Lakes - World Heritage ?

I'm just wondering what folks' views are regarding the bid to give the Lake District World Heritage Site status.

http://lakesworldheritage.co.uk/

Personally, I'm always rather suspicious when glossy ads and videos are used to convince me that something is a 'good thing'. But then again I'm a bit of an unreconstructed ol' git who is cautious of change (CROW exception) to somewhere I know well and love passionately. So, any thoughts or opinions to reinforce my prejudices or challenge them?

I know what this bloke thinks - he's agin it

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...george-monbiot .

But they're for it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/de...ge-bid-agreed/

Would we still be allowed to fell run freely (i.e literally no charge and day passes needed) up, down and all over the fells doing what we like, whenever we like to do it without being pestered by policing drones, or might this be frowned upon as a sacrilegious act to something so precious and delicate?

I don't entirely recognise the same level of desolation and destruction that GM describes in his piece, but I do tend to agree in principle with some of his observations and I think in large i'm against the bid. I don't think farming is always a positive for the land, but at the same time I love the link that fell running has with those who work the land, and remember fondly the time I was descending towards Grizedale Tarn in the snow, and Gavin Bland was trotting in the opposite direction with his dogs and shepherds crook, presumably doing a check of his flock. Plus of course, the atmos[phere generated at the 'show' races most of which wouldn't have developed without the farming aspect.

I would assume that the likely reality for race organisers of the WH status being granted would be a more difficult route to gain the necessary permissions.

I think GMs view isn't that far off although it often reads as click bait. Sure it's a pretty place but is it as it would be without man's industrialisation of the landscape? The level of biodiversity we see today's is a pale shadow of what it could be.

That said, it's impractical (for humans) for it to be anything other than an industrial landscape apart from a few glimmers here and there. People need to eat, live and work. What next, return Norfolk to its natural landscape? You're not going to achieve that without localised human depopulation, at least with regards to land based industries. With that in mind are we better managing and protecting what's left? Or do we bite the bullet and retreat from large swathes of land?

Its a great question and Monbiot has done his job by at least making us think.
As I've said before, the biggest vandal of the landscape is Mother nature herself so I'm not sure about the level of handwringing about human activity that goes on in some quarters.
I guess there is no hard test for whether a human manufactured landscape is worthy of 'heritage' status but for me a good soft test is whether the landscape lifts or depresses your spirit. e.g. Green fields with plentiful hedgerows and coppices of woodland versus vast prairie like fields fit for big combines? Surely the former lifts the spirit and the latter depresses it.
For a very large number of people the landscape of the lakes is uplifting even if it is manufactured. Perhaps this is the only test that matters?