STAR LETTER: Time for a new view

I'm writing to add support to the rebolting of the abseil anchors at Sergeant Crag Slabs.
The slabs undoubtedly hold some of best single pitch slab routes in the Lakes yet the area surrounding the crag is environmentally sensitive, harbouring some beautiful mountain flora. The trees at the top of the crag need to be preserved. Sadly experience shows that as climbers we're generally not good at leaving abseil slings to protect the trees - just look at the ring barking damage on popular crags such as Shepherds. I certainly don't see two discreet abseil bolts as the "thin end of the wedge" scenario at all. Most climbers are far too aware and proud of our Lakeland climbing heritage to let bolts stray onto routes. Climbing moves on and develops whether we like it or not, so it'd be good to see our own views developing as well - enabling us to look after the beautiful places that we climb in.
- James Bumby, Windermere, Summit 45

Revolting locals

In the news item concerning Sergeant Crag Slabs (Summit 44) it stated that there is no viable means of descent other than abseil. However it is possible to descend by traversing rightwards (facing in) and descending to a rock ramp leading to a steep grass/scree slope. But if climbers regularly descend here then trees on the ramp will be damaged and the slope severely eroded. As this would mean an unsightly scar and the need for expensive remedial work, Area Meetings have democratically concluded that a discrete abseil station is preferable. However a small number of climbers still believe that the placing of bolts in Cumbrian volcanic rock must never be undertaken regardless of the circumstances, and some even claim crag closure following environmental damage is preferable.

Such matters are usually sorted locally but should this always be the case when decisions have strong implications for other BMC Areas, or where the local views are so strong that consensus is impossible? If the view of the majority is not put into action, is the work of the Area rendered pointless? Why should we bother to support the process of consultation if, when the going gets tough, out-voted members just threaten unilateral action? I worry that unless we can resolve our differences then others may regard us unable to speak on behalf of our members.
- David Staton, BMC Lakes Area, Summit 45

Lids for kids

My ten-year-old son recently took up climbing and even made the British Regional Youth Climbing Series finals in his first year of competitions. We've also ventured into the wonderful and scary (for parents) world of outdoor climbing. But when we open Summit and look at the fabulous photos of the fit and famous climbing massive cliff faces, the lack of head protection is very noticeable. It makes encouraging a child to wear a helmet a bit tricky, so please can you try to include a greater proportion of exciting pictures with climbers with their helmets on? And hey, all you famous and daring guys - I'm sure your Mum would prefer you to have a lid on too!
- Caroline Byrne, Summit 45

Antisocial

I agree that it's probably necessary to talk to politicians (The Issue, Summit 44), to make them aware of our access and environmental concerns, but do we really need the support of a Minister of Sport who just sees climbing as a means of getting young offenders off the street? Does he really see us as a potential source of unpaid social workers? Why should young offenders be given more consideration than those people who have been responsible members of society? I know where my priorities would lie.
- Norman Jones, Summit 45.

Party Pooper

I was present at the recent BMC lobbying event (The Issue, Summit 44) and agree that Dave Turnbull’s article is a balanced view of events. Richard Caborn made clear that mountaineering is unlike most of the other sports in his portfolio. This includes the dangers involved, the way mountaineers organise themselves and even the way the BMC operates. In short the government do not really understand us. Part of the driving force for this lobbying initiative is the loss of grants to the BMC, and Caborn made it very clear that the only route to more grant funding is to assist the government in its social engineering agenda. This includes targeting minorities and deprived areas. Admirable, but are they really core objectives of the BMC? What happens when the government’s agenda changes, as it surely will, and the grants are withdrawn again? Will the BMC be left with an unfunded infrastructure outside its remit?
- Pete Dixon, Manchester, Summit 45

Welcome to Summit Magazine Letters Page

Got something on your chest? Send your letter in to Summit and stand a chance of winning a great Berghaus rucksack worth £60. And we'll also put your letter online - then you can see what other readers think.