This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Suprised that there's be no mention on here or the BMC forum on the current restrictions on the Popular End of Stanage. It appears that Ring Ouzels have nested on Mississippi Butress and Right Hand Trinity and that climbers are asked to avoid these climbs and anything nearby for the next month or so.
Now I know the Twitchers want a complete ban and the BMC reps have fought hard to keep access. And I have no intention of climbing anywhere near the nests and I think it's important that we protect/encourage wildlife etc etc
But if birds nest in the middle of the most popular bits of the most popular crag in the country, doesn't that indicate something about their ability to cope with human contact?
Now I know the Twitchers want a complete ban and the BMC reps have fought hard to keep access. And I have no intention of climbing anywhere near the nests and I think it's important that we protect/encourage wildlife etc etc
But if birds nest in the middle of the most popular bits of the most popular crag in the country, doesn't that indicate something about their ability to cope with human contact?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Bloody antisocial. They'll be setting up topropes next.
We were talking to the warden last weekend about them. He said a period of wet weather had led to fewer climbers there recently and given the Ring Ouzels a chance to get established.
I also understood that the birds are likely to be off the crag within about a fortnight.
Bloody antisocial. They'll be setting up topropes next.
We were talking to the warden last weekend about them. He said a period of wet weather had led to fewer climbers there recently and given the Ring Ouzels a chance to get established.
I also understood that the birds are likely to be off the crag within about a fortnight.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Thanks for the warning, Mississippi Buttress was on my list for next Sunday
Thanks for the warning, Mississippi Buttress was on my list for next Sunday
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Where did you get this information from? The only sections I had heard about were Counts Buttress and usually any restrictions are sent to me by Henry the Access Rep.
I'm going to move this message to the BMC board to see if someone there can comment, although it seems like they aren't bothering to look here much anymore since the Pandy Quarry question has also drawn a blank.
Alan
> Suprised that there's be no mention on here or the BMC forum on the current restrictions on the Popular End of Stanage. It appears that Ring Ouzels have nested on Mississippi Butress and Right Hand Trinity and that climbers are asked to avoid these climbs and anything nearby for the next month or so.
Where did you get this information from? The only sections I had heard about were Counts Buttress and usually any restrictions are sent to me by Henry the Access Rep.
I'm going to move this message to the BMC board to see if someone there can comment, although it seems like they aren't bothering to look here much anymore since the Pandy Quarry question has also drawn a blank.
Alan
YOU CANNOT BAN BIRDS FROM ANYWHERE - that is stupid and cruel. how do you plan to enforce it smart ass?
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
Saw the notice about RH Trinity last night - the area covered is from Hargreaves along to Hollybush Crack
Checked the BMC web site and saw the stuff about Mississippi (well hidden amongst stuff about the Stanage Bus which I think stopped running about 2 years ago)
The reason I posted this on Rocktalk not the BMC forum is simply because this forum seems to get more attention
Saw the notice about RH Trinity last night - the area covered is from Hargreaves along to Hollybush Crack
Checked the BMC web site and saw the stuff about Mississippi (well hidden amongst stuff about the Stanage Bus which I think stopped running about 2 years ago)
The reason I posted this on Rocktalk not the BMC forum is simply because this forum seems to get more attention
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
On Monday, I saw signs indicating nesting activity from about Queersville to Hargreves Originbal area.
I saw people climbing on Missippi buttress so guess that must be clear of nesting pairs.
On Monday, I saw signs indicating nesting activity from about Queersville to Hargreves Originbal area.
I saw people climbing on Missippi buttress so guess that must be clear of nesting pairs.
In reply to chris tan:
The nest on Mississippi Buttress was spotted on Monday or first thing Tuesday, and the warden was knocking in an advisory notice late morning on Tuesday while I was half way up Centre Stage. To be precise.
The nest on Mississippi Buttress was spotted on Monday or first thing Tuesday, and the warden was knocking in an advisory notice late morning on Tuesday while I was half way up Centre Stage. To be precise.
In reply to Jimbob:
I hope these are bans on routes rather than bans on buttresses. Let's face it, if the bird has nested there then climbers don't really bother them that much.
Alan
I hope these are bans on routes rather than bans on buttresses. Let's face it, if the bird has nested there then climbers don't really bother them that much.
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX:
My point exactly, but the Trinity Ban covers Black Slab, Trinty Buttress, Rusty Wall and Narrow Buttress.
My point exactly, but the Trinity Ban covers Black Slab, Trinty Buttress, Rusty Wall and Narrow Buttress.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I am not sure these are bans in the same sense that we have bans at other crags. It might be the same situation as at Hen Cloud where the bans are just being imposed by over-enthusistic twitchers without actually going through the proper channels.
It would be great if someone at the BMC could comment?
Alan
I am not sure these are bans in the same sense that we have bans at other crags. It might be the same situation as at Hen Cloud where the bans are just being imposed by over-enthusistic twitchers without actually going through the proper channels.
It would be great if someone at the BMC could comment?
Alan
In reply to Alan James, ROCKFAX: Was there on Monday and a fairly hefty section of the crag is cordoned of. Only 4.95km of crag left for the climbers!
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Swears loudly - yes, it would be good if someone from the BMC could comment, ie. me, in fact I thought I had!
The info - One pair have 5 day old chicks on Mississippi Buttress. They should be fledged within 2 weeks, until then please avoid the area from Dark Continent to Balcony Corner (Balcony Buttress) as indicated by signs.
The other pair have eggs on Trinity Wall, please avoid the area from Hargreaves' Original Route to Hollybush Crack and the boulders below the edge.
Please heed these restrictions for this short period, it'd be good news for us all if the birds are successful.
Again, apologies folks, thought I'd already done this, and thanks to those bringing it our attention. (It's the heat you know, brain has stopped functioning!).
The point that the birds have nested in a very popular area and were seemingly unfazed by the Bank Holiday traffic is not lost, and is something to bear in mind in future discussions over nesting restrictions.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
Swears loudly - yes, it would be good if someone from the BMC could comment, ie. me, in fact I thought I had!
The info - One pair have 5 day old chicks on Mississippi Buttress. They should be fledged within 2 weeks, until then please avoid the area from Dark Continent to Balcony Corner (Balcony Buttress) as indicated by signs.
The other pair have eggs on Trinity Wall, please avoid the area from Hargreaves' Original Route to Hollybush Crack and the boulders below the edge.
Please heed these restrictions for this short period, it'd be good news for us all if the birds are successful.
Again, apologies folks, thought I'd already done this, and thanks to those bringing it our attention. (It's the heat you know, brain has stopped functioning!).
The point that the birds have nested in a very popular area and were seemingly unfazed by the Bank Holiday traffic is not lost, and is something to bear in mind in future discussions over nesting restrictions.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
In reply to Chris the Tall:
See your point about the layout on RAD, I just changed the bird info when I did the update, and it is a bit lost in the other stuff. The IT project will be a chance to think about making RAD more user friendly in a number of ways and I will bear this point in mind.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
See your point about the layout on RAD, I just changed the bird info when I did the update, and it is a bit lost in the other stuff. The IT project will be a chance to think about making RAD more user friendly in a number of ways and I will bear this point in mind.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
In reply to Graham ATB:
As you say, the nesting on one of the most heavily climbed areas of Stanage just goes to show that the birds are not put off by climbers.
However, once chicks have hatched they need to be fed regularly so even if climbers were doing routes on that section of crag they should ensure they clear nests within a few minutes so the parents can feed them.
As you say, the nesting on one of the most heavily climbed areas of Stanage just goes to show that the birds are not put off by climbers.
However, once chicks have hatched they need to be fed regularly so even if climbers were doing routes on that section of crag they should ensure they clear nests within a few minutes so the parents can feed them.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I guess in some locations, such as sea cliffs, bird bans make sense. However, in other locations surely birds nest across a wide area and disturbing those on the periphery or in localised areas will have next to no impact on their viability as a species, or even the extent of the area they populate?
It sometimes seems that twitcher types are concerned primarily with protecting birds that take up home in easily accessible locations. (Accessible to the twitcher that is, preferably with a car park near by) Ie. despite appealling to 'conservation' concerns in truth they are arguing that their own recreational interests should be placed above those of climbers...
Why is it that some recreational activities such as birdwatching and walking seem to take priority over all else? Strength in numbers? Political clout? Or, in this case at least, is it absolutely essential that nothing be done that might deter birds from nesting at Stanage?
If birds begin to thrive at Stanage will this still be held to be 'good new for us all' I wonder, especially if this means that one day much of Stanage is out of bounds to climbers for large parts of the year?
Regards,
Howard.
Ps.
It comes as little surprise that the Peak Park authority tend to side with the birdwatching fraternity in such matters. However, at least the PPA still allows climbers access! Off-road cyclists got nothing out of the Stanage forum and the PPA has gone out of its way to support the selfishness of walkers by making off-road cycling in access areas a criminal offence. (Of course attempts are made to justify this on spurious grounds such as 'erosion' - walkers cause no erosion of course - or the supposed impact on the 'widerness experience' - what wildernes and how about the 'wilderness experience' of cyclists!. I think I would prefer an honest expression of prejudice and self interest!...)
I guess in some locations, such as sea cliffs, bird bans make sense. However, in other locations surely birds nest across a wide area and disturbing those on the periphery or in localised areas will have next to no impact on their viability as a species, or even the extent of the area they populate?
It sometimes seems that twitcher types are concerned primarily with protecting birds that take up home in easily accessible locations. (Accessible to the twitcher that is, preferably with a car park near by) Ie. despite appealling to 'conservation' concerns in truth they are arguing that their own recreational interests should be placed above those of climbers...
Why is it that some recreational activities such as birdwatching and walking seem to take priority over all else? Strength in numbers? Political clout? Or, in this case at least, is it absolutely essential that nothing be done that might deter birds from nesting at Stanage?
If birds begin to thrive at Stanage will this still be held to be 'good new for us all' I wonder, especially if this means that one day much of Stanage is out of bounds to climbers for large parts of the year?
Regards,
Howard.
Ps.
It comes as little surprise that the Peak Park authority tend to side with the birdwatching fraternity in such matters. However, at least the PPA still allows climbers access! Off-road cyclists got nothing out of the Stanage forum and the PPA has gone out of its way to support the selfishness of walkers by making off-road cycling in access areas a criminal offence. (Of course attempts are made to justify this on spurious grounds such as 'erosion' - walkers cause no erosion of course - or the supposed impact on the 'widerness experience' - what wildernes and how about the 'wilderness experience' of cyclists!. I think I would prefer an honest expression of prejudice and self interest!...)
In reply to Graham ATB:
>Please heed these restrictions for this short period, it'd be good news for us all if the birds are successful. <
Yeah, Ther'll be more of them next year taking up the rest of the crag!
>Please heed these restrictions for this short period, it'd be good news for us all if the birds are successful. <
Yeah, Ther'll be more of them next year taking up the rest of the crag!
In reply to Graham ATB:
Layout of the RAD - what you need is something to draw peoples attention to recent changes, so how about a "Latest updates" page covering each area. Having to check each crag you might be likely to visit is a bit of a pain.
Posting updates on here is an even better way of getting the news out. And don't forget progress updates, people may be more likely to comply with the ban/check the site if there's info on little chicks being born!
BTW do the birds eat midges, if so they are definately worth encouraging.
Layout of the RAD - what you need is something to draw peoples attention to recent changes, so how about a "Latest updates" page covering each area. Having to check each crag you might be likely to visit is a bit of a pain.
Posting updates on here is an even better way of getting the news out. And don't forget progress updates, people may be more likely to comply with the ban/check the site if there's info on little chicks being born!
BTW do the birds eat midges, if so they are definately worth encouraging.
In reply to Howard Peel:
Ring Ouzels are red listed birds. This means that they fall into one or more of the following three groups:
Ring Ouzels are a rapidly declining breeding species where the population has declined by 50% or more between 1974 and 1999.
The time that they need to be undisturbed for is quite short - I spoke to the warden at North Lees and understood that it was a matter of 2 or three weeks? But I may be wrong on this?
They don't normally put their nests where all the climbing is, but apparently is was bad weather and therefore quite quiet during the period when they choose their nesting sites.
The PPA are coming from a different perspective to climbers, but I don't think they have any particular agenda to make things difficult for climbers? They WANT visitors to the park!
Ring Ouzels are red listed birds. This means that they fall into one or more of the following three groups:
- Their population or range has declined by more than 50% in the last 25 years
- the species has declined in the long-term (since 1800)
- it is a globally threatened species
Ring Ouzels are a rapidly declining breeding species where the population has declined by 50% or more between 1974 and 1999.
The time that they need to be undisturbed for is quite short - I spoke to the warden at North Lees and understood that it was a matter of 2 or three weeks? But I may be wrong on this?
They don't normally put their nests where all the climbing is, but apparently is was bad weather and therefore quite quiet during the period when they choose their nesting sites.
The PPA are coming from a different perspective to climbers, but I don't think they have any particular agenda to make things difficult for climbers? They WANT visitors to the park!
In reply to Howard Peel:
Take your point about twitchers, but why do you think their success is to do with having political clout with the PPA? I'm sure climbers heavily outweigh them in terms of visitor numbers and input into the local economy (Is Hathersage full of binocular shops?).
I think it has more to do with climbers being reasonable and concerned about minimising their impact, whereas the twitchers try and occupy the moral high ground and call for an outright ban.
Take your point about twitchers, but why do you think their success is to do with having political clout with the PPA? I'm sure climbers heavily outweigh them in terms of visitor numbers and input into the local economy (Is Hathersage full of binocular shops?).
I think it has more to do with climbers being reasonable and concerned about minimising their impact, whereas the twitchers try and occupy the moral high ground and call for an outright ban.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
There's a real point here in that many (most?) climbers have a fair degree of interest in the habitat and wildlife in the places we value - hence it's very easy to get pulled by both arguments when access and conservation come into conflict. Those vociferously opposed to access where human disturbance of birds may be an issue have only one influence.
As has been pointed out, the ring ouzels are endangered and protected as a result, the restrictions asked for on the two sites are fairly localised (albeit in popular locations) and for 2/3 weeks. We (ie BMC staff and access reps) will continue to look at each request for a restriction on a case by case basis, agreeing and publicising where necessary - it's a fine balance - let's hope we get it right and maintain the support of the majority of climbers.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
PS - Am out of the office (to the Alps!!) as of tonight for 2 weeks, so please don't flame me for not responding if the thread lives on.
There's a real point here in that many (most?) climbers have a fair degree of interest in the habitat and wildlife in the places we value - hence it's very easy to get pulled by both arguments when access and conservation come into conflict. Those vociferously opposed to access where human disturbance of birds may be an issue have only one influence.
As has been pointed out, the ring ouzels are endangered and protected as a result, the restrictions asked for on the two sites are fairly localised (albeit in popular locations) and for 2/3 weeks. We (ie BMC staff and access reps) will continue to look at each request for a restriction on a case by case basis, agreeing and publicising where necessary - it's a fine balance - let's hope we get it right and maintain the support of the majority of climbers.
Graham
BMC Access & Conservation Officer
PS - Am out of the office (to the Alps!!) as of tonight for 2 weeks, so please don't flame me for not responding if the thread lives on.
In reply to mich:
Hmmm, these birds are endangered, without the presence of human beings they would nest at Stanage but 'don't normally put their nests where the climbing is'. This sounds dangerously close to an argument in support of an outright ban on climbing at Stanage so as to encourage Ring Ouzels to populate the crag (as their natural habitat) so as to overcome their endagered status...
OK, I agree that a temporary ban on climbing to protect these particular birds makes sense - a little compromise and tolerance goes a long way after all. However, I wonder what steps are being taken to actively encourage them elsewhere. I would think the ideal location from the birds perspective would be in areas that are inaccessible to disturbance by human beings, including birders...
As far as I am aware nationally the Birding fratenity do outnumber climbers many, many times over and are not without political influence.
I would agree that the PPA has no particular agenda with regards climbers, but there is little doubt that their thinking is dominated by the walking lobby, its just the case that climbers are more or less tolerated by the red socks brigade!
'Welcome to the Peak District'
Interestingly enough although the Peak District is associated with the fight for access rights (Benny Rothman's Kinder Trespass and all), it is just as closely associated with the fight by walkers to exclude cyclists from the countryside. Back in 1966 the Chairman of the RA who was also a Peak District MP fought proposals to allow cyclists to use bridleways describing cyclists as 'excrescences on the landscape'.
I am dubious that the PPA want more visitors to the Park, well visistors on bikes anyhow. The PPA has long had a reputation for being rather anti-cycling. It even objected to cyclists having access to the old railway lines that now form Sustrans routes in the area.
The PPA is the only park authority in the country other than Dartmoor to use its powers under the 1949 access acts to make cycling in access areas a criminal offence. I tried to get information of why this was done and they were very evasive. (I guess the simple answer: 'pressure from walkers and nimby landowners' just sounded a little too much like bowing to prejudice).
Their chief warden, Sean Prendergast, told me he had worked for the PPA for 12 years and had no knowledge of any new byelaws being brought in. Then I found they were enacted in 1997. I asked the PPA what areas were covered and was told 'go look for the signs'. I was then told it was done to 'prevent erosion' and that the byelaws also applied to horses for the same reason. No they don't. I asked what was wrong with doing path construction work to manage areas of 'erosion' and was told that this would 'adversely affect the wilderness experience of walkers.' I asked why the path construction work done to manage erosion caused by walkers did not similarly affect the 'wilderness experience' and received no reply. The Stanage forum agreed to create a new MTB route on the North Lees estate and the management committe overruled this supposedly 'democratic' decision. Thankfully other NPA's such as the North Yorkshire Moors NPA are a little more enlightened.
OK, so the above does not directly affect climbers but it remains the case that climbers are also in a minority and it would seem reasonable to suggest that climbers would also find themselves marginalised if some more powerful group decided that climbers were a 'nuisance' they would rather not have to put up with. (Well at least until the 'right' to climb is made clear by the CRoW act).
Hmmm, these birds are endangered, without the presence of human beings they would nest at Stanage but 'don't normally put their nests where the climbing is'. This sounds dangerously close to an argument in support of an outright ban on climbing at Stanage so as to encourage Ring Ouzels to populate the crag (as their natural habitat) so as to overcome their endagered status...
OK, I agree that a temporary ban on climbing to protect these particular birds makes sense - a little compromise and tolerance goes a long way after all. However, I wonder what steps are being taken to actively encourage them elsewhere. I would think the ideal location from the birds perspective would be in areas that are inaccessible to disturbance by human beings, including birders...
As far as I am aware nationally the Birding fratenity do outnumber climbers many, many times over and are not without political influence.
I would agree that the PPA has no particular agenda with regards climbers, but there is little doubt that their thinking is dominated by the walking lobby, its just the case that climbers are more or less tolerated by the red socks brigade!
'Welcome to the Peak District'
Interestingly enough although the Peak District is associated with the fight for access rights (Benny Rothman's Kinder Trespass and all), it is just as closely associated with the fight by walkers to exclude cyclists from the countryside. Back in 1966 the Chairman of the RA who was also a Peak District MP fought proposals to allow cyclists to use bridleways describing cyclists as 'excrescences on the landscape'.
I am dubious that the PPA want more visitors to the Park, well visistors on bikes anyhow. The PPA has long had a reputation for being rather anti-cycling. It even objected to cyclists having access to the old railway lines that now form Sustrans routes in the area.
The PPA is the only park authority in the country other than Dartmoor to use its powers under the 1949 access acts to make cycling in access areas a criminal offence. I tried to get information of why this was done and they were very evasive. (I guess the simple answer: 'pressure from walkers and nimby landowners' just sounded a little too much like bowing to prejudice).
Their chief warden, Sean Prendergast, told me he had worked for the PPA for 12 years and had no knowledge of any new byelaws being brought in. Then I found they were enacted in 1997. I asked the PPA what areas were covered and was told 'go look for the signs'. I was then told it was done to 'prevent erosion' and that the byelaws also applied to horses for the same reason. No they don't. I asked what was wrong with doing path construction work to manage areas of 'erosion' and was told that this would 'adversely affect the wilderness experience of walkers.' I asked why the path construction work done to manage erosion caused by walkers did not similarly affect the 'wilderness experience' and received no reply. The Stanage forum agreed to create a new MTB route on the North Lees estate and the management committe overruled this supposedly 'democratic' decision. Thankfully other NPA's such as the North Yorkshire Moors NPA are a little more enlightened.
OK, so the above does not directly affect climbers but it remains the case that climbers are also in a minority and it would seem reasonable to suggest that climbers would also find themselves marginalised if some more powerful group decided that climbers were a 'nuisance' they would rather not have to put up with. (Well at least until the 'right' to climb is made clear by the CRoW act).
In reply to Howard Peel:
Hah! A permanent ban on climbing at Stanage? That would be fun - mass trespass anyone...
>
> OK, so the above does not directly affect climbers but it remains the case that climbers are also in a minority and it would seem reasonable to suggest that climbers would also find themselves marginalised if some more powerful group decided that climbers were a 'nuisance' they would rather not have to put up with. (Well at least until the 'right' to climb is made clear by the CRoW act).
> OK, so the above does not directly affect climbers but it remains the case that climbers are also in a minority and it would seem reasonable to suggest that climbers would also find themselves marginalised if some more powerful group decided that climbers were a 'nuisance' they would rather not have to put up with. (Well at least until the 'right' to climb is made clear by the CRoW act).
Hah! A permanent ban on climbing at Stanage? That would be fun - mass trespass anyone...
In reply to Tobs:
Much easier though to show a bit of empathy and respect the quite reasonable temporary restrictions. Would love to see a Ring Ousel, me, twitch twitch
Much easier though to show a bit of empathy and respect the quite reasonable temporary restrictions. Would love to see a Ring Ousel, me, twitch twitch
In reply to gingerkate:
Thanks for that voice of reason.
One reason these (and other) birds seem to have come back is that human access to the area was restricted during the Foot and Mouth outbreak. (All that now seems like a distant memory, doesn't it?) Now that they have come back, let's not frighten them away again. It's great to have such wildlife around, and Stanage is big enough to find other buttresses to climb on in the meantime.
I (heart) Ring Ouzels - the 'mountain blackbirds'.
> Much easier though to show a bit of empathy and respect the quite reasonable temporary restrictions.
Thanks for that voice of reason.
One reason these (and other) birds seem to have come back is that human access to the area was restricted during the Foot and Mouth outbreak. (All that now seems like a distant memory, doesn't it?) Now that they have come back, let's not frighten them away again. It's great to have such wildlife around, and Stanage is big enough to find other buttresses to climb on in the meantime.
> Would love to see a Ring Ousel, me, twitch twitch
I (heart) Ring Ouzels - the 'mountain blackbirds'.
In reply to Howard Peel:
It sounds like you have had some negative experiences!
I spent about an hour talking to the staff at North Lees a few weeks ago about the Ring Ouzels. They would be much happier if the birds WOULD nest away from the climbing, and we spent some time talking about what makes the birds choose the nest site that they do. We got to the point of inventing Ring Ouzel boxes (like bat boxes! but obviously designed to try to suit ring ouzels!!!)
They do try various things to try to encourage them to nest in areas which will not get disturbed, but Ring Ouzels have minds of their own!!!
I haven't got any personal experience of their attitudes towards cyclists, but they definatly didn't come across as anti climber, although they did come across as pro wildlife and pro the ecosystem of the park in general and I did get the feeling that this was their priority, even if it did cause park users some inconvienience.
They said that they had been working with the BMC to spread information about Ring Ouzels. Most climbers like to have as much information as possible, so that they can see if it is worth having a ban and ALL climbers that I have met seem happy to comply with bird bans if they feel that they are justified. It's only when the bird bans seem over the top that people get unhappy about it. Basically, we don't like being TOLD what to do! but we are happy to decide for ourselves to go along with sensible bans....
It sounds like you have had some negative experiences!
I spent about an hour talking to the staff at North Lees a few weeks ago about the Ring Ouzels. They would be much happier if the birds WOULD nest away from the climbing, and we spent some time talking about what makes the birds choose the nest site that they do. We got to the point of inventing Ring Ouzel boxes (like bat boxes! but obviously designed to try to suit ring ouzels!!!)
They do try various things to try to encourage them to nest in areas which will not get disturbed, but Ring Ouzels have minds of their own!!!
I haven't got any personal experience of their attitudes towards cyclists, but they definatly didn't come across as anti climber, although they did come across as pro wildlife and pro the ecosystem of the park in general and I did get the feeling that this was their priority, even if it did cause park users some inconvienience.
They said that they had been working with the BMC to spread information about Ring Ouzels. Most climbers like to have as much information as possible, so that they can see if it is worth having a ban and ALL climbers that I have met seem happy to comply with bird bans if they feel that they are justified. It's only when the bird bans seem over the top that people get unhappy about it. Basically, we don't like being TOLD what to do! but we are happy to decide for ourselves to go along with sensible bans....
In reply to Anonymous:
What do they look like, what do they sound like and more to the point, do they eat midges ?
What do they look like, what do they sound like and more to the point, do they eat midges ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Very much like a blackbird but with a white ring at the throat. Vicar blackbird?
Very much like a blackbird but with a white ring at the throat. Vicar blackbird?
In reply to Howard Peel:
Presumably by 'walkers' you mean the RA. They are totally unrepresentative of the views of all the walkers that I know, many of whom are also cyclists.
> it is just as closely associated with the fight by walkers to exclude cyclists from the countryside
Presumably by 'walkers' you mean the RA. They are totally unrepresentative of the views of all the walkers that I know, many of whom are also cyclists.
In reply to mich:
I would agree that protecting wildlife and the environment is important. I also support the idea of 'sensible' restrictions. (However, making cycling on Peak District access land a criminal offence does not seem to be sensible or reasonable, especially at it seemed to be done without proper consultation. I talked to a CTC ROW expert about it and he didn't even know it had been done!).
I am suprised that looking at providing these birds with dedicated nest boxes is a new idea. If they are so important I would have thought a comprehensive research and conservation plan would have been well developed by now.
I would agree that protecting wildlife and the environment is important. I also support the idea of 'sensible' restrictions. (However, making cycling on Peak District access land a criminal offence does not seem to be sensible or reasonable, especially at it seemed to be done without proper consultation. I talked to a CTC ROW expert about it and he didn't even know it had been done!).
I am suprised that looking at providing these birds with dedicated nest boxes is a new idea. If they are so important I would have thought a comprehensive research and conservation plan would have been well developed by now.
In reply to Howard Peel:
They nest on the ground, so bird boxes may not be a sensible suggestion at all!
By bird boxes, I meant a combination of the types of things that occur near/at their nest sites.
You can put a bird box in your garden, but it may not get used.
Things like the weather, the direction of the wind etc affect where they nest (as I understood it from my conversation - I'm no expert!!!)
I think quite a lot of research HAS been done - I found loads of stuff on the web with a search and I'm sure there is more on paper.
I'm a cyclist, a climber and a walker. But I understand that my actions have got repercussions and that other groups may have different priorites than mine. There may be a conflict of interests between two of the things I want, for example, easy access to the countryside for me, and peace and quiet while I am there.
They nest on the ground, so bird boxes may not be a sensible suggestion at all!
By bird boxes, I meant a combination of the types of things that occur near/at their nest sites.
You can put a bird box in your garden, but it may not get used.
Things like the weather, the direction of the wind etc affect where they nest (as I understood it from my conversation - I'm no expert!!!)
I think quite a lot of research HAS been done - I found loads of stuff on the web with a search and I'm sure there is more on paper.
I'm a cyclist, a climber and a walker. But I understand that my actions have got repercussions and that other groups may have different priorites than mine. There may be a conflict of interests between two of the things I want, for example, easy access to the countryside for me, and peace and quiet while I am there.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
They are a member of the thrush family: shape and sized like a blackbird, but with an elegant white bib. For a picture, go to, for example:
http://www.birdsofbritain.co.uk/bird-guide/ring-ouzel.htm , or
http://www.birdcheck.co.uk/main/previewpages/previewpage270.htm
For a recording of their song, go to:
http://www.ifrance.com/WPBS/Index/FRAME_Bird_index_English.htm
Select 'Passeriformes', 'Chats Thrushes (Large'), and page down to Ring Ouzel (Turdus torquatus)
Ha! Unlikely: I think they'll be taking bigger insects. Might, simply by virtue of being around, lure a few midges away from other critters though, including us!.
> What do they look like ...
They are a member of the thrush family: shape and sized like a blackbird, but with an elegant white bib. For a picture, go to, for example:
http://www.birdsofbritain.co.uk/bird-guide/ring-ouzel.htm , or
http://www.birdcheck.co.uk/main/previewpages/previewpage270.htm
> ... what do they sound like ...
For a recording of their song, go to:
http://www.ifrance.com/WPBS/Index/FRAME_Bird_index_English.htm
Select 'Passeriformes', 'Chats Thrushes (Large'), and page down to Ring Ouzel (Turdus torquatus)
> ... and more to the point, do they eat midges ?
Ha! Unlikely: I think they'll be taking bigger insects. Might, simply by virtue of being around, lure a few midges away from other critters though, including us!.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
The RA do seem to be the extremists in this. However those attending the Stanage forum meetings also failed to vote in favour of allowing cyclists to use the path at the top of the Edge. Those present might all have been RA members or they might not.
I use the term 'vote in favour' here as the 'voting' procedure was rather odd in any case with people having to express positive support for a motion rather then actually voting on it. This means that on many issues most people just didn't vote so a failure to vote was effectively allowed to stand as a 'no' vote. No wonder politicians don't use a similar voting system!
Accepting your point that many walkers are not overly hostile to cyclists would seem to support my argument that the PPA takes undue notice of groups like the RA who feel that others have no right to enjoy the outdoors. If certain RA types are not representative of walkers as a whole, why is so much notice taken of them?
To be honest I do feel that the majority of walkers are hostile to some degree to off-road cyclists no matter how considerate they are, if only because a walker is likely to have a feeling of 'tension' or heightened awareness on meeting a cyclist, much as a cyclist might feel when encountering a car on a country road. Given human nature I would guess that this is enough for some to wish that bikes just didn't exist and such a reaction is perfectly understandable. Doubtless a minority of cyclists are less then wholly considerate as well and this is also bound to create tensions. However, the same rationale is not applied to the highways and no one suggests that cars should be banned because a minority (?) of drivers could be a lot more responsible then they are, even though thousands of people a year are actually killed by car drivers!
At least not all walkers are as extremist as groups like the Adventure and Environmental Awareness group (founded by Colin Mortlock whose book was reviewed in the climbing press a while back). They want off road cyclists excluded from ALL wild and upland areas with cyclists being confined to 'derelict quarries on the urban fringe'!
I also find it intriguing when some walkers try to justify excluding cyclists (but not walkers of course) on 'environmental' or 'ecological' grounds. I stayed in Snowdonia a while back and when another guest in the B and B found I went off-road cycling he felt compelled to tell why he hated 'mountain bikers' so much, ranting on about erosion. The joke was I had walked 9 hours that day and had taken a number of photographs showing the extensive path engineering works done to control the erosion cause by walkers. In other areas such as Snowdon's South ridge I saw erosion scars 20-30 ft wide and 3-4 feet deep!
Last year I attended a workshop on path construction and it was very clear that in many situations the use of bikes need cause no real erosion problems. Riding though a poorly drained section of loose soil might leave a wheel print but the problem is the nature of the ground and a wheel no more changes that or causes the problem then someone sticking a foot into a bog causes the bog! Interestingly, the use of stone pitching can be avoided if a path 'zig zags' rather then following the natural fall line. If this is done even very heavy MTB use does not cause erosion even on light sandy or soil paths. Naturally, a bike skidding down the south ridge of Snowdon would cause erosion, just as walkers do as they knock down the loose rocks on the track.
The best bit about the guy in the B and B was that he said how his walking group (yes he was in the RA) hated using made up paths and always made their own way over natural ground. I wonder how environmnetally friendly that is! At least bikes keep to well defined linear paths. I wouldn't be surprised if within 20 years of the CRoW stuff being enacted the hills are criss-crossed by loads of new unmanaged paths, visibly affecting the landscape, as people wander away from established paths exercising their 'right to roam'.
Cheers,
Howard.
The RA do seem to be the extremists in this. However those attending the Stanage forum meetings also failed to vote in favour of allowing cyclists to use the path at the top of the Edge. Those present might all have been RA members or they might not.
I use the term 'vote in favour' here as the 'voting' procedure was rather odd in any case with people having to express positive support for a motion rather then actually voting on it. This means that on many issues most people just didn't vote so a failure to vote was effectively allowed to stand as a 'no' vote. No wonder politicians don't use a similar voting system!
Accepting your point that many walkers are not overly hostile to cyclists would seem to support my argument that the PPA takes undue notice of groups like the RA who feel that others have no right to enjoy the outdoors. If certain RA types are not representative of walkers as a whole, why is so much notice taken of them?
To be honest I do feel that the majority of walkers are hostile to some degree to off-road cyclists no matter how considerate they are, if only because a walker is likely to have a feeling of 'tension' or heightened awareness on meeting a cyclist, much as a cyclist might feel when encountering a car on a country road. Given human nature I would guess that this is enough for some to wish that bikes just didn't exist and such a reaction is perfectly understandable. Doubtless a minority of cyclists are less then wholly considerate as well and this is also bound to create tensions. However, the same rationale is not applied to the highways and no one suggests that cars should be banned because a minority (?) of drivers could be a lot more responsible then they are, even though thousands of people a year are actually killed by car drivers!
At least not all walkers are as extremist as groups like the Adventure and Environmental Awareness group (founded by Colin Mortlock whose book was reviewed in the climbing press a while back). They want off road cyclists excluded from ALL wild and upland areas with cyclists being confined to 'derelict quarries on the urban fringe'!
I also find it intriguing when some walkers try to justify excluding cyclists (but not walkers of course) on 'environmental' or 'ecological' grounds. I stayed in Snowdonia a while back and when another guest in the B and B found I went off-road cycling he felt compelled to tell why he hated 'mountain bikers' so much, ranting on about erosion. The joke was I had walked 9 hours that day and had taken a number of photographs showing the extensive path engineering works done to control the erosion cause by walkers. In other areas such as Snowdon's South ridge I saw erosion scars 20-30 ft wide and 3-4 feet deep!
Last year I attended a workshop on path construction and it was very clear that in many situations the use of bikes need cause no real erosion problems. Riding though a poorly drained section of loose soil might leave a wheel print but the problem is the nature of the ground and a wheel no more changes that or causes the problem then someone sticking a foot into a bog causes the bog! Interestingly, the use of stone pitching can be avoided if a path 'zig zags' rather then following the natural fall line. If this is done even very heavy MTB use does not cause erosion even on light sandy or soil paths. Naturally, a bike skidding down the south ridge of Snowdon would cause erosion, just as walkers do as they knock down the loose rocks on the track.
The best bit about the guy in the B and B was that he said how his walking group (yes he was in the RA) hated using made up paths and always made their own way over natural ground. I wonder how environmnetally friendly that is! At least bikes keep to well defined linear paths. I wouldn't be surprised if within 20 years of the CRoW stuff being enacted the hills are criss-crossed by loads of new unmanaged paths, visibly affecting the landscape, as people wander away from established paths exercising their 'right to roam'.
Cheers,
Howard.
In reply to Howard Peel:
Perhaps because they're noisy, and know how to use the media to make their point?
but in others, there is a problem. For instance, walking through the Lairig Laoigh the other day, I noticed the cycle tracks through the muddy ground. They sloped slightly downwards, and were continuous, and so the water was being channelled down them, deppening them and slowly turning them into drainage ditches. I'm not against off road cycling, we'd done the first 6 miles of the day on bike, but there is sometimes a problem not posed by walkers.
BTW, did I go ski-ing in Norway with you a few years ago, or was it someone else with the same name?
> If certain RA types are not representative of walkers as a whole, why is so much notice taken of them?
Perhaps because they're noisy, and know how to use the media to make their point?
> in many situations the use of bikes need cause no real erosion problems
but in others, there is a problem. For instance, walking through the Lairig Laoigh the other day, I noticed the cycle tracks through the muddy ground. They sloped slightly downwards, and were continuous, and so the water was being channelled down them, deppening them and slowly turning them into drainage ditches. I'm not against off road cycling, we'd done the first 6 miles of the day on bike, but there is sometimes a problem not posed by walkers.
BTW, did I go ski-ing in Norway with you a few years ago, or was it someone else with the same name?
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I think the RA have the clout they do partly because they have many members who are retired, so having plenty of time to dedicate to 'working for walkers'. The fact that they also tend to be educated and middle class with all that comes with this (nimby tendencies, a certain fear of 'riff raff' and those who are 'not like them' and so on) provides the motivation. Can't blame them really, its all seems to be part of the 'us and them', 'with and without', 'look after your own interets' structure of British society.
Never been ski-ing in Norway, (sob).
The 'continuous ruts' argument is frequently used but there seems to be no real evidence that it is a significant mechanism of erosion. Ground water run off is a problem but this applied to paths that are not used by bikes as well. It can usually be managed but the underlying problem is that many paths follow the natural fall line of water in any case. One thing that is certain is that wheel tracks, being continuous, draw the eye: they have a higher 'Gestalt' value then a set of scattered foot prints. Often the fact that such tracks draw the eye and that they usually occur on loose wet sections suggests that the wheel tracks cause the problem, as with my 'bog' analogy this is rarely the case.
The research I have read on the impact of cycles on trails shows they have a significant environmental effect only in very specialised environments such as as salt marsh, sand dunes and reed beds. Then again, walkers would also have a similarly high impact on such environments. However, even where walking has a significant impact on a sensitive habitat few see this as justifying the exclusion of walkers. (Example of this include erosion of peat in the Peak District and the Lake District).
Even if bikes do cause erosion problems in some locations surely it would only be fair to look to drainage, path constructions and so on as being the management solutions of choice, not the banning of cycles? After all this is the policy that is applied in order to manage all the erosion caused by walkers.
Land managers certainly don't seem to worry about the impact path construction has on 'the wilderness experience' when it is walkers who are causing the erosion problem. Just look at the miles of what look like old wooden conveyor belting used on sections of the 3 peaks walk.
Ultimately, all human activity has some environmental impact. However, references to this impact is often no more then a way to justify discrimination against a specific user group. Climbing is just the same, look at the bare rocks and erosion leading up to the roiutes in places like the Llanberis pass. Historically the creation of routes has involved extensive gardening and yet it might take 10,000 years for a mossy campion to establish itself on a ledge. For a study of the ecological impact climbing has on a cliff environment see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020402072635.htm
Luckily, most outdoor users are pretty neutral about climbing, in the UK that cannot be said about cycling, either on or off road. Interestingly in more generally cycling friendly European countries no one seems to think that it is necessary to exclude cyclists from off-road paths. This months CTC magazine has a report on riding along the cliff paths of Normandy - I bet bikes are banned from almost identical paths in Cornwall though...
Regards,
Howard.
I think the RA have the clout they do partly because they have many members who are retired, so having plenty of time to dedicate to 'working for walkers'. The fact that they also tend to be educated and middle class with all that comes with this (nimby tendencies, a certain fear of 'riff raff' and those who are 'not like them' and so on) provides the motivation. Can't blame them really, its all seems to be part of the 'us and them', 'with and without', 'look after your own interets' structure of British society.
Never been ski-ing in Norway, (sob).
The 'continuous ruts' argument is frequently used but there seems to be no real evidence that it is a significant mechanism of erosion. Ground water run off is a problem but this applied to paths that are not used by bikes as well. It can usually be managed but the underlying problem is that many paths follow the natural fall line of water in any case. One thing that is certain is that wheel tracks, being continuous, draw the eye: they have a higher 'Gestalt' value then a set of scattered foot prints. Often the fact that such tracks draw the eye and that they usually occur on loose wet sections suggests that the wheel tracks cause the problem, as with my 'bog' analogy this is rarely the case.
The research I have read on the impact of cycles on trails shows they have a significant environmental effect only in very specialised environments such as as salt marsh, sand dunes and reed beds. Then again, walkers would also have a similarly high impact on such environments. However, even where walking has a significant impact on a sensitive habitat few see this as justifying the exclusion of walkers. (Example of this include erosion of peat in the Peak District and the Lake District).
Even if bikes do cause erosion problems in some locations surely it would only be fair to look to drainage, path constructions and so on as being the management solutions of choice, not the banning of cycles? After all this is the policy that is applied in order to manage all the erosion caused by walkers.
Land managers certainly don't seem to worry about the impact path construction has on 'the wilderness experience' when it is walkers who are causing the erosion problem. Just look at the miles of what look like old wooden conveyor belting used on sections of the 3 peaks walk.
Ultimately, all human activity has some environmental impact. However, references to this impact is often no more then a way to justify discrimination against a specific user group. Climbing is just the same, look at the bare rocks and erosion leading up to the roiutes in places like the Llanberis pass. Historically the creation of routes has involved extensive gardening and yet it might take 10,000 years for a mossy campion to establish itself on a ledge. For a study of the ecological impact climbing has on a cliff environment see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020402072635.htm
Luckily, most outdoor users are pretty neutral about climbing, in the UK that cannot be said about cycling, either on or off road. Interestingly in more generally cycling friendly European countries no one seems to think that it is necessary to exclude cyclists from off-road paths. This months CTC magazine has a report on riding along the cliff paths of Normandy - I bet bikes are banned from almost identical paths in Cornwall though...
Regards,
Howard.
In reply to Howard Peel:
What you say about the RA may be true, but a lot of mountain bikers have to accept their share of the blame for the animosity. On the rare occasions that I buy MTB magazines, it becomes very obvious to me that my attitude to mountain biking is very differant to the editors/contributors of such magazines.
I tend to go out biking either on my own, or with just a couple of people, rather than a big gang of 10 or 12, fully kitted out warriors. And I tend to look for cross-country routes rather than the "gnarliest" narrow descent I can find. As a result when I meet ramblers I'm not coming out of nowhere at 50 mph and forcing them to jump out of the way as me and my gang hurtle past. Now I suspect that most MTBers are the same, but it's the minority who seem to be the most vocal, most obvious and most annoying.
What you say about the RA may be true, but a lot of mountain bikers have to accept their share of the blame for the animosity. On the rare occasions that I buy MTB magazines, it becomes very obvious to me that my attitude to mountain biking is very differant to the editors/contributors of such magazines.
I tend to go out biking either on my own, or with just a couple of people, rather than a big gang of 10 or 12, fully kitted out warriors. And I tend to look for cross-country routes rather than the "gnarliest" narrow descent I can find. As a result when I meet ramblers I'm not coming out of nowhere at 50 mph and forcing them to jump out of the way as me and my gang hurtle past. Now I suspect that most MTBers are the same, but it's the minority who seem to be the most vocal, most obvious and most annoying.
In reply to sutty:
I remember doing "Oberon" on Tremadoc a few years ago. There was a nest with chicks in it about 8 ft up the second pitch. I'm no expert but they looked a bit like Choughs. We were a rope of 3, and about the 5th party to climb it that day. Throughout our climb, the parents were flying in and out of the nest, collecting and bringing back food. They showed not the slightest concern at our presence, even when there were 3 of us clustered with our heads 2 feet below their nest, while the last member of the party above us was level with it and about a foot away.
If they'd seemed at all fazed, we'd have abbed off back down the slab straight away.
> (In reply to Graham ATB)
>
> As you say, the nesting on one of the most heavily climbed areas of Stanage just goes to show that the birds are not put off by climbers.
>
> However, once chicks have hatched they need to be fed regularly so even if climbers were doing routes on that section of crag they should ensure they clear nests within a few minutes so the parents can feed them.
>
> As you say, the nesting on one of the most heavily climbed areas of Stanage just goes to show that the birds are not put off by climbers.
>
> However, once chicks have hatched they need to be fed regularly so even if climbers were doing routes on that section of crag they should ensure they clear nests within a few minutes so the parents can feed them.
I remember doing "Oberon" on Tremadoc a few years ago. There was a nest with chicks in it about 8 ft up the second pitch. I'm no expert but they looked a bit like Choughs. We were a rope of 3, and about the 5th party to climb it that day. Throughout our climb, the parents were flying in and out of the nest, collecting and bringing back food. They showed not the slightest concern at our presence, even when there were 3 of us clustered with our heads 2 feet below their nest, while the last member of the party above us was level with it and about a foot away.
If they'd seemed at all fazed, we'd have abbed off back down the slab straight away.
In reply to Howard Peel: as people wander away from established paths exercising their 'right to roam'.
Folk have been doing this for years.. All that land that is going to be 'opened', its not new.. Its just that They no longer can ask you to leave.
Those of us who are confident to strike out on our own are already doing so, and have been doing so for ages. All the popular hills are 'open' anyway, you know the big 'sexy' hills like Snowdon, Cadair etc... There will never be a 20m scar on most Mid Wales puddings. Folk will do these hills once/ twice in a lifetime, yet visit , say, Tryfan 20 or more times - busy hills are busy because of repeat visits.
There is also the "sheep" problem. The Munros are getting scarred, but usually only along the routes shown in th SMC guidebook. Most people like their guide book routes and are reluctant to deviate. Rough ground, the Great Game Keeper, will do the rest.
Folk have been doing this for years.. All that land that is going to be 'opened', its not new.. Its just that They no longer can ask you to leave.
Those of us who are confident to strike out on our own are already doing so, and have been doing so for ages. All the popular hills are 'open' anyway, you know the big 'sexy' hills like Snowdon, Cadair etc... There will never be a 20m scar on most Mid Wales puddings. Folk will do these hills once/ twice in a lifetime, yet visit , say, Tryfan 20 or more times - busy hills are busy because of repeat visits.
There is also the "sheep" problem. The Munros are getting scarred, but usually only along the routes shown in th SMC guidebook. Most people like their guide book routes and are reluctant to deviate. Rough ground, the Great Game Keeper, will do the rest.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Have to agree with you here. However, I still don't think it is really fair for people to argue that all cyclists should be excluded because of the actions of an 'irresponsible minority'. After all cyclists have to put up with an 'irresponsible minority' of car drivers and over 150 cyclists die after being hit by a car each year but this does not seem to be held to justify banning cars from the road. (Much the same applies to pedestrians of course with over 40 being killed each year by cars whilst walking on the pavement and another 90 or so being run down and killed whilst using a pedestrian crossing).
It is true what you say about the image of 'mountain biking' portrayed in the magazines. I think most of them are bought by 12 year olds who never even venture off road... Almost every off-road cyclist I have come across is of the sensible cross country type. However, more extreme elements do exist.
The development of downhilling has caused problems, especially when full-on downhill bikes are used along with full face helmets and body armour. I became involved in the campaign to keep the Snowdon bridleways open for cyclists after some locals, especially the guy who organises the Snowdon running race, (very eco-friendly!) were upset by a local downhill group using Snowdon. Naturally enough this group believed that what they did was fine (as they kept to the voluntary access agreement, slowed down for walkers and so on) and even saw my suggestion that they remove language describing how fast they could get down Snowdon from the Pete's Eats website as being unacceptable.
Ultimately, a large part of the problem is that as cyclists are in a minority in any case people can't be bothered to see all the differences that exist between cyclists. As a recent Transport Research Laboratory paper points out all cyclists are seen to form part of an undifferentiated 'out group' which is variously labelled with tags such as 'lycra lout', 'two wheeled terrorist', 'eco crank' or eccentric wierdo'.
I am coming to the conclusion that only 2 things count in society, being in the majority or having power (and the 2 are not unrelated). Cyclists are in a minority and stand as a challenge to the established social norm, ergo they will be shat upon. Further, appeals to fairness mean little in the face of self interest on the part of a more powerful body.
Converesly, if one is in the majority, one is in the right. Consider driving standards. A driver who attempts to overtake a cyclist too closely and kills them is likely to only be charged with driving without due care, get a £100 fine and be allowed to keep their licence. They will not be charged with causing death by dangerous driving as their actions did not drop well below the standards of the average driver. Objectively their actions were dangerous but as most drivers act in this way it is deemed in law not to constitute dangerous driving...
Another good example of the way these double standards operates relates to a recent thread on here. It was suggested that 'Tour de France wannabees' were 'dangerous' because they train in groups and drivers sometimes cannot just blast past them without bothering to slow down. Just imagine a downhill mountain biker trying to claim that a group of walkers were 'dangerous' because they had to slow down before they could pass them. Here (quite rightly though) it is the cyclist as the faster moving overtaking party that would be held to pose the danger.
Crazy world, huh?
Have to agree with you here. However, I still don't think it is really fair for people to argue that all cyclists should be excluded because of the actions of an 'irresponsible minority'. After all cyclists have to put up with an 'irresponsible minority' of car drivers and over 150 cyclists die after being hit by a car each year but this does not seem to be held to justify banning cars from the road. (Much the same applies to pedestrians of course with over 40 being killed each year by cars whilst walking on the pavement and another 90 or so being run down and killed whilst using a pedestrian crossing).
It is true what you say about the image of 'mountain biking' portrayed in the magazines. I think most of them are bought by 12 year olds who never even venture off road... Almost every off-road cyclist I have come across is of the sensible cross country type. However, more extreme elements do exist.
The development of downhilling has caused problems, especially when full-on downhill bikes are used along with full face helmets and body armour. I became involved in the campaign to keep the Snowdon bridleways open for cyclists after some locals, especially the guy who organises the Snowdon running race, (very eco-friendly!) were upset by a local downhill group using Snowdon. Naturally enough this group believed that what they did was fine (as they kept to the voluntary access agreement, slowed down for walkers and so on) and even saw my suggestion that they remove language describing how fast they could get down Snowdon from the Pete's Eats website as being unacceptable.
Ultimately, a large part of the problem is that as cyclists are in a minority in any case people can't be bothered to see all the differences that exist between cyclists. As a recent Transport Research Laboratory paper points out all cyclists are seen to form part of an undifferentiated 'out group' which is variously labelled with tags such as 'lycra lout', 'two wheeled terrorist', 'eco crank' or eccentric wierdo'.
I am coming to the conclusion that only 2 things count in society, being in the majority or having power (and the 2 are not unrelated). Cyclists are in a minority and stand as a challenge to the established social norm, ergo they will be shat upon. Further, appeals to fairness mean little in the face of self interest on the part of a more powerful body.
Converesly, if one is in the majority, one is in the right. Consider driving standards. A driver who attempts to overtake a cyclist too closely and kills them is likely to only be charged with driving without due care, get a £100 fine and be allowed to keep their licence. They will not be charged with causing death by dangerous driving as their actions did not drop well below the standards of the average driver. Objectively their actions were dangerous but as most drivers act in this way it is deemed in law not to constitute dangerous driving...
Another good example of the way these double standards operates relates to a recent thread on here. It was suggested that 'Tour de France wannabees' were 'dangerous' because they train in groups and drivers sometimes cannot just blast past them without bothering to slow down. Just imagine a downhill mountain biker trying to claim that a group of walkers were 'dangerous' because they had to slow down before they could pass them. Here (quite rightly though) it is the cyclist as the faster moving overtaking party that would be held to pose the danger.
Crazy world, huh?
In reply to Rob Naylor: Probably Jackdaws.. They are very tolerant to disturbance, they have a fondness for domestic chimneys. If they were choughs, the crag would be closed.. ..
In reply to Anonymous: Sorry - did not mean to be Anon..
That were my rant..
That were my rant..
In reply to Anonymous:
Much sense in what you say, especially in areas that already have access agreements. However, the guy I talked to gave the impression that his group was determined to make the most of the new 'right to roam' by forcing new paths wherever they could, especially on land previously denied to them. He said some of his walking chums were opposed on principle to using any path that had had erosion management work done on it. I guess it all depends on how popular such new paths become and whether they link interesting features and sites.
As you say people are often sheep like but this also means they will stick to paths they know no one will hassle them on. I have certainly been hassled by farmers in Snowdonia for straying away from established paths (on foot). I suspect that once this threat is removed people will feel confident to use paths that follow obvious desire lines but to date have been little used.
Cyclists are no exception to this, all one can think about if using a 'non-legal' shortcut is whether or not one will be hassled for it!
Much sense in what you say, especially in areas that already have access agreements. However, the guy I talked to gave the impression that his group was determined to make the most of the new 'right to roam' by forcing new paths wherever they could, especially on land previously denied to them. He said some of his walking chums were opposed on principle to using any path that had had erosion management work done on it. I guess it all depends on how popular such new paths become and whether they link interesting features and sites.
As you say people are often sheep like but this also means they will stick to paths they know no one will hassle them on. I have certainly been hassled by farmers in Snowdonia for straying away from established paths (on foot). I suspect that once this threat is removed people will feel confident to use paths that follow obvious desire lines but to date have been little used.
Cyclists are no exception to this, all one can think about if using a 'non-legal' shortcut is whether or not one will be hassled for it!
In reply to Chris the Tall: They haven't put signs on the top of the edge, how long till someone uses the descent gully at the side of the rusty wall area and tramps right through that area? you can't read the signs from the back.
Update on Ring Ouzels
The pair of Ring Ouzels on Mississippi Buttress have 5 chicks, which are doing well, please avoid this area until June 9th when the chicks should have fledged. Signs on site will indicate if the chicks have feldged early.
It is thought that the eggs in the nest in the Trinity area will hatch sometime next week - more updates to follow. The feeding of the chicks is a crucial time and you may be asked by signs on site to avoid an area of bilberry etc... below the nest to allow the birds to feed easily.
The pair of Ring Ouzels on Mississippi Buttress have 5 chicks, which are doing well, please avoid this area until June 9th when the chicks should have fledged. Signs on site will indicate if the chicks have feldged early.
It is thought that the eggs in the nest in the Trinity area will hatch sometime next week - more updates to follow. The feeding of the chicks is a crucial time and you may be asked by signs on site to avoid an area of bilberry etc... below the nest to allow the birds to feed easily.
In reply to mich:
If they nest on the ground why are we banned from climbing?
> (In reply to Howard Peel)
>
> They nest on the ground, so bird boxes may not be a sensible suggestion at all!
>
> They nest on the ground, so bird boxes may not be a sensible suggestion at all!
If they nest on the ground why are we banned from climbing?
In reply to Al Evans:
probably because they are very close to the crag and your presence would deter the parent from returning to feed them.
probably because they are very close to the crag and your presence would deter the parent from returning to feed them.
In reply to Clare Bond: Many thanks for the update Clare.
Have you thought about registering as a user on the site? It's very easy you know!
Cheers
Have you thought about registering as a user on the site? It's very easy you know!
Cheers
In reply to Chris the Tall: Right this is my tupence worth.
Stanage is not an outdoor climbing wall it is an important part of a sensitive environment. An environment in to which we are visitors and need to act as such. Stanage is bloody massives and a buttress closed here and there, now and again is a tiny price to pay.
P.S Someone in the know told me that only local climbers infringe any bans and that visitors are much better behaved.
Any comments Shefield people?
Stanage is not an outdoor climbing wall it is an important part of a sensitive environment. An environment in to which we are visitors and need to act as such. Stanage is bloody massives and a buttress closed here and there, now and again is a tiny price to pay.
P.S Someone in the know told me that only local climbers infringe any bans and that visitors are much better behaved.
Any comments Shefield people?
In reply to Neil B:
OK, since I started the thread, I'll take the bait on this one. Terms like "Someone in the know", "sources close to...", "an insider" just means someone who wants to remain anonymous with an axe to grind - in this case it probably a dislike of certain people in Sheffield.
But think about it, who is more likely to breach the ban - someone who have driven 10 minutes to a crag they visit 20 times a year and who has done the routes many times before, or someone who has driven up from London for a visit to the famous Stanage Edge, clutching his guidebook with a list of 3 star classics they want to do.
> P.S Someone in the know told me that only local climbers infringe any bans and that visitors are much better behaved.
> Any comments Shefield people?
> Any comments Shefield people?
OK, since I started the thread, I'll take the bait on this one. Terms like "Someone in the know", "sources close to...", "an insider" just means someone who wants to remain anonymous with an axe to grind - in this case it probably a dislike of certain people in Sheffield.
But think about it, who is more likely to breach the ban - someone who have driven 10 minutes to a crag they visit 20 times a year and who has done the routes many times before, or someone who has driven up from London for a visit to the famous Stanage Edge, clutching his guidebook with a list of 3 star classics they want to do.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Probably the local cos they think they know best and have been climbing there for years.
In reply to Chris the Tall: Well taken bait, actually the person in the know (yes I know it's a duff phrase), works for an organistion involved and told me off the record as it where. As far as I know they have no axe to grind but where just telling me their experiences.
The point was when they had approached people violating restrictions they have been locals every time.
Your point about locals being more frequent uses so more likly to go astray is a good point.
But is it just human nature to take for granted what's on your doorstep?
The point was when they had approached people violating restrictions they have been locals every time.
Your point about locals being more frequent uses so more likly to go astray is a good point.
But is it just human nature to take for granted what's on your doorstep?
Thank you to all climbers!!
Thanks to your co-operation in avoiding Mississippi Buttress, 5 Ring Ouzel chicks have successfully fledged today. The request to avoid the area has therefore been relaxed early. They are still feeding in the area but are now mobile, so less vulnerable to disturbance but please remember to keep your dog on a lead.
Also, chicks hatched on the Trinity Wall nest on 4th June. Please continue to avoid the area between Hollybush Crack and Hargreaves’ Original Route during this vital feeding stage, until 23rd June.
Your great efforts are very much appreciated and you are helping to prove that the voluntary approach can work.
Thanks
Matthew
(PS I am the Stanage/North Lees Estate Manager for the Peak District National Park Authority).
Thanks to your co-operation in avoiding Mississippi Buttress, 5 Ring Ouzel chicks have successfully fledged today. The request to avoid the area has therefore been relaxed early. They are still feeding in the area but are now mobile, so less vulnerable to disturbance but please remember to keep your dog on a lead.
Also, chicks hatched on the Trinity Wall nest on 4th June. Please continue to avoid the area between Hollybush Crack and Hargreaves’ Original Route during this vital feeding stage, until 23rd June.
Your great efforts are very much appreciated and you are helping to prove that the voluntary approach can work.
Thanks
Matthew
(PS I am the Stanage/North Lees Estate Manager for the Peak District National Park Authority).
In reply to Howard Peel:
For a study of the ecological impact climbing has on a cliff environment see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020402072635.htm
Just a thought on this, having seen it before - so cliffs with climbing have less vegetation, may well mean that climbers prefer cliffs with less vegetation, rather than climbers remove vegetation - bit of a poor bit of science IMHO.
For a study of the ecological impact climbing has on a cliff environment see
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020402072635.htm
Just a thought on this, having seen it before - so cliffs with climbing have less vegetation, may well mean that climbers prefer cliffs with less vegetation, rather than climbers remove vegetation - bit of a poor bit of science IMHO.
In reply to everyone:
Great thread. Reasoned argument, (on the whole) and no stupid bravado as we have suffered in the past. Just a couple of points. The thread admirably demonstrates the problem. No one really knows what has caused the decline in R O numbers. Shooting on the continent? Climatic change? Dogs? i think I'm right in saying that more R O's nested the year after F and M than did during! Figure that one out. Henry Folkard, the local access rep is now something of an expert on the subject and points out that RO have declined where there has been no human interference. Let's say that we all have a part to play and I heartily support the climbing bans as they stand. We can give up a route in the short term. Thats a small price to pay for ensuring diversity. But Don't Forget!! Go to the BMC Peak Area Meeting at the Whillans Hut on Thursday evening and have your say. Local Access Officers would like to hear your opionions, even if you just reckon they're doing fine. See you there?
Great thread. Reasoned argument, (on the whole) and no stupid bravado as we have suffered in the past. Just a couple of points. The thread admirably demonstrates the problem. No one really knows what has caused the decline in R O numbers. Shooting on the continent? Climatic change? Dogs? i think I'm right in saying that more R O's nested the year after F and M than did during! Figure that one out. Henry Folkard, the local access rep is now something of an expert on the subject and points out that RO have declined where there has been no human interference. Let's say that we all have a part to play and I heartily support the climbing bans as they stand. We can give up a route in the short term. Thats a small price to pay for ensuring diversity. But Don't Forget!! Go to the BMC Peak Area Meeting at the Whillans Hut on Thursday evening and have your say. Local Access Officers would like to hear your opionions, even if you just reckon they're doing fine. See you there?
As info:
The birds on Trinity Wall successfully fledge yesterday morning, so the restrictions on the area between Hollybush Crack and Black Slab have been lifted.
The area around Twin Chimneys Buttress is still restricted - signs and ropes in the area make this clear..
If you are climbing at the popular end you may be lucky enough to either see or hear the birds that have been nesting on Trinity Wall looking after their young in the undergrowth between the crag and the road. Ring Ouzels are Go!
The birds on Trinity Wall successfully fledge yesterday morning, so the restrictions on the area between Hollybush Crack and Black Slab have been lifted.
The area around Twin Chimneys Buttress is still restricted - signs and ropes in the area make this clear..
If you are climbing at the popular end you may be lucky enough to either see or hear the birds that have been nesting on Trinity Wall looking after their young in the undergrowth between the crag and the road. Ring Ouzels are Go!
In reply to Anonymous:
Thanks for the update. Who are you and how do you know?
Thanks for the update. Who are you and how do you know?
Just to confirm the current situation:
The restriction in the Trinity Wall area has been lifted early.
There is one remaining restriction in the Twin Chimmneys area.
Thanks for the support and the debate. If you have strong feelings about the restrictions on Stanage, either positive or negative, come along to the Whillians Hut at the Roaches on Thurs 8:15pm and let the BMC know your thoughts. If we know your thoughts we can represent them.
Clare
BMC Access and Conservation Officer
The restriction in the Trinity Wall area has been lifted early.
There is one remaining restriction in the Twin Chimmneys area.
Thanks for the support and the debate. If you have strong feelings about the restrictions on Stanage, either positive or negative, come along to the Whillians Hut at the Roaches on Thurs 8:15pm and let the BMC know your thoughts. If we know your thoughts we can represent them.
Clare
BMC Access and Conservation Officer
In reply to Michael Hunt:
Just another climber ...
... who happened to be out at Stanage last night when the restriction signs etc were being taken down by the folk in charge.
> Who are you
Just another climber ...
> and how do you know?
... who happened to be out at Stanage last night when the restriction signs etc were being taken down by the folk in charge.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Saw Bill Gordon this mornign and he is pleased at the response he's had from climbers during the RO nesting season. Somebody even had a go at Flo when she tried to take down the tapes "Oi, look out for the Ring Ouzels!"
Nice one everyone.
Saw Bill Gordon this mornign and he is pleased at the response he's had from climbers during the RO nesting season. Somebody even had a go at Flo when she tried to take down the tapes "Oi, look out for the Ring Ouzels!"
Nice one everyone.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I was up on Stanage last night and the signs have been updated not only with the current restriction (just Twin chimney butress - Mississippi and Trinity are now clear), but also the progress of the nests.
Just wanted to say how impressed I've been by the quality of information both at the crag and on this forum - clear signposting, keeping people informed and ensuring the information is up-to-date is essential in ensuring the success of the restrictions and avoiding too much frustration.
I was up on Stanage last night and the signs have been updated not only with the current restriction (just Twin chimney butress - Mississippi and Trinity are now clear), but also the progress of the nests.
Just wanted to say how impressed I've been by the quality of information both at the crag and on this forum - clear signposting, keeping people informed and ensuring the information is up-to-date is essential in ensuring the success of the restrictions and avoiding too much frustration.
In reply to Neil B:
I'm now aware of what (or whom) your source is referring to, and accept they have a valid point
Obviously this is not an apology from me for doubting you, just a clarification :O)
> P.S Someone in the know told me that only local climbers infringe any bans and that visitors are much better behaved.
I'm now aware of what (or whom) your source is referring to, and accept they have a valid point
Obviously this is not an apology from me for doubting you, just a clarification :O)
In reply to Chris the Tall: About 3 weeks back my mate thought he was climbing just beyond the restricted zone. Two thirds of his way up the route his climb ground to an inpromptu halt as he was verbally assaulted by a very angry Mr Angry - silently supported by one of the Rangers - telling him he was 2 metres inside the restriction. Recognising deep stress, he duly kept quiet as a spleen was vented. Then, as the words petered out, his belayer quietly asked if shouting would disturb the Ouzels: "of course...." continued the rant. When this subsided the belayer continued in soft tones, "don't you think you might be disturbing them now?". Appoplexy followed.
That following weekend I walked along the top at Stanage, and was surprised to find no notices or warnings to keep back so as not to disturb the birds. Can they only be disturbed from below? Isn't it probable that they would see humans and dogs stood on the edge as predators. Ditto for parascenders.
That following weekend I walked along the top at Stanage, and was surprised to find no notices or warnings to keep back so as not to disturb the birds. Can they only be disturbed from below? Isn't it probable that they would see humans and dogs stood on the edge as predators. Ditto for parascenders.
In reply to DaveP:
They'd have to be awfully dim birds not to understand that people climbing up towards their nest are far more threat than people/dogs looking over the crag top. Haven't you ever noticed how birds are very much braver when they know they're out of reach....... on water, for example?
And whilst I take your point about the shouting, are you surprised that whoever it was was angry? That's all our climbing rights your mate was jepeordising, even if it was an unwitting mistake.
They'd have to be awfully dim birds not to understand that people climbing up towards their nest are far more threat than people/dogs looking over the crag top. Haven't you ever noticed how birds are very much braver when they know they're out of reach....... on water, for example?
And whilst I take your point about the shouting, are you surprised that whoever it was was angry? That's all our climbing rights your mate was jepeordising, even if it was an unwitting mistake.
In reply to gingerkate:
Since the guy was climbing outside the cordoned off area then I'm very surprised, and even more surprised that he gave vent to his anger in such a potentially damaging (to the birds) way.
> are you surprised that whoever it was was angry?
Since the guy was climbing outside the cordoned off area then I'm very surprised, and even more surprised that he gave vent to his anger in such a potentially damaging (to the birds) way.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
I thought he was climbing inside the banned area?
But somehow 'hadn't realised' that???
I thought he was climbing inside the banned area?
But somehow 'hadn't realised' that???
In reply to gingerkate: Yes, I fully understand your point, and did feel that he should have known better, but the rant did nothing to encourage a sense of responsibility in my friend. Indeed, it very much did the reverse, built walls not bridges. Last time up, at Millstone, we were observing the behaviour of crows(?) feeding their young, and saw clearly how they tried to draw us away from the nest area as we walked below, and were not a threat to them. We made a point of keeping our distance, to minimise distress.
I missed off the end of the tale, where, from his stance up on the crag, could see someone approaching from the car-park, walk past the remonstration straight to the middle of the excluded zone, and prepared to climb. The angry twitcher found a more deserving ear.
I missed off the end of the tale, where, from his stance up on the crag, could see someone approaching from the car-park, walk past the remonstration straight to the middle of the excluded zone, and prepared to climb. The angry twitcher found a more deserving ear.
In reply to DaveP:
Aye, I see where you're coming from. Ranting at people rarely achieves anything good.
Aye, I see where you're coming from. Ranting at people rarely achieves anything good.
In reply to gingerkate:
Possibly - though I'm not sure how he couldn't realise that!
> I thought he was climbing inside the banned area?
Possibly - though I'm not sure how he couldn't realise that!
In reply to DaveP:
Which route was your mate on ? It's possible Mr Angry wasn't aware of the route names and was working on a distance of 50m (though his behaviour still seems ridiculous and your mates probably did the right thing in not enraging him further)
There was some discussion on Thursday night about how extensive the restriction zone should be. I think the standards are along the following lines:
Peregrine Falcon - whole crag because of their special protected status
Ring Ouzels - buttress
Ravens - route, plus adjacent routes if close by, because they are exactly endangered.
I think the Trintity zone covered far more than usual simply because of Henry's abscence at the time and the signs were already in place.
It should be remembered that were are dealing with people who would like to see climbing banned on Stanage altogether, and that the arbitration is being done by a body with just that power (English Nature). Avoiding confrontation is the sensible approach
Which route was your mate on ? It's possible Mr Angry wasn't aware of the route names and was working on a distance of 50m (though his behaviour still seems ridiculous and your mates probably did the right thing in not enraging him further)
There was some discussion on Thursday night about how extensive the restriction zone should be. I think the standards are along the following lines:
Peregrine Falcon - whole crag because of their special protected status
Ring Ouzels - buttress
Ravens - route, plus adjacent routes if close by, because they are exactly endangered.
I think the Trintity zone covered far more than usual simply because of Henry's abscence at the time and the signs were already in place.
It should be remembered that were are dealing with people who would like to see climbing banned on Stanage altogether, and that the arbitration is being done by a body with just that power (English Nature). Avoiding confrontation is the sensible approach
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Yeah, hence my use of inverted commas......... I was sort of thinking the guy probably knew really he was pushing it, as otherwise it all seems a little extraordinary? I mean, the ranger wouldn't back up (albeit silently!) someone with no grounds at all for complaint, would they?
Yeah, hence my use of inverted commas......... I was sort of thinking the guy probably knew really he was pushing it, as otherwise it all seems a little extraordinary? I mean, the ranger wouldn't back up (albeit silently!) someone with no grounds at all for complaint, would they?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...