UKC

The results are in...

https://www.mountaineering.scot/news/old-man-of-hoy-clean-up-consultation-r...

In reply to JLS:

Overwhelmingly, you were supportive of the aim to remove the old and unsightly tat that had been left behind by decades of climbers.

"Go on...."

There was a clear majority view in favour of moving to a more long-term and low-impact solution for abseil stations and belays

"Yessss!"

There were mixed views on what this should be, but generally to look at options other than bolts

"Oh FFS!"

In reply to JLS:

Thanks for the report

But I am wondering what "significant historical gear" is. I don't want to sound critical or dismissive but I hope it's not ancient corroded pegs, or tat placed years ago and about which no-one knows or cares who placed them or the fact they're 'historical'

In reply to Tyler:

Belays? Having not one the route I can't quite picture this but why is fixed belays a suggestion? I agree on the solution of bolts for Ab-Stations but don't understand why we need fixed belays. Can you get down on two Abs (assuming 60m ropes) so only 2 ab stations required?

Indeed!

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

Three abseils on 60s.

The middle of the route doesn't have any natural features that can be used to abseil from (using a thread or similar) hence the suggestion of more permanent fixes gear to replace the rotting wires/pegs that are there currently. The first and last station are rope round features, chain or strops were suggested to replace them.

In reply to Alex Riley:

I am fully supportive of bolts for ab stations and understand the reasons why.

I was just unsure why we need fixed belay stations too? That is only justifiable if it is also an ab station in my opinion.

Does the retreat have to also be the line of the route?

In reply to Tyler:

Well, yes.

Sad days.

Well that's something anyway.

Anyway, it is hard to take seriously the results of a survey which was so leading in its tone towards a particular outcome.

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

If you haven't done the stack, I'm surprised you've got such strong opinions on the subject. Don't you think it would be advantageous to speak from experience, of actually having seen the 'unsightly tat' up close and be able to form an opinion on it and the specific situation? 

In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Popularity, eh.

In the immortal words of Super Hans,

"People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people."

In reply to profitofdoom:

Well it might be totally UV rotten and crumbles under its own weight, but blue Troll Supertape is "history" 🤣

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I have done Stoer and it was in a similar state. I don't need to have done Hoy to know how messy it is.

So given my climbing experience no I do not think I have to have done this particular route to have opinions on it. 

You are only using this line of argument because you disagree with my opinion.

In reply to profitofdoom:

Not sure but my best guess is that some responses might have asked that the in situ wooden wedges on the wide crack section were not removed...

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

I disagree with it, but also think that specific experience is valuable for a very specific case. Stoer is not a multipitch ab, and AFAIK Hoy is the only example in Scotland of such a proposal being made on what could be termed an adventure route. 

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

At the least they should leave the thin ends in

In reply to Michael Gordon: So by your argument to qualify as an “Adventure Route” requires Russian roulette on UV rotted tape and encounter with a mass of factory made detritus, as opposed to a discrete bolt? Your (and most of us) preferred option of leaving nothing behind is not possible unless down climbing or possibly use of a wing suit

In reply to kevin stephens:

I wasn't making any kind of argument except that it would be nice if people were speaking from experience of actually having been there. I have views on the Gogarth p bolts, and certainly am entitled to them, but would feel better informed if I'd done some of the routes in question.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I’ve never climbed Cerro Torre but that wouldn’t stop me expressing strong views on hauling a compressor up it to make a bolt ladder. FWiW I’m in favour of bolted rap stations on Castell Helen and top of the Old Man of Hoy, but not fixed tat (or bolts)  on the top of Strand where you can walk off, nor P Bolts on routes

In reply to kevin stephens:

No, it requires the ability to judge whether to use in situ equipment.  Or not.

Out of interest, do we have any stats for anchor failure on The Old Man of Hoy ? As opposed to abseil accidents from poor judgement or complacency ? It's a fallacy, I think, to equate bolts with safe abseiling.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Death is the only true adventure. You should have to jump off the top. 

In reply to GrahamD:

I think you mean “guess” rather than “judge” unless you happen to be a qualified metallurgist or textile engineer and carry the requisite testing equipment with you. The answer is invariably to add your own tat of known provenance, particularly if embarking on a free abseil  

In reply to GrahamD:

No anchor failures. The reason being that people err on the site of caution by adding ever more tat just to make sure. Too many climbers are all too ready to trash the aesthetics of our playground to defend “ethics”. Indeed often conflating ethics and aesthetics in situations where they are diametrically opposed

In reply to kevin stephens:

Yes having removed a very significant amount of fixed gear myself I can confidently say that any visual assessment is entirely guesswork. Particularly of pegs. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

I’m puzzled. Regardless of whether or not one has been up the Old Man of Hoy the question Dave asked is surely valid? In fact, as he states, he doesn’t know so is asking folk that do. No one has yet answered it. You don’t answer it, when you presumably could.

As to only having to views on things you’ve experienced/visited, that seems bizarre. So because you’ve never done it you can’t hold a view on how you might want that experience to be when you go? Yes, having been and experienced it gives a perspective but surely isn’t essential to having a view?

In reply to kevin stephens:

You don't have to play Russian roulette.

If you don't trust the insitu tat you remove it and replace it with your own.

In reply to timjones:

That would be ideal. But most folk don’t carry a knife etc and aren’t motivated to remove and take away the old tat

In reply to timjones:

This has been the go to. How has it worked out?

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

You appear to have been rather selective in the trimming of my post.

It works really well if you don't want to play Russian roulette on old and faded tat whoch is the point that I was replying to.

In reply to timjones:

You miss understand my point (on purpose?) 

No you don't have to play Russian Roulette. But my point is that if folk did as you say there would be no build up of tat. But as has been shown people just add to the tat, they do not remove the old stuff, hence why we end up with the unsightly mass of rotting tat.

In reply to kevin stephens:

While many people will end up adding yet more tat anyway, it's misleading and unhelpful to suggest that's the only way to ab safely. Bounce-testing the anchor (while in a safe position or independently anchored, of course) can load it to multiple times the strain it will be subjected to while abseiling. And if there's more than one piece of tat, you can bounce-test each of them individually, to give you even more confidence.

In reply to john arran:

So how would bounce testing work with tat that has been mostly sawn through by the oscillation that often results from abseiling? Anyway that sounds like far too much faff for most climbers compared to just adding another sling

In reply to timjones:

Or just don't climb it.

In reply to thread

By the way, is the abseil/belay bolt on the top of Froggat’s Valkyrie pinnacle  still there?

In reply to kevin stephens:

Same goes for bolts on friable sandstone sea stacks, obviously.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Same as any other tat? My default when it comes to abbing off tat is to bounce test it (while loosely backed up), typically leave a loose backup in while the first person abs, then second person removes it before abbing. It seems like less/no more faff to me than adding another sling, takes very little time.

In reply to PaulJepson:

But then you can't post about it on Insta. And then what's the point?

In reply to Dangerous Dave:

Those were my thoughts. i.e. if everybody came prepared and willing to remove and replace tat, there would be no issue. So the real problem is the laziness of human nature, which is not going to change (and actually has benefits, when you realise that adding to existing tat could result in a smaller risk of failure than removing tat and placing new).

Options; 1) fixed abseil stations, which would need checking and replacing every so often. 2) carry on as is, and a clean up is required every so often. Both need some maintenance work.

If fixed abseil stations were placed, and the required maintenance was not carried out, they would become untrustworthy, and then people start placing tat again....

That's how I see the practicalities on their own without any thoughts of the ethics.

In reply to JLS:

I'm not in favour of bolts being placed here. Part of climbing the old man is having the ability to safely get back down afterwards, IMO the placing of bolts would detract from this. It's been fine for the last 50+ years without them. Some occasional clean up might be needed, but I think that's ok. If you're not comfortable with the absence of a fixed bolt descent, you can always choose not to climb the route in the first place.

In reply to Nick Wallis:

That's fair enough but I very much doubt it has any practical relevance in this case. There's no discernable deterrent effect. People going to climb the OMH will invariably have enough experience to descend from either a collection of tat or a fixed anchor. In reality there's likely to be virtually no practical difference once (very quickly) there's more than a minimal amount of tat built up.

In reply to Nick Wallis:

It's not been fine though mounds of rotting tat gets left behind leaving an unsightly mess.

Are you offering to clean it up every few years?

In reply to Neil Morrison:

It's a difficult one to answer, as it depends on the intention of whoever proposed this 'clean-up', and was hard to work out from the initial consultation. I still don't know. In the thread on it, Brown suggested it looked like one or more bolted belays was being considered and possibly hidden under the guise of the clean up abseils project. But AFAIK, it has never been made clear.  

It's not essential to having a view, but it usually helps in specific cases, and I liked that the question was asked in the questionnaire (pity about the rest of it though ). For example, if someone was giving their view on whether bolts are helpful at the top of Diabaig or not, to me their opinion would carry more weight if they'd climbed there, seen what was/wasn't available in terms of trad anchors, done the abseil etc.

Nearly everyone would I'm sure agree that the mess of tat is unsightly, but I wonder really how many felt it spoiled their day or significantly detracted from the experience? I guess no-one really knows until they've done it and can reflect back. 

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Thanks. So you weren't just having a go at Dave. It was more a collective go at anyone having a view without having done it and seeking info to inform their views.

Incidentally, I think the question was more about the practicalities and needs for it than the intentions. You'll know from your ascent(s).

In reply to Neil Morrison:

My recollection is using in-situ trad gear, but others, particularly those that guide it, will know it better and be able to give a more useful response.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Very, very few I suspect. Possibly mostly projecting it on to others to drive a dumbing down agenda.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

The mystery of who this person actually is only adds to the dodginess of the whole consultation really.

Anyway, it is interesting to speculate how this is going to play out. Presumably the mystery person is going to feel they have the go ahead to replace the bunches of tat with "permanent" steel strops or chains. But what about the actual anchors? The trouble is that once responsibility is removed from the organic process of climbers looking after themselves, that responsibilty is inevitably going to be transferred to those who impose "safety" from above. So is this mystery person really going to feel comfortable having their steel strops attached to various pegs and jammed nuts? I suspect not. There will be pressure to go for bolts, but bolts are obviously completely unacceptable here by all established standards. So what will happen? Either nothing and stalemate, or the outrage of bolts. Much better to just leave things as they are and forget the whole sorry business.

In reply to Robert Durran:

‘The trouble is that once responsibility is removed from the organic process of climbers looking after themselves, that responsibilty is inevitably going to be transferred to those who impose "safety" from above’

That’s a strong point well made.

In reply to JLS:

In reply to some of the comments:

There are some bolts on The Old Man of Hoy, old and in poor condition but it has had bolts on it in the past.

Imo the only sustainable and environmentally sensible option is to have some titanium glue in bolts and rings, at the abseil stations, this can make a safe descent that will last as long as the Old Man still stands. This would be at the top, and two other abseil stations for descending. All other fixed belays and rotten pegs bolts and slings could be removed. The belays on the route can all be protected with a modern rack. I think the wedges could remain as a relic of the past.

Any other solution would see a continuing build up of tat as people keep adding to the belays, and this question will keep being asked every couple of years.

I personally don’t see what the problem of having good solid titanium bolted belays where they are required, especially for abseil descents on sea cliffs. Keep the climbing as adventurous as you want but make the belays safe.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

That's just the thing; they aren't required. As you acknowledged earlier in your post, the belays are safe. This debate is about a few things, but safety really is not one of them. At its heart it seems to me to be about visual aesthetics vs ethical aesthetics, and which side one comes down on will depend on which one considers more important.

In reply to JLS:

It is unfortunate that the response to the consultation has failed to address the issue of the consultation being based upon the opinion of an anonymous third party. An opinion which Mountaineering Scotland presented as fact. 

There still appears to be no context or justification in the findings for taking this third party's opinion as fact. Further to this, there is still no statement of any conflicts of interest the third party may have, for example, if this third party has a financial interest in the actions they are proposing.

That concerns were raised with regards to the framing of the consultation and the presentation of unattributed opinions as facts is also missing from the resulting findings.

​​​​​​This is doubly unfortunate as I was reassured by Stuart Younie, CEO of Mountaineering Scotland, during the period of the consultation that these points could be addressed in the resulting findings.

In reply to Ian Dunn:

 Which would go against what everyone knows are firmly established norms on bolting. Is this the real agenda here? If so, and it's not just about a few bunches of tat, then this whole thing is far more significant has really been made out.

In reply to Michael Gordon

It certainly spoiled my day far, far less than the disappointing aesthetic qualities of the actual climbing.

I'm so glad I did this climb in the early 1980's.

45m ropes, ?three abseils, I think.  Our new tat was the only thing left on the route.

Nobody else about in the bothy and the sun shone (on the righteous).  😊.

In reply to profitofdoom:

There are some pretty big chunks of rusty metal on the the Old Man of Hoy, not all of them on Original Route, I believe many, if not all, were the remains from the anchors created for cameramen when the BBC did their ascent broadcast in 1967. That would seem to be one of the most obvious thing being hinted at here.

In reply to Brown:

Seen this happen in New England. Local guides and climbing schools take on a caretaker role; building paths, erecting signs and removing loose rock. They also retro-bolt established classics to make it easier to process their clientel. Is that what's happening here?

In reply to alan moore:

It has been suggested it might be. That is why a statement of interest would be of value to allow people to draw conclusions rather than conjecture.

In reply to alan moore:

It is what has happened extensively in the Alps.

In reply to Robert Durran:

As a matter if interest, I wonder what proportion of OMoH ascents are guided these days?

In reply to kevin stephens:

I'll bet that the vast majority of climbers rap off Strand. I certainly did  rather than scramble down steep wet grass!

Isn't there some fixed rap at the top of the Inn Pin these days? That seems to be accepted without too much controversy.

In reply to Sean Kelly: its more the effort of scrambling a long way UP steep grass to the path

In reply to kevin stephens:

Whatever...

In reply to kevin stephens:

Whatever... and of course who would actually climb that chossy second pitch?

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Its not much fun. I’ve climbed the Strand a few times (and Park Lane Doomsville, even Doomsville Park Lane once) but not recently and I’ve never had the option of an in-situ ab point, apologies if that tempts me be a bit self righteous What gets me about these debates is the apparent double standards. Fine to allow a mass of rusty pegs, corroded jammed nuts and rotting tape in wild adventurous places for convenience. But not to have discrete fixed ab or belay anchors  at the top of Castell Helen or Rhoscolyn in both cases next to busy paths, and of course lots of stakes at Pembroke. Back on topic maybe we could have a big stake on top of Old Man of Hoy instead of rotting pegs and tat. This would also offer an opportunity for ascentionists to affix a flag to celebrate before descending. 

In reply to kevin stephens:

The ground on the top may be a bit firm to hammer in a 'stake' so you may need powered assistance in 'excavating' a hole to glue it into.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Why is that double standards? Seems like two different examples of the same standard to me.

In reply to john arran:

It would work with an iron(y) stake