Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - Crag & Route Beta

Crag & Route Beta

 Page 1 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 186
Area Location Sub Location Crag Links
All NSW (General) (General) (General)  

Author
Climbing banned Centennial Trev Blue Mtns - NPWS
whippet
28-Apr-2015
10:06:13 AM
"The National Parks and Wildlife Service has advised that climbing is not permitted at "Centennial Trev" due to the high impact on the rare and significant sandstone arch (Dargan Arch) and adjacent cliffs (including Creekside).
These areas and access tracks are all within Blue Mountains National Park. They have been developed without consultation and approval from NPWS, and bolts will be removed.
The cooperation of climbers in protecting thgis significant area is appreciated,
For further information contact Blackheath NPWS on 47878877 or neil.stone@environment.nsw.gov.au "
This is the crag affected - http://www.thecrag.com/climbing/australia/blue-mountains/bells-line-of-road/area/283521849

rodw
28-Apr-2015
10:24:45 AM
On 28/04/2015 whippet wrote:
>"The National Parks and Wildlife Service has advised that climbing is not
>permitted at "Centennial Trev" due to the high impact on the rare and significant
>sandstone arch (Dargan Arch) and adjacent cliffs (including Creekside).
>
>These areas and access tracks are all within Blue Mountains National Park.
>They have been developed without consultation and approval from NPWS, and
>bolts will be removed.
>The cooperation of climbers in protecting thgis significant area is appreciated,
>
>For further information contact Blackheath NPWS on 47878877 or neil.stone@environment.nsw
>gov.au "
>This is the crag affected - http://www.thecrag.com/climbing/australia/blue-mountains/bells-line-of-road/area/283521849

"consultation" didn't realise NPWS knew that word.

So is NPWS going to remove the bolts themselves?
maxdacat
28-Apr-2015
12:09:00 PM
Not a huge loss but wouldn't there be other areas in BMNP that have been similarly developed? If it is just the fragility of the Arch areas I'm not sure why Creekside would be included in the ban, but it would be a long way to go for just one nice 22.
BBSR
28-Apr-2015
12:25:38 PM
On 28/04/2015 rodw wrote:
>"consultation" didn't realise NPWS knew that word.
>
>So is NPWS going to remove the bolts themselves?

Perhaps I misunderstood the sentiment, but in this specific case I would imagine the onus is on the bolter to consult with NPWS (perhaps they did?). Does anyone have any information on this?

If they were placed without consultation I think it would be good if the community helped to respect the wishes of the NPWS and remove the bolts to avoid further damage to relationships with NPWS.

Incidentally I think the plan of management for the blue mountains shows clear consultation, and a relatively balanced view that values activities like climbing. While I may not agree with every part of the document and I do not have experience of the consultation done at the time, it seems clear to me that there was genuine efforts to consider how climbing might occur in the park.

nmonteith
28-Apr-2015
12:43:54 PM
Its very hard to enforce the removal of bolts as it would be classed as a workplace health and safety issue. I imagine they will have to use trained high access workers with all the expenses involved. NP in Queensland tried to get climbers to remove bolts at a banned crag many years ago but quickly reversed their decision when they realized what was involved.

rodw
28-Apr-2015
12:50:14 PM
Thus my question Neil:).... its not a simple task for an official body just to "remove" bolts. If the area is closed, probably better just to remove any non fixed gear ie draws etc and leave the bolts as is....make much less of a mess.
patto
28-Apr-2015
1:03:26 PM
Despite what some may think of the NPWS, this may be an opportunity to have a positive interaction with the NPWS if those involved in the area might offer any assistance in removing the bolts.

Good will can go a long way.

Duang Daunk
28-Apr-2015
1:52:18 PM
On 28/04/2015 rodw wrote:
>"consultation" didn't realise NPWS knew that word.

Sure they do bro.
They consulted no end for the dmp of North Head. They even set up a bang the table feedback site that I remember elder bro's kuu an M9 saying was a good thing, and lots of climbers gave polite constructive replies to it.

We all know how they consult as the results are plain to see; just like Balls Pyramid; and Tassie has copied with their Cablecar Consultation Co.
hotgemini
28-Apr-2015
5:34:30 PM
Yeah, I'll echo the sentiments of many of the others here.

I'm a committed climbing community access advocate, I believe that collaboration with land managers (like the various state Parks and Wildlife Services) is the future.

The catch is this (and I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of land managers doing background research), the land managers have a spectacularly poor track record on effective consultation.

Every time they undertake a clayton's consultation like North Head it serves to undermine people like me within the climbing community who have put their reputations on the line by advocating in favour of collaboration and it serves to vindicate those people who said that we should continue to act unilaterally and without the knowledge or consent of land managers.

Whilst I regret the bolting of the route in question and understand the frustration of the individual rangers in question, at a broader system-wide level when I read this phrase "They have been developed without consultation and approval from NPWS" all I can think is that you reap what you sow.

/end rant.

-Adam.

Rocksinmyhead
28-Apr-2015
7:30:11 PM
G'day

On 28/04/2015 maxdacat wrote:
>Not a huge loss

+1

I've only climbed there once, and loved the 22 down the creek. However, if the rangers are asking us to respect the closure of ONE climbing area in the BMNP, I'm ok for this area to be the one to go, as opposed to plenty of others I can think of. The reason stated seems fair (unapproved bolted routes in a rare environmental feature), and climbing the routes around the caves and arch does have a big visual impact to other users, whilst a lot of the climbs themselves look pretty average.

Sorry if it was your area, but like I said, there 's other areas I'd hate to lose. Thanks for the 22, it was a ripper!
Hipster
28-Apr-2015
10:02:46 PM
My 2c worth...
Long time local climbers have a great relationship with NPWS up here in the Blue Mountains. We've had planning and access meetings with them, along with commercial user groups, and for the most they have been accepting of areas that have been developed.
When the fatality occurred near bunny bucket buttress a few years ago NPWS were very thankful that a few of the locals contacted them and offered to remove the shite bolts that had been installed by ignorant foreigners. NPWS had been quoted an exhorbitant fee to remove the bolts by a rope access mob. They were happy they didn't have to pay this fee.
Most locals thought bolting at Centennial Trev wasn't a great idea in the first place. So if I bolted there I'd be heading back out with a grinder and removing my bolts. If you know any of the first ascensionists, maybe you could mention this to them.
Wish I'd gone out there before the closure, that 28 up the arch looked sweet!
Cheers Ado

patto
28-Apr-2015
10:49:58 PM
It is easy to get disillusioned by some of the faux "consultation" done. Though if you disengage as a result of this it isn't productive.

In Victoria many felt insulted by the behaviour of ParksVic and the changes to camping fees. The consultation was a joke. The capital expenditure that was done to enact their "cost saving measures" was counter productive. Thankfully a change of government here has partly rectified things.

This Easter, the Arapiles rangers themselves were quite receptive when I told them my thought about it all. I was blunt about things but in a friendly way. Bureaucracy is a bitch. But it is often more productive to work with it than against it.
access t cliffcare
29-Apr-2015
12:00:55 AM
On 28/04/2015 patto wrote:
>It is easy to get disillusioned by some of the faux "consultation" done.
> Though if you disengage as a result of this it isn't productive.
>
>In Victoria many felt insulted by the behaviour of ParksVic and the changes
>to camping fees. The consultation was a joke. The capital expenditure
>that was done to enact their "cost saving measures" was counter productive.
> Thankfully a change of government here has partly rectified things.
>
>This Easter, the Arapiles rangers themselves were quite receptive when
>I told them my thought about it all. I was blunt about things but in a
>friendly way. Bureaucracy is a bitch. But it is often more productive
>to work with it than against it.

Just a quick note here, and I don't want to veer this thread off track - as well as understanding the nature of the beast, it's important to know which beast you are dealing with. Campgrounds and the camping fee changes was not Parks Victoria. It was State Government and DEPI. Parks Vic were expected to implement it.
I'm sure the rangers were quite receptive about your thoughts. Having to deal with crap piled onto their plates is becoming quite the art form.
patto
29-Apr-2015
12:25:19 AM
Thanks for the clarification. :-)

rodw
29-Apr-2015
7:33:14 AM
Rangers work within the apparatus that is set forth before them....I would be guessing that some person or group put in a formal complaint to NPWS and they had to investigate and deal with said problem. Without any permits, approval on paper it is always going to go against the crag developer....so it not the rangers that are the issue but the whole system that is inflexible to accommodate a sport like rock climbing.

The problem we have that in a real sense you can not get approval for anything, as soon as you ask you will be hit with needs for having public liability covered, environmental impact statements etc plus many hoops that are not designed for your average weekend warrior. The way its setup simply means that climbers will work outside the framework as in its present state is unusable and NPWS will react if need be after the fact....then if we have a case we can then argue against it (though history shows this rarely works).

Generally NPWS will ignore crag "out of sight, out of mind"...but it seem Dargan Arch didn't fit this criteria this has been hit with the ban hammer..a quick Google search shows Dargan arch was in people spot light for some time.

maxdacat
29-Apr-2015
7:47:42 AM
On 29/04/2015 rodw wrote:

>Generally NPWS will ignore crag "out of sight, out of mind"...but it seem
>Dargan Arch didn't fit this criteria this has been hit with the ban hammer..a
>quick Google search shows Dargan arch was in people spot light for some
>time.
>
>
ta....I hadn't realised anybody else would bother going there. A nice blog post by David Noble:

http://www.david-noble.net/blog/?p=6809

"Sports climbing involves the placement of ring bolts into the rock and this has caused some controversy. The arch itself is an interesting geomorphic feature and I think its a shame to see bolts in it. But it is not unique there are plenty of arches in the sandstone country of the Greater Blue Mountains, nor is it in a remote place. But it is in Blue Mountains National Park and perhaps the land managers need to consider this issue?"

vwills
29-Apr-2015
12:43:16 PM
It seems like NPWS have been considered in this approach. The bolting of the arch doesn't greatly enhance climbing and was ill conceived in my opinion. As too was the construction of "paths", and when I went down to have a look around Christmas, there were fixed ropes lying around. I thought it was pretty poor, and spoke to a few people who informed me locals were well aware of what was going on, and moves were underway to address the area. We don't have a right to bolt everything and sometimes enthusiasm needs to be tempered by reflection as to whether a climb is really necessary.
It would be great if these bolts are removed, preferably by those that put them in, or if not by some responsible climbers.

Queensland are miles ahead of NSW in terms of access representation. (Probably because they have less rock). However there are many issues still that need strong, responsible climber representation and advocacy.
(Bulahdelah, shire bouldering, north head, all state forests, port Stephens, point perp, kuring gai NP, Bouddi Np, to name just a few areas where climbing is threatened or restricted)
Jdodds
30-Apr-2015
12:04:21 PM
I am all for keeping good ties with the NPWS, but I hope we all realise that this all came about due to very few complaints from bush walkers who have lobbied the parks service for this closure, they visit the area for all of 3 minutes whilst they take a few happy snaps of themselves standing on the arch and then vacate the area never to return again. I fail to see how they feel they have more say in what goes on in these areas, it is the climbers who actually spend countless hours here truly appreciating every nook and cranny and generally making return visits to send the proj or climb a different route. The bolts are in, so may I ask what the further damage is? A little extra chalk if anything.
I would like to ask how NPWS justify the large steel fence's that require a 100mm core drilled out hole and then concreted in that adorn every lookout and section of walking paths where a walker may stumble off the cliff, this is a real eyesore and permenantly changes the parks landscape to allow access for people who can't come within a few Metres of a cliff without stumbling off.
All reports from bush walkers and bush walking clubs visiting the area came 1 year after the equipping of the routes
Dr Nick
30-Apr-2015
12:55:43 PM
On 28/04/2015 hotgemini wrote:

>The catch is this (and I'm mostly writing this for the benefit of land
>managers doing background research), the land managers have a spectacularly
>poor track record on effective consultation.

Compare with mountain biking - 10 years ago trails were being shut down left, right and centre for being built without permission. Now it's getting more common for trails to be built in consultation, and there are a couple of new ones in Garigal NP on Sydney's northern beaches. You're doing the right thing, but it'll take time.

rodw
30-Apr-2015
1:28:42 PM
On 30/04/2015 Jdodds wrote:
>I am all for keeping good ties with the NPWS, but I hope we all realise
>that this all came about due to very few complaints from bush walkers who
>have lobbied the parks service for this closure, they visit the area for
>all of 3 minutes whilst they take a few happy snaps of themselves standing
>on the arch and then vacate the area never to return again. I fail to see
>how they feel they have more say in what goes on in these areas, it is
>the climbers who actually spend countless hours here truly appreciating
>every nook and cranny and generally making return visits to send the proj
>or climb a different route. The bolts are in, so may I ask what the further
>damage is? A little extra chalk if anything.
>I would like to ask how NPWS justify the large steel fence's that require
>a 100mm core drilled out hole and then concreted in that adorn every lookout
>and section of walking paths where a walker may stumble off the cliff,
>this is a real eyesore and permenantly changes the parks landscape to allow
>access for people who can't come within a few Metres of a cliff without
>stumbling off.
>All reports from bush walkers and bush walking clubs visiting the area
>came 1 year after the equipping of the routes

I think you be surprised how often "remote" locations get visited. In this case with a quick 2 minutes search i see pictures from a "bushwalker" in Dec 2012...

http://www.dingogap.net.au/navigation/scenery/bluemountains/bluemountainsrange/darganarch.html

Considering FFA according to thecrag were just after that, Im guessing bolting was noted fairly quickly. Of course only a few will take offense and even fewer make noise but you only need one for NPWS to take note, look at regulations and decide accordingly.

I'm not as optimistic as Nick in regards to changing the status quo, I do not think the climbing community as a whole have enough numbers or clout to effect change....easier just to side with current regulation when pushed. or prompted like they did here.

This is not the first case an area has been shut down with no consultation from NPWS with the climbing community and very much doubt will be the last because I think officially climbers are in the same basket as base jumpers etc and viewed very far down the list of legitimate park users.




 Page 1 of 10. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 186
There are 186 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