap Park (which is, I imagine, administered by the local council). Does that mean that it is not illegal to climb on these climbs????


nmonteith

17-Dec-2010
4:56:30 PM

On 17/12/2010 christof wrote:
>Does anyone know what the story is with climbs at the southern end of the
>Gap, like Boyzone and Duelling Biceps. From the map in the recently released
>plan of management it appears that they are not actually within the national
>park, but rather in Gap Park (which is, I imagine, administered by the
>local council). Does that mean that it is not illegal to climb on these
>climbs????

Really? That would be rad! They are great climbs which should get done more often. I've just done them in the early morning or late afternoon on a weekday when all the tourists have left.

TonyB

19-Dec-2010
9:46:42 AM

Rod,

I've made my submission as you suggested, objection to the draft plan.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/parkmanagement/SydneyHarbourNPdraftPOM.htm
-------------------------------------------

NPWS admits, Page 118:
"There is strong interest and desire from the rock climbing community for rock climbing to be allowed in Sydney Harbour National Park"

With the huge interest shown from this group (climbers), why have the dozens of submissions from rock climbers been ignored ?

Why have the submissions from climbers been ignored when the NPWS stated aim is to, Page 63:
"OUTCOME 4
Provide rich and memorable experiences in the Park"

It is difficult to believe that NPWS is serious in their stated reason for banning climbing:
Page 123 ... climbing conflicts with whale watching !!! ?

"Adventure activities such as rock climbing have the potential to conflict with other park visitors at North Head. The numbers of visitors to North Head is increasing and most visitors visit North Head for the harbour and city views, for whale watching and for viewing specific harbour events such as the start of the Sydney to Hobart yacht race."

Note the word "potential". In fact no real conflict of any kind actually exists. It is purely in the minds of people sitting behind desks writing documents.

The Hobart race is one day per annum. Why isn't climbing banned on just this one day per year ?

Has there been a single submission from a whale watcher, objecting to climbers ?

Is the NPWS aware that whale watchers are on the top of cliffs, safely behind fences, while climbers are out of sight on the cliff faces ? There is no potential for such conflict whatsoever.

p 123 is astounding !
"However, in the case of North Head, there is a potential opportunity to provide a cliff face adventure activity on a highly controlled and licenced basis. This type of activity might utilise some of the heritage structures and existing access routes across the rockface."

Why are commercial operators to be considered ? Commercial operators climb with beginners ! Why are expert climbers being ignored ?

Is the NPWS suggesting that heritage buildings should be used as climbing anchors perhaps ?

In summary, climbing is to be banned without valid reason and contrary to the NPWS stated aims. There is a blatant discrimination being shown against rock climbers as a group.


dave h.

19-Dec-2010
10:46:55 PM

On 19/12/2010 davidn wrote:
>On 19/12/2010 TonyB wrote:
>
>>Is the NPWS suggesting that heritage buildings should be used as climbing
>>anchors perhaps ?
>
>I don't get where this inference comes from. At all.

As Tony B said:

"However, in the case of North Head, there is a potential opportunity to provide a cliff face adventure activity on a highly controlled and licenced basis. This type of activity might utilise some of the heritage structures and existing access routes across the rockface."

How else would heritage structures be used for adventure activities on cliff faces? (I suppose maybe as staging areas, for afternoon tea or whatever. But that seems unlikely to me.)

I drew Tony's inference too. Almost any inference is possible based on the sentence...


rodw

13-Nov-2011
9:24:35 AM

Well you can kiss any chance of rock climbing at North head goodbye after this....they even mention rock climbing

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/thrillseekers-who-freefall-off-the-cliffs-at-north-head-and-risk-their-lives-for-an-adrenaline-rush/story-e6frfq80-1226193651633

"Admitting it is highly dangerous, the jumper said his "gang" of high-rise window cleaners are experienced rock climbers and abseilers"

"I work with the equipment every day of the week so I know the weight it can hold," the jumper said. "We know exactly what we are doing - it's a calculated risk. I definitely don't encourage people without that level of experience to be giving this a go. Rock climbing is illegal there, but we're not rock climbing."


rodw

13-Nov-2011
9:30:02 AM

Gallery here...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/gallery/gallery-e6frewxi-1226191260681?page=1

widewetandslippery

13-Nov-2011
10:56:47 AM

Rope access wankers should know better than being photographed. I assme this from there we know what we are doing comments.


kuu

13-Nov-2011
3:23:18 PM

On 13/11/2011 widewetandslippery wrote:
>Rope access wankers should know better than being photographed. I assume
>this from their 'we know what we are doing' comments.

Although rock climbing was prohibited in the existing (1998) Plan of Management and the new 2010 Draft Plan threatens to continue this approach, it seems that other activities, such as throwing yourself off the cliffs at North Head, are not specifically covered or prohibited by the legislation.

So, if the new Plan of Management is hastily modified such that the final document prohibits "wankers" will we all be happier and sleep more soundly at night? Sadly, I think not!

But Dave (aka wws) is correct. By proclaiming themselves as rock climbers, these guys should have known better. Even if the activity of bungey jumping (effectively what they've been doing) is not currently prohibited by the legislation, simply connecting it to climbing will do us a disservice in our attempts to have climbing at North Head legitimised.

It will be interesting to see how their window cleaning employers react to the publicity.

And as for Mitch Cameron, the photographer and informant(?) responsible for the media coverage, in a different legal environment his financial benefit from the exercise might have been subject to confiscation under "the proceeds of crime" laws.

widewetandslippery

13-Nov-2011
6:14:41 PM

I work in the world of rope access, difficult access and embaressingly "abseilers". I at a quick look do not reccognise anyone. Same time posing for a tele photo and comment wtf? Breaking and flaunting rules of the down are 2 different things.


rodw

13-Nov-2011
6:33:53 PM

That was my point kuu...It looked like a rope swing...mostly likely perfectly safe but they made the connection with rock climbing and it will bring us down as well....nice timing ...not!!!!......considering the effort we have all made regarding the new POM and giving feedback to Nat parks.


kuu

13-Nov-2011
7:29:24 PM

On 13/11/2011 rodw wrote:
>That was my point kuu...It looked like a rope swing...mostly likely perfectly
>safe but they made the connection with rock climbing and it will bring
>us down as well....nice timing ...not!!!!......considering the effort we
>have all made regarding the new POM and giving feedback to Nat parks.

Agreed! Whether it was a "rope swing" or something else, there's little chance it will bring a smile to the face of National Parks personnel, and I would expect to see a tightening of restrictions in the forthcoming Plan of Management.

So who are these "'rope access specialists" who know exactly what they're doing. And why did they invite a 'professional' photographer to record their 'adrenalin pumping' activities? Surely Mitch Cameron wasn't there by accident!

It all seems like a set-up situation, so one has to ask who expected to benefit?

The climbing community has not!


IdratherbeclimbingM9

13-Nov-2011
10:40:50 PM

This recent event is very bad news, and makes me wonder if those involved had any idea at all about how sensitive that area is in terms of climber access, and the huge amount of positive work by many people and organisations, that has gone into trying to improve climber relations with the authorities responsible for there.

Given that the article names The Fear, I strongly suspect that they knew, and don't care.

If this is the case, I would support any climber boycott, that affects them/their business, so that they may get time-out* to consider the results of their actions; ... as this was not stealth-anarchy they perpetrated, but instead it was media-involving egotistical self aggrandisement, done albeit as a 'fun' activity.

(*If we, the climbing community at large, get further time-out from climbing access there as a result of their actions, then it would be poetic justice if they suffer similarly, as it must have taken a degree of collusion to have the media do that article).

cjradloff76

26-Dec-2011
2:24:35 AM

maybe it was just a little bit of weekend fun.


IdratherbeclimbingM9

26-Dec-2011
9:24:18 AM

On 26/12/2011 cjradloff76 wrote:
>maybe it was just a little bit of weekend fun.

I can identify with fun (even anarchistic fun), but to involve the media in this stunt is poor form, and certainly not well thought out regarding climbing repercussions at this location.

cjradloff76

26-Dec-2011
10:10:45 AM

we are all window cleaners. BUT i actually picked this one up by accident while in a search engine. they must know what they are doing. as you may see in the pictures the harnesses they are using aint the seat kind. im going to open a thread on impact forces for such a thing. im not something i'd do alone and to invite a photographer from a newspaper. yeh the shit has hit the fan now. if they didnt want to be spotted they should have done it quietly

Will_P

28-Dec-2011
10:42:41 AM

On 26/12/2011 cjradloff76 wrote: "we are all window cleaners."

I hate text-speak, so... what the f*ck?

There are 176 messages in this topic.