Access & Environment Report June 2018
I recently took advantage of a moment in time and a conversation that was happening on Chockstone to add some comments. here This is from my perspective as an Access officer that deals directly with Land managers, Traditional Owners and a variety of other stakeholders. This is also alongside my interactions from members of the climbing community as well. Which is who I work for. I do this regularly on discussions I come across be it social media, in person, forums etc. A separate thread was then started by a forum member to begin a conversation around ‘the bigger picture’ element of the original topic, following my comments. here This forum conversation was tackling one of the issues that I have been noting for a while now in Access reports and articles – fixed protection and development in the Grampians National Park. Land manager and Traditional Owner concerns have been escalating and this year would need to see the climbing community put some difficult conversations on the table. About how we develop new areas and how we use fixed protection in a National Park that besides its environmental values, has a high percentage of cultural heritage. And where many of these cultural heritage sites exist around rock. And in a nutshell, to be part of the solution and have a place at the table. I further commented on this thread and asked if the original poster was happy for me to direct the wider community to it. Something, which he himself had noted would need to happen with this kind of conversation. More voices the better was the general feedback from many on the thread. And so I did via the CliffCare website and social media. This report is not so much about the topic itself – that will be the next Access report for July – but rather, as I noted above, some clarification about the conversation taking place on Chockstone.
So, whilst most of the points I note below have actually been noted in my original post and in further comments on Chockstone thread itself, I will further clarify this:
The conversation was started by an individual, and as an Access officer for the climbing community, I took advantage of the situation to encourage it to continue. To talk about a difficult topic and throw some ideas around and so, in the longer term, also provide myself with feedback and some ideas and help, for draft framework.
This conversation, and I applaud all who have commented, is just that, a conversation to help develop some kind of draft guidelines. It doesn’t mean that everything is or will be endorsed by the VCC and CliffCare. Noting on a post that the VCC and CliffCare is involved in this means that this topic is something that I am dealing with in my work in Access and my job is to help find a solution and engage the community in diaglogue. Everything will be taken on board. From Chockstone and any other avenues. As was always the intention. The opportunity to comment other than on Chockstone was offered on the CliffCare post and also on the forum post The conversation wasn’t going to stay on Chockstone.
The guidelines that will be developed are guidelines from the climbing community’s perspective. They obviously need to take on board some of the issues we are dealing with but they are not Parks Victoria guidelines or policies. They will eventually be VCC guidelines, that the climbing community has helped put together and can reference. Just like the Climbers Code of Conduct that was developed a number of years ago. By climbers (and as a point of interest, much of it occurred via Chockstone) I am hopeful that once we have some of our own guidelines that address some of the issues that will impact our climbing, that further on, we can sit at the table and include ourselves in feedback on park guidelines on climbing.
As an added to this, the VCC Bolting Policy is currently being updated. This is an overall policy on bolting, not just about the Grampians. It is also not a Parks Victoria bolting policy.
There appears to be some resistance from some quarters about the conversation being on Chockstone in the first place. I will be the first to agree that sometimes Chockstone can be a frustrating place, either from the fact that you might have to wade through pages of conversation (the hint is in that word) or the fact that some vocal forum members may shout you down, bully a bit or direct it off topic. Not always a joyous experience. But, I use it the same way as I use every other info point from private fb groups to public ones, public pages, route databases etc etc. It is not a perfect system. Chockstone does at least provide instant real time conversation that accommodates every user that wants to join. And this kind of instant feedback is so helpful in my job. And when I see a topic that I can add knowledge to from my job perspective, I will comment. This was a conversation that was started by a member of the climbing community. Even outlandish – in his words. And good on him.
There was some good robust discussion from all, that in my opinion didn’t sink to personal slanging. There were differences of opinion sure. If it had been started on theCrag, would it be more relevant? Or on a private climbing page on Facebook? Other than those talking on Chockstone, and from a couple of private emails with some great points to offer I may add, it has been quiet. Having said that, the thread has been viewed over 15,500 times. Even with return visits that’s a lot of community reach.
It is disappointing as it seems that the fact that a conversation, that all were invited to was started on a forum that wasn’t to everyone’s taste, has taken over the actual important discussions itself. Perhaps it’s more about the conversation topic rather than the mode.
The conversation will be continuing. Via articles, surveys, social media, route databases and Chockstone. It just takes a little while. And all will be taken on board. Please be involved.
More will be in the next report for July. And again, if you don’t feel comfortable about putting comments out into the public domain, send me an email email@example.com