Should be encouraging people to get into the hill

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
J1234 01 Aug 2018

We should be encouraging people to get into the hills.

Was stated here https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/hilltalk/parking_charge_introduced_at_cai...

Obvioulsy this is one persons opinion, but why?

 

 DaveHK 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

I'm not convinced we should be encouraging more hill users. We shouldn't discourage or put barriers in people's way but why should we promote it?

9
In reply to DaveHK:

> but why should we promote it?

Because its awesome. 

3
 jezb1 01 Aug 2018
In reply to DaveHK:

> I'm not convinced we should be encouraging more hill users. We shouldn't discourage or put barriers in people's way but why should we promote it?

Because amongst other things it:

promotes physical health

promotes mental health

promotes an environmental awareness

its great fun

 

3
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Harrison_Connie:

> Because its awesome. 


Yes IMO and your opinion it is.

But why should we promote it?

2
 DaveHK 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jezb1:

> Because amongst other things it:

> promotes physical health

> promotes mental health

> promotes an environmental awareness

> its great fun

And puts massive pressure on fragile environments...

6
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jezb1:

> Because amongst other things it:

> promotes physical health

> promotes mental health

 

A walk in the park or around a bit of common near an Urban area can help that.

> promotes an environmental awareness

Are you joking. Nearly everyone I know are eco vandals, they talk an environmental   talk, but walk a very different walk. Driving a 3 or 4 hour round trip of 100 to 200 miles for a 5 or 6 hour walk of 8 or 9 miles, is not showing environmental awareness

> its great fun

Yes it is, but so are snooker, golf and Go Kart racing, but that is not a reason to promote it.

 

4
 DaveHK 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

You are bang on with the environmental hypocrisy of most hill goers and I absolutely include myself in that.

In reply to J1234:

Those who wish to promote the outdoors, get more people involved etc tend to have a vested interest. They are guides, instructors, accommodation/food providers, gear shops, comics and sites like this. All stand to gain financially from increased participation. It is very easy to hide this interest behind the health benefits of being outdoors. 

7
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to DaveHK:

Me to, when I got into this walking and climbing lark I was total facist, climate denying Dail Mail reader, and slowly over time through the people I know and education, I have learnt about the issues and have developed a social awareness I never I had.
I am stunned by the hypocrisy of many people I know and the way they stick their heads in the sand and justify their actions.

 

1
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Presley Whippet:

Yes I agree with that

1
In reply to Presley Whippet:

> Those who wish to promote the outdoors, get more people involved etc tend to have a vested interest. They are guides, instructors, accommodation/food providers, gear shops, comics and sites like this. All stand to gain financially from increased participation. It is very easy to hide this interest behind the health benefits of being outdoors. 

Sure there is an aspect of this, however, perhaps folk who promote the outdoors are just keen to advertise a lifestyle/activity that has given them so much enjoyment. 

I think its a but unfair to pin this on anyone who would benefit financially from advertising the outdoors, many of them are passionate about what the great outdoors can offer. 

 

In reply to J1234:

It has always been a principle of mine, not just to 'take only pictures, leave only footprints', but to try not to leave any footprints at all – as far as is possible. Surprisingly, about 95% of the time, possibly more, this is achievable. It actually makes walking a lot more interesting. It simply means taking a lot more care about where and how one walks, making deviations as necessary to avoid muddy or damaged parts of a path, using stepping stones etc etc. Every footprint one leaves is a failure. It may be easier for me than for many because I am small and light. 

In climbing, very careful placements of nuts rather than careless use of camming devices should be the preferred norm; and a minimal amount of chalk (I always found I needed a very small amount indeed on my fingers to do the job, using a chalk ball rather than loose powder.)

Overall, hill walking* should be encouraged because, above all, it increases people's awareness of their environment, and their overall appreciation of nature (very weak in many).

*But not in large groups. Ideally between two and four in a group. The biggest snag with large groups is that most people are not concentrating very much at all on where they are putting their feet, because someone else is leading and route-finding.

8
 GrahamD 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

I'm all for encouraging people to get into the hills, but I don't think its something that should be actively promoted.

In reply to J1234:

> I am stunned by the hypocrisy of many people I know and the way they stick their heads in the sand and justify their actions.

It's a compromise, simple as that. 

People aren't burying their heads in the sand, they just understand its a necessary evil to access what they enjoy. We are all guilty.

Take it or leave it if you wish, I know what the outdoors has given me over the years and I wouldn't trade it for the world. 

Post edited at 11:06
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Harrison_Connie:

> It's a compromise, simple as that. 

> People aren't burying their heads in the sand, they just understand its a necessary evil to access what they enjoy. We are all guilty.

>

Why is it necessary?

1
In reply to J1234:

> Why is it necessary?

For me personally, its what I enjoy most in life and that makes it necessary

 

2
J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Much of what you say is true. The problem is your books will have done much to promote the outdoors, in a similair way that Wainwrights have done.
Is it not possible that in sharing your love and passion of the outdoors, you are damaging the thing you cherish.

4
 jezb1 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

This turned into a depressing thread really quickly. I’m out.

3
In reply to jezb1:

2nd that...

2
 cander 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

Yes we should be encouraging people out into the hills, but we should also link that to proper management of the potential damage that increased usage of the hills brings and proper education of people in the using the hills safely. The money for this - well I think car parking charges can contribute, but I’d be tempted to have a tourist levy on hotel rooms, b&b, campsites, etc.

In reply to J1234:

> Much of what you say is true. The problem is your books will have done much to promote the outdoors, in a similair way that Wainwrights have done.

> Is it not possible that in sharing your love and passion of the outdoors, you are damaging the thing you cherish.

I agree it's a problem. But I did say more or less exactly what I said above in my Lakes book. The last thing I would want to promote is people tramping around like morons.

I am in total agreement with Cander's wise comment above.

Post edited at 12:20
 Stichtplate 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

Interesting thread. My unexamined response, over a lot of years, has been yeah, it's a good thing. I've taken at loads of friends and family members out into the hills for a wide variety of reasons from the very basic wish to share my love of the environment to wanting to help out people experiencing issues with anxiety or depression. The majority have enjoyed the experience, a handful have got into climbing or hillwalking in a big way (to my intense happiness).

My kids have been out with me fairly regularly since they could walk and with them it's more of an education/inculcation type thing because the hills have been of such a huge benefit to myself. An awareness of the environment we're in, nature, history etc is a big part of this and it's usual practice that we each pick up a piece of rubbish to take down with us (no tissues!). At the moment they both enjoy a good scramble and hate a long slog but I really hope a love of the hills sticks.

So should we be encouraging others into the hills? Seems a bit selfish to enjoy an activity ourselves but not want anyone else out there. I fully understand that it's a delicate environment (though as far as the UK goes, a mostly artificial one) but for the majority of people a love of the hills goes hand in hand with a desire to cherish and protect them. Far better that others are encouraged into the hills by people with a passion for them (typical UKCers?) rather than the introduction coming through the some corporate type 3 peaks challenge or occasional excursions, treating the hills as just another leisure destination to be littered and abused and looked after by someone else.

 wercat 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

Encourage people into the outdoors generally, not necessarily into the hills.

 cander 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Not often I’m called wise - I’ll forward your comments to my wife, daughter and grandchildren just so they know

Post edited at 14:07
1
 Mike Peacock 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It has always been a principle of mine, not just to 'take only pictures, leave only footprints', but to try not to leave any footprints at all – as far as is possible. Surprisingly, about 95% of the time, possibly more, this is achievable. It actually makes walking a lot more interesting. It simply means taking a lot more care about where and how one walks, making deviations as necessary to avoid muddy or damaged parts of a path, using stepping stones etc etc.

But if everyone starts avoiding the muddy/eroded parts of a path, wouldn't that just increase the mud/erosion? Is it not better to purposefully walk through the already muddy/eroded part of the path?

 Ramblin dave 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> So should we be encouraging others into the hills? Seems a bit selfish to enjoy an activity ourselves but not want anyone else out there.

It seems particularly so when we expect agriculture, forestry, transport, industry, power-generation, tourism, housing etc to all be planned around the way that we want the hills and coasts to look and feel so that we can enjoy ourselves in them.

 GridNorth 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

If someone expresses an interest I'm more than happy to encourage them but giving unsolicited encouragement, like unsolicited advice, seems little arrogant and patronising.

Al

 Tyler 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> So should we be encouraging others into the hills? Seems a bit selfish to enjoy an activity ourselves but not want anyone else out there.

I wish people would stop conflating "not wanting to artificially boost numbers of users in hills" with "not want anyone else out there", they're different things.

> I fully understand that it's a delicate environment (though as far as the UK goes, a mostly artificial one) but for the majority of people a love of the hills goes hand in hand with a desire to cherish and protect them. Far better that others are encouraged into the hills by people with a passion for them (typical UKCers?) rather than the introduction coming through the some corporate type 3 peaks challenge or occasional excursions, treating the hills as just another leisure destination to be littered and abused and looked after by someone else.

You either want to encourage people into the hills because it's good for the nation's health and is enjoyable or you don't. You can't say only certain people are allowed and only through certain routes otherwise you are "not wanting anyone else out there unless I approve of them" which, to my mind, is worse than "not wanting anyone else out there".

Post edited at 15:04
5
 Ramblin dave 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> I wish people would stop conflating "not wanting to artificially boost numbers of users in hills" with "not want anyone else out there", they're different things.

What do you mean by "artificially boosting numbers of users in the hills", and who do you think is talking about it? I'm seeing Gordon being told that it's a "problem" that he writes books that express his love of the outdoors because that might result in too many people wanting to get out there, which seems to fall into the latter category...

Post edited at 15:17
 Tyler 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Ramblin dave:

 

> What do you mean by "artificially boosting numbers of users in the hills"

That's the actual topic of this thread; encouraging people outdoors rather than just letting people discover it for themselves. 

> who do you think is talking about it?

There have been other threads about it (notably one of the BMC threads) where people made the same assertion as bedspring has here.

Post edited at 15:23
In reply to Mike Peacock:

> But if everyone starts avoiding the muddy/eroded parts of a path, wouldn't that just increase the mud/erosion? Is it not better to purposefully walk through the already muddy/eroded part of the path?

No, because the same criteria apply there. If you leave a footprint, do any damage you've failed. Often you have to make quite a big detour to avoid making any damage; usually there's a wide range of options - it will distribute the load. Once a path is muddy, ie. has lost it's surface grass, gravel etc, feet are then eroding the surface, and a deeply entrenched muddy path never recovers without a lot of repair work. Ordinary walking across grass or stones does not do this. Flattened, pressed grass recovers. But where a path has been carefully repaired, has rock steps etc., I'm the first to agree that everyone should stick to that. Generally, whatever route one takes should attempt to cause no damage.

5
 Stichtplate 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> I wish people would stop conflating "not wanting to artificially boost numbers of users in hills" with "not want anyone else out there", they're different things.

Nobody has done that. I think you're the first to talk about artificially boosting numbers. 

> You either want to encourage people into the hills because it's good for the nation's health and is enjoyable or you don't. You can't say only certain people are allowed and only through certain routes otherwise you are "not wanting anyone else out there unless I approve of them" which, to my mind, is worse than "not wanting anyone else out there".

Re-read my post. It isn't about restricting access to certain routes or certain people, it's about encouraging people into the hills from an appreciation of the hills and what they can bring to our lives.

If you've got a point to make then just make it rather than trying to shoe horn another post into an argument you want to have.

 

1
 jonnie3430 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

It shows them that there is more to life than work, pub, TV and shopping. It's fairly widely understood that there is no point to our existence, so we should be enjoying it as much as possible while we have it.

1
 trouserburp 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

Getting into the outdoors is a positive life experience that we should wish for our fellow (wo)man. Environmental considerations there are pros and cons - people are more likely to think 'Green' if they have actually seen something green. Societal considerations - healthy people are less of a drag on the economy. 

Ask me when I've just trodden in a dog turd at Stanage you might get a different answer

 GrahamD 01 Aug 2018
In reply to GridNorth:

> If someone expresses an interest I'm more than happy to encourage them but giving unsolicited encouragement, like unsolicited advice, seems little arrogant and patronising.

This is my viewpoint.  As an example, as a climbing club we have an easily accessible web page and, apparently a facebook thingy.  If people contact us then I'll do what I can to encourage people, even as total beginners.  What I wouldn't want to see is for us to go around actively 'recruiting' people into the club, and hence the outdoors, who is otherwise ambivalent about it .

 jonnie3430 01 Aug 2018
In reply to GrahamD:

But what if the support you gave to someone without any exposure to the outdoors led them into a life full of incredible adventures? 

Maybe it's your attitude, and that of others not promoting the outdoors that results in the under representation of BAME in the outdoors?

 jonnie3430 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Presley Whippet:

I don't, I just remember always wanting to and not being very good at organising it myself, so if anything, I hope to meet me and get me out earlier.

J1234 01 Aug 2018
In reply to trouserburp:

> Getting into the outdoors is a positive life experience that we should wish for our fellow (wo)man. 

>

Yes it is, for you. But other people like Chess, Shopping, Painting, Golfing, Car Rallying, Horse Riding, why do you not go and give them a go, perhaps you do but many outdoor folk seem very sniffy about other pastimes. An issue seems to be that when people have a passion, they start to proselytize it.
The outdoors is there for people to find, all they need to do is look out of the car window, put on a pair of shoes, and go and enjoy. No need to sell it.
 

 

1
 GrahamD 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> Maybe it's your attitude, and that of others not promoting the outdoors that results in the under representation of BAME in the outdoors?

Why should it be down to me to 'promote' something that is hardly hidden from people ? 

 jonnie3430 01 Aug 2018
In reply to GrahamD:

It's down to us all, and I imagine it's fairly well hidden from quite a lot of people who's friends and family don't take part.

1
 Stichtplate 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> It's down to us all, and I imagine it's fairly well hidden from quite a lot of people who's friends and family don't take part.

I’d agree. Most people have never been up a mountain, regard the environment as hostile and react with horror at the very idea of getting vertical on rock or getting out somewhere crampons would be needed.

 Tyler 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Nobody has done that.

*You* have literally done that up thread! You took people saying they were unsure about promoting users into the outdoors and have interpreted that as "not want anyone else out there". Are you denying you said that or just denying that they are two different things?

> I think you're the first to talk about artificially boosting numbers. 

I may have been the first to use those words but what do you thing "promoting the outdoors" or "encouraging others into the hills" means?

> Re-read my post. It isn't about restricting access to certain routes or certain people, it's about encouraging people into the hills from an appreciation of the hills and what they can bring to our lives.

Yes and you were expressing that you had preference for certain types (friends of ukc members) over others (three peaks people). You're either OK with people enjoying the mountains regardless of their 'gateway' (including via a commercial three peaks) or you want some sort of apartheid were only the right sort are allowed.  I'm prepared to accept that sort of apartheid is not what you meant and its a fair point that some people will be better custodians than others but they should all be given equal access and encouragement, dealing with the consequences is why some might not want there to be any encouragement.

> If you've got a point to make then just make it rather than trying to shoe horn another post into an argument you want to have.

Eh? Every point I've made has been in direct response to something someone has written which is why I've actually quoted the point I am responding to in my reply. 

3
 Stichtplate 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> *You* have literally done that up thread! 

No, I haven't done that. I've "literally" never mentioned 'artificially boosting numbers'. You introduced that.

> I may have been the first to use those words but what do you thing "promoting the outdoors" or "encouraging others into the hills" means?

I might ring a mate up and ask if he fancies going to the pub but I wouldn't classify that as seeking to "artificially" increase alcohol consumption.

> Yes and you were expressing that you had preference for certain types (friends of ukc members) over others (three peaks people). You're either OK with people enjoying the mountains regardless of their 'gateway' (including via a commercial three peaks) or you want some sort of apartheid were only the right sort are allowed.  I'm prepared to accept that sort of apartheid is not what you meant and its a fair point that some people will be better custodians than others but they should all be given equal access and encouragement, dealing with the consequences is why some might not want there to be any encouragement.

No, I was expressing the view that encouraging people into the hills because you love them is better than someone else encouraging them into the hills in order to do a corporate type 3 peaks fundraiser or because they regard the hills as just another leisure destination like Alton Towers.

> Eh? Every point I've made has been in direct response to something someone has written which is why I've actually quoted the point I am responding to in my reply. 

I think that you've deliberately twisted and misinterpreted what I've written because we had a bit of an argument on another thread and you fancy another go.

Sorry, not interested.

 

 Mike Peacock 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> No, because the same criteria apply there. If you leave a footprint, do any damage you've failed. Often you have to make quite a big detour to avoid making any damage; usually there's a wide range of options - it will distribute the load.

I partly agree. In reality most people don't take big detours; they take the shortest possible detour, which is inevitably just beside the already muddied path. Which just widens the problem. If people took your suggested approach, of a wide detour, with a range of options (rather than following the same detour) then the outcome might not be the same. But I suppose it depends on how popular a given path is.

 

 Neil Williams 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

> We should be encouraging people to get into the hills.

> Obvioulsy this is one persons opinion, but why?

Interesting question - health benefits etc?

What we categorically should NOT be encouraging, though, is for people to DRIVE to the hills.

 GrahamD 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

> It's down to us all, and I imagine it's fairly well hidden from quite a lot of people who's friends and family don't take part.

And ? maybe they'll play football instead.  So what ?

 Trangia 01 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

Encourage and support those that wish to, but do not promote. Mountains are a fragile environment  and already some honey pot areas are becoming over used.

Examples include - serious erosion of hillsides and paths; polish on popular climbs;  pollution of streams; damage to agriculture infrastructure (dry stone walls being climbed over instead of using stiles and gates); noise pollution - large groups, quads, trials bikes, parking congestion - erosion of verges and obstruction of narrow lanes interfering with farm machinery movement etc etc

Along with encouragement comes improving/enlarging car parking and access infrastructure which has to be paid for. Parking charges ploughed back into repairs/improvements is a perfectly acceptable policy. 

1
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2018
In reply to jezb1:

> This turned into a depressing thread really quickly. I’m out.

Why? Are you for or against encouraging people to go into the hills?

1
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Neil Williams:

> What we categorically should NOT be encouraging, though, is for people to DRIVE to the hills.

I think that is completely unrealistic for most people.

1
 Robert Durran 01 Aug 2018

The problem is that the more people go to the hills, the more the experience is degraded for all of them. The same goes for tourism. So the question is whether it is better for more people to have a degraded experience or fewer to have a better experience. Actively promoting the former seems almost like vandalism to me, while actively campaiging for the latter seems a bit selfish ( unfortunately). So I think a middle path of not actively encouraging anybody either way is probably best.

 

1
In reply to J1234:

I'm all for not promoting it at all.  Those who wish to will find their own way to it, and value their experiences all the more for having discovered it for themselves.

T.

Lusk 01 Aug 2018
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

> It has always been a principle of mine, not just to 'take only pictures, leave only footprints', but to try not to leave any footprints at all – as far as is possible. Surprisingly, about 95% of the time, possibly more, this is achievable.

I always look back at where I've been and think, "You'd never know I've been there." But it's that every bootfall, dislodge a tiny pebble, crush a tiny green shoot that's sprung up in the morning dew, the countless tiny creatures brutally meeting their deaths with every delicate step you think you're taking...

I like to think that nobody goes out to deliberately damage the hills etc but it's the accumulation of overwhelming numbers that does the damage.

To think you personally don't have an effect is delusional.

Post edited at 23:35
 Neil Williams 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think that is completely unrealistic for most people.

An awful lot of people can, they just can't be bothered.  Look at how many will get up at the crack of dawn and pay a tenner to park on Pen y Pass rather than much less to park in the valley and take the bus.

Post edited at 09:34
 Robert Durran 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Neil Williams:

> An awful lot of people can, they just can't be bothered.  Look at how many will get up at the crack of dawn and pay a tenner to park on Pen y Pass rather than much less to park in the valley and take the bus.

But they're still mostly driving the vast majority of the distance from where they live. For most of us who live, say, two to three hours from where we want to climb or walk, using public transport for a day or weekend trip just doesn't work unless we severely limit our horizons and amount of time climbing or on the hill.

But I agree that the parking situation in N Wales and the Lakes is a real issue (and puts me off these areas to some extent) and the problem is sadly beginning to spread to some specific places in Scotland.

 Neil Williams 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> But I agree that the parking situation in N Wales and the Lakes is a real issue (and puts me off these areas to some extent) and the problem is sadly beginning to spread to some specific places in Scotland.

Indeed - and yet the Lakes has a really quite good bus service these days, and well-promoted by Stagecoach too - and it connects nicely with the trains at Windermere (once Northern's woes are sorted).  Imagine how good it would be if all those cars stuck in the jam between Ambleside and Grasmere on a bank holiday had used it?

The Snowdon Sherpa is really quite a shadow of what it was, though, and could do with Stagecoach's commercial innovation rather than the lackadaisical can't be bothered approach applied by Arriva and the local independent operators.  That, or full regulation and a Swiss style approach to a tourist tax to fund it.  There are far fewer roads to cover with services in Snowdonia, so done properly it could have near 100% coverage of where people want to go for not too much cost, unlike the Lakes where it's more spread out.

FWIW, I'd increase the price on Pen y Pass further, if people will pay it charge it and maximise income, the park and ride is not a bad option at all and more people could use it (and if they did you could add another bus and make it more frequent, or even consider playing the environmental credential even more and going electric).  You could sell it as a proper premium option with online pre-booking, perhaps.

Post edited at 09:51
 Robert Durran 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Neil Williams:

The trouble is that however good public transport is, you're still going to have a huge problem dissuading people away from the convenience of chucking all their stuff in the car for the weekend and travelling exactly when they feel like it.

J1234 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

To me this sums up the problem in a nutshell

"Climate change itself has inequality at its heart. The world’s poorest are the ones affected most by the impacts... Miami is going to suffer in the same way that low-lying Bangladesh is going to suffer, but the people of Miami, the government of the USA and the corporations there have more resources available to protect those people. So the world’s poorest suffer most from climate change."

https://www.goodenergy.co.uk/the-real-cost-of-fossil-fuels/

Climbers, walkers and people in the UK are on the whole wealthy, and when it comes down to it, they will put their own fun ahead of some poor person in Bangladesh, everytime.

2
 Neil Williams 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The trouble is that however good public transport is, you're still going to have a huge problem dissuading people away from the convenience of chucking all their stuff in the car for the weekend and travelling exactly when they feel like it.

True, though one way is to charge them for doing so commensurate to the effect they are having on the environment.  Parking is an excellent way of doing this, as it's much easier to implement and nowhere near as controversial as congestion charges etc.

1
 DancingOnRock 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

What is the point of having pristine hills if no one visits to see them. 

The more tourists, the more money in the local community, the more paths can be laid and fences can be repaired and derelict buildings can be renovated. Bus services become viable, and the community becomes more sustainable. 

Human impact is inevitable. Managing the impact depends on numbers. 

If you banned cars from parking and removed the pay and display at pen y pass, that would remove quite a large chunk of revenue and I doubt the bus service would be very effective at replacing that revenue stream. 

 Neil Williams 02 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If you banned cars from parking and removed the pay and display at pen y pass, that would remove quite a large chunk of revenue and I doubt the bus service would be very effective at replacing that revenue stream. 

Yes, realistically the income is probably needed and does act as an effective tourist tax, which given the money that goes into maintaining the paths etc is not unreasonable.

I would however suggest it is increased until such time as it properly manages demand, i.e. there is always precisely one available space.  And as I said pre-booking may be a good idea; it's getting silly with the number of coins required.

In reply to J1234:

> Climbers, walkers and people in the UK are on the whole wealthy, and when it comes down to it, they will put their own fun ahead of some poor person in Bangladesh, everytime.

Pointing the finger is the easy part, but what's the answer?

Targeting climbers and walkers as if we are all morally twisting is ridiculous. The problems you talk about are global ones, we all contribute to them on a human scale, modern society is damaging by its very nature and pointing the finger certainly doesn't help.

I can appreciate that this is obviously something you feel passionate about, however it isn't quite so black and white as you make it out to be. 

J1234 02 Aug 2018
In reply to Harrison_Connie:

>

>

> however it isn't quite so black and white as you make it out to be. 

Yes it is. You burn fossil fuel, that causes climate change. People suffer.

You can argue round the houses and justify all you like, but thats the way it is.

 

3
In reply to J1234:

> You can argue round the houses and justify all you like, but thats the way it is.

Well perhaps you have proven your point. Maybe I am morally twisted for putting my own personal enjoyment first, along with many others I'll add.

I'm still convinced that you're barking up the wrong tree. The impact climbers and walkers have on the environment on a global scale is minuscule. 

1
 GridNorth 02 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

You are spot on.  What are YOU doing, personally, to help address this?

Al

Wiley Coyote2 02 Aug 2018
In reply to J1234:

There are already far too many people in the hills. Take a look at Helvellyn/Striding Edge on a decent day or the Langdale Pikes, Gable or, God forbid Snowdon and its cafe. Further afield take a look at Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, magnificent places ruined by overcrowding and over-promotion and by inconguous, albeit necessary, management. Closer to home Stanage Popular End car park is weighed out every day of the week -a sizeable proportion of places taken by school and outdoor centre mini-buses bringing kids with varying levels of enthusiasm or reluctance to the hills.

Many access problems arise when tolerably small numbers of climbers swell to intolerably big numbers. Likewise damage and erosion occurs when the sheer weight of numbers exceeds the land's ability to cope. At this point someone usually points out that there are loads of scarcely trodden-places - the Kinder Grit, Back o' Skiddaw etc etc but the cold, cruel fact is nobody goes there because they would rather go to the 'good' bits, the spectacular bits, the bits they've seen Julia Bradbury traipsing over on TV. These newcomers are going to flock to exactly the same honeypots as everyone else  rather than to Nondescript Pike in Never-Heard-of-It-Dale

The brutal truth is that if everybody - or even quite a small proportion of everybody - went to the hills they would be as trashed as your local High Street so somehow  they must be rationed. How you choose to do that may be up for discussion, be it by price with charges, tourist taxes, and expensive private courses, by 'wilderness permits' booked in advance for Crib Goch etc,  by needing sufficient gumption and desire to make your own way there or by the sheer dumb luck of knowing someone who can introduce you to the hills safely. But please, please do not go round promoting the outdoors, As the numbers grow, that might let us smugly tick the boxes on equality and diversity  but, unfortunately, at the same time everyone's experience will be diminished by the crowds, then transformed beyond recognition by the need for management followed no doubt by more safety demands  and eventually simply ruined.

1
 Robert Durran 02 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What is the point of having pristine hills if no one visits to see them. 

Not no one. Just me, ideally, and a few selected companions

> The more tourists, the more money in the local community, the more paths can be laid and fences can be repaired and derelict buildings can be renovated. Bus services become viable, and the community becomes more sustainable. 

All true, but, as I said, the experience of visiting can then become a bit crap. Much of the Lakes is now horrendous in summer until you get away from the roads. Skye is going the same way. The NW just really isn't quite what it was when I stated going there 40 years ago and now the NW500 thing has caused a step change. 

Yes, I know it is selfish to want other people to stay at home, but there is a limit to how many people you can cram onto Skye before it becomes somewhere not really worth going in the summer tourist season.

I'm not defending a selfish approach, just stating facts about degradation by overcrowding.

 

 

1
J1234 02 Aug 2018
In reply to GridNorth:

Me. Nothing I am selfish bastard.  Climate Change is happening, but I want to climb all over the world, and if a few people have it tough, well thats tragic, but hey that new routing in Morrocco is awesome and one of my climbing partners wants to go to Red Rocks, and we have loads to do in Catalunya. I could go on.

Bit closer to home this weekend with a quick raid on Langdale.

Only 2 more foreign trips this year, but I may try and squeeze in a trip to Font.

Like I say I am a selfish bastard. It would be nice  if other people could at least fess up and be honest about it.  

Post edited at 23:02
4
In reply to J1234:

You have a carbon footprint the size of a developing nation. Have a word with yourself. Mind you, we all know what they say about people with big feet...

In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What is the point of having pristine hills if no one visits to see them. 

What a depressingly human view of the natural world

 

2
 DancingOnRock 03 Aug 2018
In reply to Robert Durran:

Is that because a higher percentage of people are choosing to spend time in the hills, or just a higher number of people.

In 1986 the population was 56m, it’s now 76m. That’s a growth of 36%. 

The hills haven’t got any bigger to absorb the increase. It’ll only get worse.

 

Lusk 03 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> What is the point of having pristine hills if no one visits to see them. 

Are we drifting into Einstein's question to Bohr, "'the moon does not exist if nobody is looking at it." territory?

 DancingOnRock 03 Aug 2018
In reply to Lusk:

No. It’s more of an observation that we are looking at the erosion on the hill from a selfish human perspective. 

If a path becomes eroded, what is the actual problem with it being eroded in the grand scheme of things? It just makes the mountain look different and more difficult for people to walk up. Both impacts on other humans caused by other humans.

You could have a pristine hill with no paths, covered in impassable woodland, gorse and bracken. But you’d probably get people complaining that the hills are overgrown. 

Humans will always tailor their environment to suit themselves. It’s how we have emerged as the dominant species. If people find that depressing, well, that’s kind of denying who they are. 

 Ramblin dave 03 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If a path becomes eroded, what is the actual problem with it being eroded in the grand scheme of things? It just makes the mountain look different and more difficult for people to walk up. Both impacts on other humans caused by other humans.

Yes - in particular, it seems ecologically pretty irrelevant. You might not like the look of hordes of people in brightly coloured jackets trampling a big ugly scar up the side of Whernside, but I'd imagine that an ecologist would be far more interested in the impact of the sheep on either side of them...

 Robert Durran 03 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> If a path becomes eroded, what is the actual problem with it being eroded in the grand scheme of things? It just makes the mountain look different and more difficult for people to walk up.

> You could have a pristine hill with no paths, covered in impassable woodland, gorse and bracken. But you’d probably get people complaining that the hills are overgrown. 

You have pretty much described the difference between Munros and Corbetts!

 

Post edited at 15:05
 Robert Durran 03 Aug 2018
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Is that because a higher percentage of people are choosing to spend time in the hills, or just a higher number of people.

> In 1986 the population was 56m, it’s now 76m. That’s a growth of 36%. 

I would say far higher percentage judging by the Munros and "prescribed" Munro parking spots.

I don't really find other people on the hills a problem (they are generally readily avoided). What detracts for me is the general tourism numbers clogging the place up. Camper vans, for example, are becoming a big visual blot, and honeypot places in Skye and the NW are becoming almost Lakes like in their hideous swarming humanity. This week even Yesnaby on Orkney felt like a bit of a tourist trap at times!

Of course all these people have, unfortunately, a perfect right to be there (just as much as me), but I just wish they would choose not to be. I'm holding out for a couple of hideously wet and midgy summers to divert the fickle trip Advisor hordes to Belarus or whatever.

Post edited at 15:26
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...