Thanks Dena. 3 country changes in the past 12 years has made me a real sceptic when government bodies state that they’ll listen and not over-regulate. However, it’d help to know what we’re supposed to be lobbying against.

Are you at liberty to provide a summary of the present CALM position for the benefit of those not present at the meeting?

Dena

Thanks for summarising what I understand are the views of quite a few climbers. Thanks also for putting those views forward in such a positive way.

Firstly – there is no intention to capitulate to CALM. The issue immediately at hand is our right to climb in Cape Range National Park. CAWA needs to put forward a submission in response to the Draft Management Plan http://www.naturebase.net/cgi-bin/participate/caperange_draft.pdf

by 14 April 2006.

We have a list of people who want to be involved and we will follow up with them.

With regard to this issue, of course we want to ‘maintain the status quo’ – our right to climb unimpeded by CALM regulation. That will be basis of the formal response to CALM.

Phil Calais, Marianne Turner and Blandine Halle met with CALM on the morning of 16 March and consequently achieved some immediate changes in our favour.

Unfortunately, as we pointed out at the meeting, these changes were not reflected in the presentation – there simply wasn’t time to do so. We acknowledge that the venue wasn’t ideal either and we were struggling to make ourselves heard.

The issue of regulation and accreditation (different things) came out of document from the Department of Sport and Recreation “The Future Direction of Outdoor Pursuits in WA”. I acknowledge that it didn’t work well trying to explain the significance of this document at the meeting.

Essentially, there is a government agenda to protect themselves due to liability risk. No surprises there! This is where the issue of ‘status quo’ arose. The document states:

“To ensure there is ongoing access to safe environments for participation in outdoor pursuits, regulation and/or improved procedures in the following areas should be addressed:

education and training

accreditation of leaders and registration of service providers

risk management policies and procedures

insurance requirements; and

site access and safety.”

It also says that “To maintain the status quo is not acceptable and will not address current and emerging public liability, risk management issues and future development of outdoor pursuits activities”.

This document should be a huge red warning flag to us all. It is driving the changes put forward by CALM and it raises the question of how we, as climbers, should move to counter attempts by Government to regulate us. We should be debating these issues amongst ourselves and looking at what climbers in other states and countries have done to protect themselves against attempts to impose regulation from outside.

However, this issue will NOT be raised in the response to the Cape Range Draft Management Plan. We don’t need to and it’s bad strategy to suggest anything they haven’t raised.

Also, I agree that once ANY outside regulation is introduced to our sport it will just be the beginning. (The comments raised at the meeting by the caver were pertinent and sobering. As I understand it, caving is now next to impossible in WA as a result of regulation).

For the record, I’ve seen a few comments that CAWA runs official training courses. It doesn’t. The CAWA insurance, already a tidy sum, won’t cover that. There are avenues to obtain funding for courses from Government departments but the paperwork required to obtain it AND to demonstrate that it is spent appropriately is significant. In any case, there are other ways to improve our safety, as Henrik has touched on in his comments on the post about the accident at Stathams.

This issue with Cape Range and the accident at Stathams should be an opportunity for the WA climbing community to be galvanised into action in terms of debating how we can look after ourselves and our sport.

Lastly, I agree with your points 1 – 4. No argument there.