Fell running and the environment.
I have a couple of thoughts to post. I would be interested to know about other peoples thoughts. For example wind farms, walkers, mountain bikes motorbikes and cars. I think we as fell runners beat ourselves up too much about the environment.
1. Most fell races aren't oversubscribed. A lot of fell races would like to have to have more runners.
2. I reckon there are a lot of races which don't do any damage to the hills.
I disagree with 2. I still run, but accept we cause erosion.Originally Posted by Chris
I don't see what 1 has to do with the environment.
Chris rather tan type my thoughts and others all over again i have raised the old thread
Supply of Clean Air To Breath
The older I get the Faster I was
2 depends on what you consider damage really. No races have zero impact, but many will fall below a level that is generally acceptable.
chris im a little unsure of what you mean but here goes
with so many other things affecting the enviroment should we really get that uptight about our little lot running up and down the fells, directly as we run races and recce borrowdales, do BGs and generally head for the fells we damage them each time we tread upon them
i think pro rata
motorbikes
walkers
mountain bikes
horses
runners
in this order
now okay we erode paths, which get re built , sometimes not to our liking but unless you padlock a fence around the hills you cannot ever change it, race wise we can by changing routes etc etc , but like you say i think a lot of races the damage isnt that bad.
now, i think the real damage to the enviroment is done whilst travelling , take borrowdale
i will have done 2x recce runs + the race
all told about 1200miles
thats £ 180 quids worth of totals finest diesel, not sure how that effects the enviroment via pollution through the air etc etc but its not good.
then again i dont travel by air very often
as for wind farms , i dont think they should be allowed anywhere near moorland or fells, they have no impact on the enviroment only visual
Very debatable point that Daz.
I've worked on a number of research vessels which have been involved in assessing the impact of offshore windfarms on sea bird populations and other marine life. The juries still out as far as I know, but havn't looked at the studies for a while.
Anyway I do think they are a lesser of the many evils, though locations need to be carefully selected.
sorry i thought we was talking on shore
the electricity they provide is minimal anyway as there running costs are cleverly disguised
I used to live almost next door to a massive turbine in NZ, I loved it, used to run up past it most nights, you could hear it swooshing away. But that powered most of the houses in our part of town, seemed fairly efficient when it was working, but even in Windy wellington I reckopn it was only turning 25% of the time as it was often cloudy, too windy, too gusty, wrong direction, too calm etc.
ive fabricated parts for wind turbines and by there very nature they actually self destruct themselves over a few years life because of the very fact that they constantly turn with very large amounts of inertia forced upon there interior workings, the costs can be unreal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m...ixopinion.html
a little article
the true cost of windpower should include servicing AND the cost of having other generating means, ie coal, nuclear, and gas on standby just in case the wind doesnt blow
so to me i just think are they just to make the politicians look good
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote