BGR - groups supporters etc

There seems to be even more interest in the BGR this year! For the sake of the round is it worth limiting recces (and numbers of supporters) so that the route recovers and perhaps ultimately reverts back to something of a nav challenge? I would have thought that one proper recce per leg and then a pacer per leg on the attempt ought to be enough? I know that ultimately people will do whatever they want to do but am interested to know if anyone else has avoided trapesing loads of people around because don't want to contribute to the trods?

Jules.

It's an age old debate (but that's no reason to not raise it!). The BG is a model of simplicity, with just two rules to abide by. It might be tempting to add more re levels of support but it has the feeling of being a slippery slope into a paternalistic and impractical mess. Still, that doesn't solve te problem so it might be worth establishing a set of principles which we as a club advocate but people can achieve a round whether they choose to stick to them or not. Those principles would include one relating to minimising strain on the route but could also include safety and consideration.

Rules tend not to allow choice and people try to bend them. Principles remove the 'burden' of enforcement and ratification but work well when deployed to right thinking, intelligent people, the likes of which make up a large proportion of the fellrunning community. Apart from the Welsh obviously. :)

This feels like approach already taken in essence when one reads the guidelines at the top of this part of the forum (the 'Sticky'). But listing the two rules and a handful of principles might be a useful way of addressing this issue in a realistic and non-rule based way.

The route really is cutting up. The difference since 2007 when I went round is really noticeable on Calva, Clough Head, Steel Fell, Bowfell, Yewbarrow, Black Crag (nr Pillar) to name the ones the jump to mind. it is remarkable and 90%+ down to the BG. Now one might argue that wainwright has had a more dramatic effect on the lakes but so what? The fact is there is a problem to solve and the first job is perhaps to take responsibly for it as a 'sport' or whatever we want to call ourselves.


Has the BG club got a view on this?

Agree with all that Mark. These trods will continue to develop further unless contenders think about the consequences of huge amounts of recceing and the amount of 'help' on their rounds. I'm all for sociable running but the Bob Graham is a pretty fragile thing and it's not just the ground that's getting eroded but the task itself is changing. If contenders this year don't think about this and do something about it, by 2015 say I'm afraid that we might be left with a substantially different Bob Graham Round.

It does get discussed and both Morgan and I have posted on these forums about it.

These days most people attempt the round clockwise, back in the 1980s when the last surge in attempts and successes took place more attempted the round in an anti-clockwise direction. Why does this matter: well the most delicate ground on the round is that in the back o' Skiddaw so more people trying the round now means that the softer ground, which is the very type that doesn't handle high traffic, is getting lots of footfall. When I did my round in 2005, the "path" down from the fence on Skiddaw over Hare Crag was very faint and you needed to be accurate with your navigation to avoid bashing through heather. The last time I went over that section was two years ago on DT's first attempt and the path was obvious from the fence line and lower down was wide enough for two to run side by side. Sit on Great Calva on a clear day and you can see the path from Skiddaw all the way to the skyline.

The short section of "path" at the end of the drop off Seat Sandal was obvious in early season ten years ago but will have become more so over the years - last time I went over Dunmail you had trouble seeing the road so I didn't notice what it was actually like. Steel Fell now has steps in the grass where previously there were none. There are options here though and contenders/helpers could take a slightly different line than the one seen on the ground.

There is no way to police attempts (and the club has no desire to) short of offering advice and guidance. Whether contenders accept that advice is up to them. Personally I don't like to see large groups of helpers on the fells, to me it takes something away from the spirit of the challenge. I had 1 pacer on leg 1; 2 on leg 2; 1 on leg 3 (plus one guy from Esk Pike to Mickledore); 2 on leg 4 and 1 on the fell section of leg 5 (same guy as did leg 1). The club's recommendation is that night sections have a minimum of 2 pacers/helpers for safety reasons, other than that you need one person in attendance to act as witness for ratification purposes and this person can be any of the helpers not in addition to them.

Recces: once you've been over the route a couple of times, you should know it reasonably well and should only need to head back to check out small sections for which the sensitive paths can be avoided. You certainly don't need to use the actual route for training and it might be better mentally if you don't as you then don't get bored with the route.

The guidance notes have grown quite a bit as it is in the last few years, whether they should have any additional material is open to question. Also whether anyone does in fact read them is doubtful as I got an email recently saying that the link to the notes on the website didn't work - it had been like that for at least six months and presumably no-one had been interested enough to let me know :closed:

If anyone's any ideas that might be practical then we'd certainly like to hear them.

Thanks for posting that Bob - highlighted a few good points for contenders this year. Avoiding using the route for training is especially important; much better to get those hilly miles in the legs on terrain that's less vulnerable. It was walking on Great Calva and Steel Fell recently that made me think how obvious the BG route has become in places.

The idea that club members who have had support go back and support others is one of the great things about the BGR and after doing my round in 2011 I'm going back in a couple of weeks time to support my first round. Likely to be one supporter per leg and I think a couple of us are doing more than one leg. Really looking forward to helping out without having to run the whole thing!

Would be great if contenders this year gave the route a bit of a rest so that the trods can recover a bit.

Jules.

I have never understood the need for large amounts of support, pacers, ,sherpa`s and all the rest of the stuff that seems to be necessary for one or two folk to claim a successful 24 hrs or less on the hills.

Why for e.g. can`t say three or 4 aspiring BG rounders get there heads together pool there experience, place some food/Supply stashes the day before an attempt and then get out and do it, that way the summits are verified by all in the group and the safety issues are also covered.

Then if the whole group succeed then that has lessened the impact on the route by three further individual attempts and there posse.

Based on my own experiences in the hills, my true passion is Solo, however I find a small (2 maybe 3 at a push )in a group working towards the same goal can be a great and immensely satisfying experience especially when logistics are kept to a minimum as the saying go`s two`s company any more is a crowd.

Just my view and not looking for and argument,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

If anyone's any ideas that might be practical then we'd certainly like to hear them.

---

It is a very real problem, and any solution would have to be radical, which would cause much consternation with anyone concerned with the BGR.

Approach the National Parks authority for help repairing the path in the Hare Crag area, i'm thinking them duck board things over the boggy ground would be good for this area. I can hear people pouring scorn over 'sanitizing' the round.

More drastically, the BGR club, could stop accepting succsesful contenders for a period of 5 years or something, straight away the terrain back o skiddaw would start to recover as no-one would ever dream of running there without the BGR

Encourage contenders to use alternative descent route to Skiddaw House, over Sale How ( give contenders 30minutes grace for using alternative route ), obviously this may create another problem area / new trod. But it doesn't have to be a permanet change, just few years until this area recovers.

People might say the area out the back of Skiddaw is of very little natural value anyway, so what if an extra trod has been developed, the whole of our sport makes use of such trods in every race and every training run ever ran!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob

It does get discussed and both Morgan and I have posted on these forums about it.

If anyone's any ideas that might be practical then we'd certainly like to hear them.

---

Bob is correct. The issue of overuse has been raised by both of us, not least by me recently here:

http://forum.fellrunner.org.uk/showt...408#post538408

Having had what I can only describe as embarrassing conversations with, variously, the Threlkeld Residents Association, the National Trust and Copeland Borough Council in recent years about various aspects of contender and supporter behaviour, the last thing I want is a call to enter into debate with either the NT as landowner/trustee or the National Park Authority about the route itself; but I fear the day may come sooner than I wish.

The three conversations I refer to above were about topics where the Club can try and has tried to have an effect on people's behaviour by encouraging common sense and basic manners.

But the overuse issue is more difficult to solve or even mitigate while the challenge maintains its popularity.

So, like Bob, I'd be happy to hear of thoughts for suggestions as to how we can limit the risks inherent in the current level of footfall, especially bearing in mind the recent weather which is compounding the problems in the sensitive areas.

Morgan

I can't see a huge problem. Compared to other major environmental issues, a bit of erosion at the back of skiddaw is miniscule and if you want wilderness, don't do the BG. There are loads of footpaths in the lakes. The BG is just another 'path'. Its a honeypot and we might as well contain any damage to the honeypot as has been the policy for snowdon. There are plenty of other routes to try but very few people are interested unless its one of the major three rounds. Personally, I like trying a route with minimal or no recceing and no-one to guide you round, but thats not most runners cup of tea. I don't see why you need more than one person to accompany you on each leg. The logistics are horrible with large teams and it loses all spontaneity, but that's the way it is. Its up to each person how they want to do it as long as they don't make a nuisance of themselves with noise in the middle of the night, etc. Not for me, but each to his own.

What's the impact of the trod/path out the back o' Skiddaw? Not a flippant question; I'm genuinely not clear on what its negative environmental impact is. To my mind that's the only really significant track caused by the round, and even then only in the lower sections across the wetter sections of ground. Yeah, you can see the thin trod heading up to the Skiddaw summit ridge, but it's hardly an eyesore. Also, maybe half-way down there's a little trod breaking off to the left which I'm pretty sure isn't related to the round (bad route choice if it is!). If this is the case, then at least some of the footfall higher up must come from other 'users' taking the trod down from the fence before heading left.

The trod off Seat Sandal and up Steel Fell is pretty minimal really. I guess higher up on Steel Fell it's getting a bit loose, but, unless I'm missing something, I don't see what the big problem is. The Seat Sandal trod, like the ones up to Rossett Pike and under Black Crag on Pillar, is used by walkers as well BG aspirants. Isn't this just the way it goes? People use the hills and paths/trods develop.

It would seem sensible for the club to ask all contenders to be mindful of their impact on the environment, but against the background of general use the Lakeland hills experience I reckon it amounts to very little.

For what it's worth, if the club did want to actively encourage less footfall on the route, I think advocating minimal recces would be far more beneficial than smaller scale attempts. On the day, there ain't much difference between two/three/four pairs of feet, but the same lines being recced over and over again probably does account for the majority of BG impact on trods and paths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jules B

There seems to be even more interest in the BGR this year! For the sake of the round is it worth limiting recces (and numbers of supporters) so that the route recovers and perhaps ultimately reverts back to something of a nav challenge? I would have thought that one proper recce per leg and then a pacer per leg on the attempt ought to be enough? I know that ultimately people will do whatever they want to do but am interested to know if anyone else has avoided trapesing loads of people around because don't want to contribute to the trods?

Jules.

---

I mainly disagree with you :).

The problem with one pacer per leg is if that pacer gets injured the attempt is over - given the amount of effort you have to put in, to have a BG fail because of a helpers injury would be daft. I'm co-running with a co-bob graham attemptee this year, which helps things in that we could at a push confirm each others arrival at the summits and, for sure, we're only taking a couple of pacers to accompany us - we are wary of trudging round with a huge crew. So anyway most attempts sensibly need a couple of pacers.

As for one recce per leg being sufficient? Well that depends on so many things, the weather especially. Equally though route choice and just experiencing the terrain is another. For sure there's a heck of a lot of terrain to remember and, okay, you could do the round almost as a train being driven round by people who know each leg back front and sideways but thats not what I want to do - I want to know it all myself. And I enjoy piecing it all together.

On the erosion front, having just run Threlkeld to Keswick yesterday (our intended leg 5) the erosion is all centralised in one area and although the ground is pretty boggy, given the massive acreage of pretty much untrod on wilds all around you, in the scheme of things its limited damage and at the same time keeping that damage concentrated and very localised. To assume that BG attemptees and recces are causing damage surely has to be taken in the round of things - on any given day the Lake District there is a big number of walkers out in the hills, its a key attraction of the place, a big employer and most of the people out in it have an endearing love and respect for the area - the number out doing their BG business is extremely small in comparison.

Finally a very large part of the route is over well used paths or trods or, conversely, over no trods at all and as such is not actually changing anything one way or the other.

All the same having an ounce of common sense and a big respect for the Lake District and everything about it is a given surely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hank

What's the impact of the trod/path out the back o' Skiddaw? Not a flippant question; I'm genuinely not clear on what its negative environmental impact is. To my mind that's the only really significant track caused by the round, and even then only in the lower sections across the wetter sections of ground. Yeah, you can see the thin trod heading up to the Skiddaw summit ridge, but it's hardly an eyesore. Also, maybe half-way down there's a little trod breaking off to the left which I'm pretty sure isn't related to the round (bad route choice if it is!). If this is the case, then at least some of the footfall higher up must come from other 'users' taking the trod down from the fence before heading left.

The trod off Seat Sandal and up Steel Fell is pretty minimal really. I guess higher up on Steel Fell it's getting a bit loose, but, unless I'm missing something, I don't see what the big problem is. The Seat Sandal trod, like the ones up to Rossett Pike and under Black Crag on Pillar, is used by walkers as well BG aspirants. Isn't this just the way it goes? People use the hills and paths/trods develop.

It would seem sensible for the club to ask all contenders to be mindful of their impact on the environment, but against the background of general use the Lakeland hills experience I reckon it amounts to very little.

For what it's worth, if the club did want to actively encourage less footfall on the route, I think advocating minimal recces would be far more beneficial than smaller scale attempts. On the day, there ain't much difference between two/three/four pairs of feet, but the same lines being recced over and over again probably does account for the majority of BG impact on trods and paths.

---

Well said :)

To some extent, everyone is right in this debate. On an individual scale each of us has little to no discernible impact on the ground taken by the BGR but en-masse (and by that I mean each successive year's attempts) we are creating an impact.

If you've registered in the last year or so then you'll know that the confirmation email contains a précis of the guidance notes (it's roughly aligned with the indicated start time and schedule), typically it looks like this:

Thank you for registering your attempt on the Bob Graham Round. The registration is good for the rest of the year so if your attempt is postponed due to weather or other reasons then there is no need to re-register.

Please take time to read through the Guidance notes here: http://www.bobgrahamclub.org.uk/asse...s-may-2012.pdf In addition the following points apply to your intended schedule:

The Threlkeld changeover is close to peoples' homes so please keep the noise to a minimum. In addition the pack of hounds at the farm are likely to begin barking as you pass.

There is a fee payable for using the National Trust car park at Wasdale. BG support crews are not exempt.

===

Also, in an attempt to subtly try and limit the numbers on the fells, the ratification form has just two spaces per leg for recording the names of pacers/supporters.

Like John, I'm not a fan of big teams out on the fells but a balance does need to be struck with regards safety. Like Weetabix, two should be more than enough :D

One reason the notes on my website give the Threlkeld changeover as being down by the A66 is to avoid noise around the residential areas however increased use here might upset the cricket club whose car park is so very handy :o Certainly there's no need for any shouting or hollering at the changeover at the top of the road.

I don't think the "rules" need to be any more onerous but all contenders and supporters should show some respect for both the round and the people who live near to the route or who have facilities used or crossed by us.

Like Bob says 'everyone is a little bit right'. I don't really think the damage is entirely the issue, certainly from my perspective. Its more the change of the challenge. When I first heard of the BG it was a massive undertaking (I guess it still is!) but for me over the last few years its lost some of its attraction just due to the line developing, the numbers of people on the route etc. Only about 3/4 years ago I recced back of Skiddaw and it was a task just to work out a good route, now its clearly seen. The same at Steel Fell/seat Sandal, many times I've stopped just to look for the lines and not been able to see them...until the last couple of years or so. Its still there, and I still want to do it, but a small part of the challenge is slipping away. Basically, the genie is out of the bag its not just a little known fell running challenge its a walkers route/trail running route, its written about in magazines and the 'net! BG Club really can't do anything but give advise. My view is that if anything is done it'll be NT/Natural England who will look for banning orders/land closures, for right or wrong!

Morgan - I hadn't seen your post on the thread about the Podcast; thanks for posting that link and I hope it will be widely read.

I just want to encourage those contenders going round this year to adopt a low impact approach and for me it's a bit of a question of putting your money where your mouth is. A lot of people pay lip service to the erosion problem but aren't actually trying to limit their obvious effects on the route. The BG club have sensibly asked people to keep the number of supporters down; if you worry about a single supporter getting injured and 'blowing your round' you worry too much. Doing circuits of the round every weekend from Christmas to June isn't doing the route any favours either; if you think you need to nail every 'line' perfectly to get round in under 24 hours, don't worry about it, you'll probably run quicker than you think on the round itself. And besides there's nothing wrong with giving the thing a sporting chance!

I agree with That_Fjell_Guy. In general I'd like to see upland areas stay as unmarked as possible but my issue isn't really the damage that might occur to the heather, mosses, peat etc. To be honest I don't know whether the environmental impact is big or small - it sounds as though the statutory bodies might be along at some point to give us the full chapter and verse - let's hope not. The damage to the BG round itself - fell running and MOUNTAINCRAFT that's in the scope of 'ordinary' fell runners - would be a real loss. You might not think it's too worn at the moment but the hordes are coming and they all read Trail Runner magazine. With the new edition of FITC coming out (and the publishers won't be shy about marketing it) it's up to individual contenders to decide what legacy they want to leave I suppose.

Jules.

As one of the new batch of hopeful attempters, I have given this thought myself, particularly as one of the persons that encouraged me to try for the BG was one of the first to do an extended round of 61 peaks 23 years ago, I wondered at the difference in navigation between now and then. In truth he spent far more time on the course back then than I am doing now; also the last couple of weeks have proven that the challenge is still a difficult one to complete. Having recced Yewbarrow for the first time this weekend I was surprised at how well-worn the trod is.

The BG is getting more popular, I guess a big part of this is the internet, it allows anybody to find what they need to know at a click of a button. People have more leisure time and greater mobility than before, it doesn’t look like this will get any less. The route is posted on walkers sites so they can walk it over a number of days. I remember 40 years ago only elite athletes ran a marathon today it seems almost everybody has run one even if it took them 7 hours. While I can’t see the BG getting that popular it will get bigger I am sure.

As for people spending time on the route, personally I try to spend as little time as I can get away with on the route, this is because it involves 3 to 4 hour round trip and that time could be better spent training on the local hills or looking after the family needs, there is the fuel to pay for as well.

The training undertaken on the route over the winter would have little effect on erosion as most of it this year there has been in snow or on frozen ground under foot. With such conditions there is little chance to see the trods let alone damage them. The erosion is quite minimal in comparison to other areas where large numbers of walkers are visiting. I guess that does not stop us from trying to do our bit.

As for the number of supporters, best practice is a group of 3, if one person gets injured one stays with the causality while the other goes for help or find a mobile phone signal. While lots of us run on the hills on our own or with one mate for the BG Club to recommend less than 2 supporters would leave them open to criticism if anything were to go wrong. Let’s not forget there have been deaths in fell running with in the last year and accidents.

Perhaps one way to limit footfall would be for the club to encourage runners that wish to attempt the BG support another’s attempt to learn the route while supporting instead of doing separate recce and supporting runs, suggest one old hand and one newbie as the ideal support team? Suggest that once you have completed your own BG that you avoid the sensitive sections of the route when training if you are local to the area.

As for want wildness? Don’t go to the lake district :confused: keep coming up the M6 to Scotland The Moffat and Galloway Hills see few runners, head over to the West Coast north of Glasgow you next to see nobody.

ATB

Tahr

Interesting thread this

Whilst noting and largely agreeing with Bob and the club re pacer numbers and reccees etc I also think that even a three day Bob Graham is a very big undertaking. Someone asked me recently how they might plan such a walk and it brought it back to me what a monumental route this is. Yes, the walkers and trail runners can come and try but they will soon get disillusioned I suspect and drift away again. I'm not sure what the latest success rate is but guess that even post FITC, post several years of hundreds of threads with all kinds of useful (and less useful) information on this here forum and still more people 'fail' than get round

One point to bear in mind is there are huge tracts of the District which receive very little if any foot traffic. We went from Cockley Beck recently over Grey Friar and Dow Crag to Coniston and back and with the exception of the Walna Scar saw hardly anyone all day. There's no need to 'train' on the BG route exclusively or even for the majority of your preparation especially the few particularly sensitive sections

I've been ticking off the Wainwrights in recent years and it's surprising just how few other walkers I've seen when out on the "lesser" tops, some days I've only met one other walker or runner. So, as Andy says, there are significant areas of the Lakes where you are not having a huge impact. As an idea about the spread of usage or visiting of tops here's a ticklist: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/logbook/set.php?id=14 (Skiddaw has twice as many visits as Skiddaw Little Man for example).

Last season's success rate was around 50% though this doesn't take in to account multiple attempts such as one failure followed by a success or where the contender didn't even set off due to injury for example. There were 136 registrations in 2012 so let's round that up to 150 attempts and make an assumption that each contender has 3 supporters per leg. This gives 600 pairs of feet following the route. I've no real idea of how many times a contender recces the route but let's say an average of three times with one partner, that's another 900 pairs of feet giving a total of 1500 individuals on the route per year or around 5 per day. So the damage to the route has been caused by just 5 people per day following it, obviously the actual usage is going to be concentrated around the weekends. Even if my figures about supporters and number of recces are wrong, they probably aren't too far out.

One way to reduce footfall, and many do this, is to offer to help on a round and use this as a recce for that section. This also has the advantages that you get to know other contenders and get some contacts for support for your own attempt at a later date. Obviously you don't want a full group of unknown abilities as your support and neither should you want to scupper an attempt because you don't know the route or aren't fit enough, etc.

But, getting back to the main point, there's lots of good routes in the Lakes that offer good training for the BGR without doing the route itself.

Totally agree Bob. As a thrice fail merchant last year and still up for it again this year, I've just totted up my BG route useage for 2012/13:

Leg 1 -> 3 recces and 2 attempts
Leg 2 -> 2 and a bit recces, I support and 3 attempts
Leg 3 -> 1 full recce, 2 half recces and 3 attempts
Leg 4 -> 1 attempt (a/c)
Leg 5 -> 1 attempt (a/c)

At least 3 of those recces were helping others who hadn't before done the route so I don't think I've overcooked things

Interesting to see how often Leg #1(CW) is recced. I know I have covered this about four or five times over the years. Compared to 3xLeg #2), 3/4xLeg #3(inc shortened runs etc), 2xLeg 4 and 2xLeg #5. Thats over about 3 or 4 years though. Skiddaw's an easy recce for me tbh, but from now on I'll leave it alone I just need to get the back of Blencathra right to 'know' it and that can be reached by other means. I think I'll start going over Steel Fell from an alternate route too and maybe avoid Seat Sandal. Focus more on the macro navigation that I'm unsure of!!