Discussion: Clocks anchor failed, needs replacing

Clocks anchor failed, needs replacing

Looks bomber to me. Don't see what the issue is.

Jesus! Glad you're okay mate. I knew they didn't have long left on this earth, and the condition of the anchor gear is especially weird once you consider the rest of the U bolts which are absolute bombers.

This could be tricky... technically its illegal for us even to climb at Balls Head... and im not sure how a hammer drill and some 316 with marine-grade glue will go for keeping a low profile... =(

Perhaps some titanium, done once, wouldn't need to be replaced ever again? (bonus is that it's a lot duller than stainless!)

More motivation to do the top-out finish

Yeah. I said that above.

Ha!

When I've been on Goat Island I barely notice climbers on that boulder and I know where to look etc. The rangers on boats to various spots around the harbour are not on the look out for catching out climbers, at least the ones I've met anyway.

Wasn't aware it was properly banned, though I've just noticed it plainly written in the access issues section for Balls Head. Guess that means there's no need to replace the anchors...

I see you've done The Fear Kurt, also banned. Are you some sort of criminal or something?

Kurt do you mean when you go to tick a route? It's probably a bit later in the process by then.

The crag ethics field gets inherited down to all subpages but not the access field. Maybe could do something simpler and more obvious based on the banned tag too (which currently isn't added to balls head). I'll add it to the list

Brendan Heywood, no I mean when viewing the details for a route—definitely too late if people are ticking the route haha. I was thinking it would be at the top of the page near the route name and route type (sport/trad etc). Would help in circumstances like mine where I've searched for the name of the route and gone straight to the details page, therefore not seeing the access issues stating climbing is banned—just might help spread that info a bit further.

We actually used to inherit the access and the ethics fields all the way down the routes but they meant a lot of clutter, people complained so we remove it.

I'm leaning towards a hybrid idea, so that if the route or any parent area is tagged as 'Illegal' 'Closed' or 'Private' then it will in those cases show the extra field. Logged here:

https://github.com/theCrag/website/issues/2311

What does everyone think?

Replacing the anchor sounds like a smart idea if people are climbing it. The question is the action of climbing a rock actually illegal or has someone just put a sign on a post saying it is. Is there actually policy somewhere (Actual Regulations) saying it is or it a case of some local ranger/council worker not knowing/liking climbing and making their own rules up. I have found that there is no mention of climbing at all in many management plans where rangers/councils have said for years - you can’t do that. Don’t self Ban yourself! Get educated!

Hey all, I’ll approach council to get a clear direction on policy which would include cultural heritage awareness on behalf of ACANSW to cover all of council’s jurisdiction (not just Ball’s Head). We’ve already worked with Kuringai and Waverley councils where we’ve had a good outcome. Finally it is worth noting that some councils are aware of and monitor theCrag and have specifically asked for certain crags to be removed from theCrag. If anyone is keen to help me approach council let me know.

FWIW climbing has been explicitly banned at Balls Head since at least the early 90s (the SRC had conversations with the local council about Balls Head in 1997 or so, that I was peripherally involved in), and given that the Balls Head page on the crag is indeed fully hidden it seems like the ban is still in place and actively enforced.

At around this time I also got booted twice by rangers from the nice walls on the western side of the promontory (the wall with the door in the middle of it, specifically). I was working in North Sydney at the time and used to boulder there once or twice a week.

Sounds like a sensible idea. Good info Peter, always good to see it in writing though as I've found in recent times working with VCC, that there is often a significance difference in what is the actual legal position (councils often are limited in their writing of their own Bylaws and restrictions on activities.

Yeah I'm dealing with a bit of that here too.

Me: "Crag such-and-such isn't mentioned in your POM, so the access situation is uncertain. People are climbing there, so how about we clarify access and issue an addendum to your POM?"

Land manager: "climbing is banned by default"

Me: "can you show me in your POM where that's explicitly stated?"

Land manager: "..."

Me: "..."

Ha ha gold Pete, Default = Lazy, don't have to think, understand actual laws or do actual work. Default = bluff in many case I've found. One Ranger has had the state and VCC beliving climbing has been banned in a certain Park for years. Reality = its no not even mentioned in the POM or in any legislation/act/etc etc