Between The Rambly Devil And The BMC...
What's a disenfranchised hill-walker meant to do when it comes to political representation?
Posted: 29 September 2011
by Jon
Climbing.Walking.Mountainering says the sub-head on the BMC's Summit magazine, but somehow walking still feels like an afterthought.
The latest issue of the BMC magazine, Summit just turned up and it got me thinking, which takes some doing. Thumbing through it, I noticed that mostly it's about climbing and mountaineering – don't get me wrong, there's some good stuff in it, like Doug Scott ruminating on 'competition' and Andy Kirkpatrick's short piece on obsession and climbing – but really there's just the one 'walking' article and that, arguably is actually about a scramble, albeit an easy one, the Nantlle Ridge.
And it underlined that for all its 'climbing.walking.mountaineering' strap-line, the BMC still, to me at least, feels like an organisation that essentially looks after the interests of climbers, with a bit of a token nod to mountain walkers.
I'm not saying, that the BMC does nothing for walkers, far from it, the organisation's heavily involved in lobbying around ecological and access issues, just that its walkingness feels, like, well, a bit of an afterthought. You kind of know that if you rocked up at BMC HQ on a Friday afternoon and asked what the guys there had planned for the weekend, they'd all be going cragging. Or ice climbing. Or down the wall.
So what's a disenfranchised mountain walker meant to do? Well, there is, of course, The Ramblers. Hmmm... great organisation, which does some fantastic work, but I've always felt that it says something that the 'young' ramblers groups are aimed at folk up to the age of 40.
And then of course, there's the name. Jazzed up 21st Century style from the fuddy duddy Ramblers' Association a few years back to the more emphatic, sexy, definitive article, 'The Ramblers' – erm, yes. The name just screams low-land, country ambling on a sunny afternoon with the olds. Sorry, but it's true.
Which leaves people who see themselves as 'hill' or 'mountain walkers' caught somewhere between the rambly devil and the BMC.
The irony of course, is that the BMC would no doubt love to recruit thousands of hill-walkers to their ranks, not least because it would swell their coffers and allow them to do even more of the important political work they do already. But somehow to me, for all the excellent instructional DVDs, the award-winning maps and the excellent campaigning initiatives, walkers still feel like a bit of an afterthought.
I'd still, by the way, urge you to be a BMC member. Or a Rambler for that matter. But it would be great to feel more wanted at either end of the spectrum. At the moment it feels like you have to opt to be either a hardcore mountaineer or an ageing bumbly with precious little in the middle, which seems a shame. Am I wrong?
Discuss this story
You've hit the nail firmly on the head here, Jon. The latest edition of Summit had me thinking along exactly the same lines, and not for the first time. The disappointment is that the BMC has already recruited thousands of hill-walkers to their ranks, and they know it! I even got as far as writing this for their next letters page, but as I can't find the editorial to check the Rab Carrington comments I've not sent it. Might as well post it here instead.... "Getting the balance right? Almost exactly a year ago the 2010 BMC Members Survey revealed that 62% of BMC members said hill walking was their top activity (87% listed it as one of their top three). I’m sure I remember our President, Rab Carrington, commenting in a subsequent Summit piece how it was important for the BMC to do more to reflect the balance of interests of its members. Well, a year on, and judging by the content of Summit 63, has anything changed? Of 76 pages in the issue, hill-walkers were served with a 2-page spread on the Nantlle Ridge and 2 pages on planning a trek. Arguable the 4 pages on volcanoes were of general interest, but otherwise… cover to cover with rock climbing, high mountaineering, competition etc. The news, the glossy images, the book reviews, even the adverts, all geared heavily to the vertical world rather than the merely sloping. Now I realise that many members, myself included, have wide-ranging outdoor interests, and a variety of content is to be welcome, but I can’t help thinking that hill walking majority the survey revealed is being short-changed by the current balance. Is anything actually being done to adress this?"
Posted: 29/09/2011 at 15:17
Ramblers tried a push towards younger walkers as early as 2003 or sooner by setting up the 20s and 30s groups. IIRC there is an minimum age in both ramblers and BMC at 16 or 18. In my younger group there are people from 18 to 45 and we do get the odd older member because the ramblers have a policy where any member can walk and be part of any group. I have to admit as someone in his ahem mid 30s I am certainly one of the older ones. In fact most regular members start in mid to late 20s then leave some time in their 30s, only occasionally intheir 40s. Other younger members groups I've walked with seem to be the same. I do however know one group who seems to have crept into the higher ages whenever I have gone out with them. I suspect the ramblers name is an off-putter but those who do get past it in the 20s and 30s have a lot of fun wiht like aged people. If you think ramblers is all old bimblers then you should join the LDWA. Most of them are in or aboput to be in retirement. However they will most likely leave the majority of posters on here behind on walks. People in their 60s doing the BGR is not exactly uncommon in the LDWA. It is image wiht the Ramblers and the issue that it is at least partly run locally by member. The only people who have time for that tend to be retirees. Ramblers name change to something better (Hillwalkers or something better) would help the first look by younger people but younger ppl need to step up and take over the local running in their area too. BMC has its cool image precisely because it is full of climbers. Think a lot wish they could hang upside down on some impossible route even if they are just bimblers.
Posted: 29/09/2011 at 15:40
> The irony of course, is that the BMC would no doubt love to recruit thousands of hill-walkers to their ranks, not least because it would swell their coffers The Individual Members saga of a few years ago gave a very good indication of where the BMC's interest primary lay*: the clubs. The voting system means that clubs dominate BMC decision-making, even though IMs outnumber club members, and pay a much higher membership rate (four times, IIRC), and thus provide a large subsidy for the club members. At least that was the case around 2003/2004, at which point I rather lost interest, as it seemed clear to me that the powers that be at the BMC really didn't want to embrace true membership democracy. I'm still a member, but a very passive one. I should probably consider whether I should continue my membership... * I disconnected from the BMC threads on UKC (& thus the BMC in general) in 2006, fed up with the constant repetition of arguments that were getting nowhere. This was at the time of the Future Policy Review. I have no idea what the outcome was, or how the BMC is currently structured... Then there was the 'dread portal' fiasco when trying to attend a BMC discussion meeting at the Alpine Club in 2003...
Posted: 29/09/2011 at 18:16
See more comments...
|
Teva's Ultimate Water Shoe with ion-mask - but how well... Money raised by Montane's Limited Edition MR Range boosts... Fast and light highlighs plus the new pack range from...
|
