Here are some more comments that were emailed to me:
For those drawing up the code, it would be good if they kept in mind the reasons for doing this and don’t go overboard and produce a list of regulations which is the last thing we want. What is the good climbers code for. It’s not likely that cawa would use the code for much. They wouldn’t preach it or pursue code breakers. Partly the code would inform new climbers about how the rest view things and encourage them to value the environment and the rock and so forth.
But a big reason for the good climbers code appears to be to reassure managers ; DEC and government ; that climbers are reasonable and sane and will try not to wreck things. They, the bureaucrats, will include it in their land management plans, as a guide for the behaviour of some land users. So it would be a good thing to give them this reassurance. They will think well of us and not be too phased when we climb on crags where they manage some of the land. But it would not be a good thing to give them too much.
Government bodies in the past have encouraged cawa to become involved in accreditation. Cawa has always declined, of course. Government likes rules. Other than some environmental issues the good climbers code shouldn’t be rules; it shouldn’t be too detailed. As far as possible it should accord with what most climbers do anyway. And where there are issues that can work to the detriment of climbing it should be silent. Government will be a bit disappointed and will think we have deficiencies in our code and should include more regulations. But the code will be just right if it allows enough initiative and latitude.