United Utilities land access

New pronouncement from the marbled halls of UU Rivington that may affect local races.

As you may be aware United Utilities have been reviewing their permissions for use system following recent changes in land management. This primarily relates to investment in the area through SCaMP II to protect and manage the area for water quality, tenant farmers, wildlife and recreation and also Natural England’s involvement now that many farms have joined the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme. Part of this scheme means that activities that could potentially cause damage to the land, especially at sensitive times of year such as ground nesting bird season (Mar – Sept) cannot be permitted. The Company is now limiting the number of moorland events per organization to two per year, these need to be between October and February. As such some events have already been affected and needed to alter routes etc.; if your event is on a Public Right of Way it should not be so restricted at present.

In our attempt to ensure the number of events do not have a detrimental effect on the infrastructure and wildlife we have altered the conditions that are attached to the application and asked for four month’s notice so there is ample time to negotiate any alterations that may or may not be needed. Applications not received within this time frame will not be permitted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dnf

New pronouncement from the marbled halls of UU Rivington that may affect local races.

As you may be aware United Utilities have been reviewing their permissions for use system following recent changes in land management. This primarily relates to investment in the area through SCaMP II to protect and manage the area for water quality, tenant farmers, wildlife and recreation and also Natural England’s involvement now that many farms have joined the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme. Part of this scheme means that activities that could potentially cause damage to the land, especially at sensitive times of year such as ground nesting bird season (Mar – Sept) cannot be permitted. The Company is now limiting the number of moorland events per organization to two per year, these need to be between October and February. As such some events have already been affected and needed to alter routes etc.; if your event is on a Public Right of Way it should not be so restricted at present.

In our attempt to ensure the number of events do not have a detrimental effect on the infrastructure and wildlife we have altered the conditions that are attached to the application and asked for four month’s notice so there is ample time to negotiate any alterations that may or may not be needed. Applications not received within this time frame will not be permitted.

---

I'm Sure Chris knows about this and has it in hand. He'll be along shortly no doubt to give the FRA's comment

very sad what is happening to our moorland!

is there any irony that whilst UU restricts land access in the name of conservation the FC meanwhile in the name of conservation opens its property to ever more diverse activities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddyball

very sad what is happening to our moorland!

---

Sad in the way that moorland has been degraded over the years or sad that there will have to be some restrictions if moorland is to be treasured by future generations?

There will be some who will benefit financially from the restrictions but if moorland wildlife benefits too then that has to be a bonus, though I'm sure that it's not as simple as that.

If moorland users stayed to paths and kept their dogs on a lead at all times then perhaps all would've been hunky-dory but alas people don't stay to designated paths and some don't keep their dogs restrained.

Apologies to readers if I've got the wrong end of the stick on this thread.

Isn't "protecting ground nesting birds" code for making sure they'll be okay to be shot dead later in the year?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddyball

very sad what is happening to our moorland!

---

[rant]
It is outrageous how such as United Utilities think they can impose conditions on land which is not private but a public resource (despite the legal nonsense surrounding "privatization" obscuring that obvious fact) since I and the rest of us pay the bill! and as stakeholders, our opinion should trump the opinions of underemployed buearocrats, there are clearly too many of them , or they would devote their time to better cheaper water instead.

Whilst animals and man need to live in harmony aiming to reduce the impact of one on the other, allowing the rights of a few nesting birds to trump the rights of those who pay for it for the most important 6 months of the year demonstrates that those in charge have lost the plot.
Or are the nesting birds subject to similar sanction and restricted to two trips (only) off footpaths?

If you take a race such as winter hill and add up the entire off path acreage used by such races it can at best be only 0.001% of winter hill! The birds already have 99.999% of it. So why do they need the rest for crying out loud - somebody should put that argument forward in a meeting, and see how UU wriggle! At this rate we will get back to kinder trespass days for us to asert our rights

That is not to say that sanctions must occur against some land users. I will vote for anyone who demands a minimum £1000 fine (and the bike to be confiscated and crushed), for every mountain bike rider who ever goes on non bridleways. Or just ban them anyway, on the grounds that for as long as mountain bikes are on such land , some of them will abuse the rights, the damage they do is massive, and the sport itself clearly is not cleaning up its own problem.. Those guys have trashed some of my favourite moors.

But a fell race or even 100 fell races run once a year on different parts of the moor?
Ridiculous!.

[/rant]

True.. I don't get Wharfy's point re dogs.. dogs won't be affected by this restriction.. just mass organised events..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wharfeego

Sad in the way that moorland has been degraded over the years or sad that there will have to be some restrictions if moorland is to be treasured by future generations?

There will be some who will benefit financially from the restrictions but if moorland wildlife benefits too then that has to be a bonus, though I'm sure that it's not as simple as that.

If moorland users stayed to paths and kept their dogs on a lead at all times then perhaps all would've been hunky-dory but alas people don't stay to designated paths and some don't keep their dogs restrained.

Apologies to readers if I've got the wrong end of the stick on this thread.

---

very valid points there. some of which i agree to some extent. However i do not think that 150 people running over what has become a track over the years a couple of times a year has such a detrimental effect on the moorland. lets face it Fell Races aren't attended my hundreds of people on winter hill & most of the runners stick to paths that are already cut through moorland. we have some fantastic races here & luckily some won't be touched due to being on the right side of the hill. it's just a shame we have run these races for such a long time & now they are being cancelled due to massive movements on the course which make the race really impracticable. the amount of mountain bikers I see whizzing off path around the same areas is incredible and i just wish they would have the same consideration that us fell runners have for the land we use to enjoy our sport, again the trail races around rivington & belmont i dont have anything against but i just wish the people running them would realize they are not in a city centre road race where their gel wrappers/empty bottles can just be discarded wherever and someone will pick it up after them, numerous events over the last year were run and afterward i would be on parts of the route and see this rubbish all over the place. it's just not on. anyway, there is lots of fell race near bolton so if it comes to it which it 100% does i for one will just have to go to these instead....but i do really hope it's about looking after wildlife and preserving the areas for future generations and nothing more as this would be really really sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

Isn't "protecting ground nesting birds" code for making sure they'll be okay to be shot dead later in the year?

---

:thumbup: Ha ha... exactly what I was thinking recently, when on the receiving end of some verbal from a gamekeeper up above Hebden Bridge.
But seriously, I've been surprised recently by how little damage fell races seem to do. I've been out running along paths where I know maybe 200 runners were racing a few days before (calderdale way relay being an example) and you just wouldn't know that any more than the usual number of walkers had been along it recently. I'm sure there must be localized problem areas, but it does seem that there's a bit of hysteria over perceived 'damage'. And please don't let the solution be more paved paths, like the unstoppable march of stone slabs along the Pennine Way (windy hill to Blackstone edge being the current victim of this fate :angry:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richsund

:thumbup: Ha ha... exactly what I was thinking recently, when on the receiving end of some verbal from a gamekeeper up above Hebden Bridge.
But seriously, I've been surprised recently by how little damage fell races seem to do. I've been out running along paths where I know maybe 200 runners were racing a few days before (calderdale way relay being an example) and you just wouldn't know that any more than the usual number of walkers had been along it recently. I'm sure there must be localized problem areas, but it does seem that there's a bit of hysteria over perceived 'damage'. And please don't let the solution be more paved paths, like the unstoppable march of stone slabs along the Pennine Way (windy hill to Blackstone edge being the current victim of this fate :angry:)

---

I do think the paved slabs are worth it.. thinks were awful..

The only one I've been concerned about when I ran, was the geronimo? descent on FTOP.. that was getting severely eroded... things like that should be avoided in future races as you can understand why a land owner would be concerned.. it wasn't one strip it was a good wide area.. and obviously directly attributed to the race, as far as I could tell..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

I do think the paved slabs are worth it.. thinks were awful..

The only one I've been concerned about when I ran, was the geronimo? descent on FTOP.. that was getting severely eroded... things like that should be avoided in future races as you can understand why a land owner would be concerned.. it wasn't one strip it was a good wide area.. and obviously directly attributed to the race, as far as I could tell..

---

In so much as the fact that the race goes down there leads to a lot of runners using it for training. I don't think the race itself makes too much difference and I suspect it would recover, but the fact that anyone who goes for a run over there inevitably uses geronimo at some point undoubtedly causes erosion.

I think it would be valid for clubs and/or the FRA to work with landowners etc and ask runners not to use certain areas for a period of time. That certainly has happened on the grass bank on the Ben and on the descent off Barristers Plain in the LMV.

As for an argument that says "we pay therefore we should be allowed to do what we like".....do you really think that? Do you really think the main criteria should be money? If there is a real threat to nesting birds, a threat that can be substantiated, and it can be shown that even 150 runners going over it will cause problems (and see my point above re training runs using the same route), then surely we should seek to accommodate and assist in this?

I'm no fan of UU and I'm first to be sceptical when told that access to an area needs to be restricted but, yes, there will be cases where this is required.

The restriction is not up to UU, it is from NE who are obliged by EU law to follow EU directives on improving degraded, 'protected' habitats. The fall in the number of ground nesting birds may be the indicator used to demonstrate that there is too much activity by humans on an area. Sadly for us, organised, permitted (we pay UU for an FRA permit) and published events are easy to target and stop. With regard to bikes and loose dogs the CRoW Act excludes them, but there is nothing in place to police this so damage and degradation will continue. Incidentally, fell running is included as 'quiet recreation on foot', but our races still often get classified as mass participation events - the same as a commercial one off event. Of course non of of this applies to Scotland, because they don't have NE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

[rant]...allowing the rights of a few nesting birds to trump the rights of those who pay for it for the most important 6 months of the year demonstrates that those in charge have lost the plot...

---

I think I've read that quote properly? Quite an unbelievable statement and far from the attitude I would have imagined most fell runners would aspire to.

At the end of the day someone has to look after our fragile peat moorlands. Everyone's being encouraged to get out and about and enjoy the countryside but how many people ever think of the consequences of their activity? And how many ever return to put right some of the unrealised damage they've caused during a fell race in wet conditions; not many, and that includes me.

We all enjoy a good run on the moors, often returning caked in peat and mud. Perhaps a few wet sods broke off whilst on that steep descent or a sloppy trod was made along that section of fragile grassland after several hundred pairs of fell shoes pounded it for a few minutes. A day or two of heavy rain and that sloppy trod becomes a a bit more worn. From April through to July maybe a Meadow Pipit's nest might have been trampled on or a Curlew's nest disturbed by an off-lead dog. It's a slow erosion of nature that's not always obvious. Does it matter? Well it matters to me.

But fell runners can't take responsibility for all the damage. It would be good if a compromise could be found, one that certainly helps to stem the loss of our fragile nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wharfeego

I think I've read that quote properly? Quite an unbelievable statement and far from the attitude I would have imagined most fell runners would aspire to.

---

I'm sure you're right wharfeego, I'd think most fell runners are pretty sympathetic to countryside issues. But personally I struggle a bit round my local neck of the woods to work out the difference between 'preservation of habitats for ground nesting birds', and management of grouse estates in order to shoot a particular type of ground nesting bird. I don't see the latter as being a good reason to exclude people from access to areas, it's just the interest of one group of people against the interests of another. But I can't help but think that some of the estates use the 'preservation of natural habitats' line as a righteous-sounding excuse to police their land, whereas really all they are bothered about is the grouse population. I'll freely admit it's something I don't know a great deal about though, and as this might not be an issue on Rivington/Winter Hill I am perhaps wandering way off topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris K

With regard to bikes and loose dogs the CRoW Act excludes them,

---

Only where there is no PRoW access.. as I understand PRoW overides CRoW.. is that not true?

Yes that is true, however bikes are not allowed on public footpaths only bridleways, yet large numbers of mountain bikers are unaware or ignore these facts.
As I recall a dog on CRoW should be on a lead, a dog on a PRoW should be under close control or something, is that correct?

Yeah, the laws quite vague over what 'under control' means... but its generally taken as the dog stays in the line of the path within 6-10 ft of you.. some believe under control means on a lead, but the law does actually state when a lead is required, so I don't think it necessarily means on a lead - just not running all over the field is the main thing..

Iain you're right and wrong with dogs, yes 'under close control' on PRoW.........except through grazing stock, and at lambing time a loose dog can now be considered to be 'worrying'. Dog leads are of a fixed length (I think maximum of 1.5metres) not one of those cheese wire trip hazards! At the moment, as far as I know, no single piece of the CRoW Act has been tested in court.

No a dogs lead is a fixed length, 2m I just read, just what under control actually means.. its a bit of a vague term.. you could argue that as long as the dog is within re-call distance and not affecting livestock, that they are under-control..

But on CRoW a dog can be off the lead, if not livestock, apart from between 1st March and 31st July each year..

To be honest though I don't think dogs a huge issue, not sure why Wharfego brought them into this, the laws fairly clear about where they can go and how... CRoW, as you or someone pointed out, does allow mass events to be tightly controlled..

Paying for access for mass events will happen more, especially as we now see more and more professional race organisers.. at some point the land owners were going to catch on to that one..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

you could argue that as long as the dog is within re-call distance and not affecting livestock, that they are under-control..

..

---

only if they come when called.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richsund

I'm sure you're right wharfeego, I'd think most fell runners are pretty sympathetic to countryside issues. .

---

Indeed as am I - but returning to the issue of substance and putting it back into real context, it is 0.01% or less of winter hill for one hour of only once a year for one hundred runners. The birds have most of it most of the time so their populations are wholly unaffected in any material way ie the argument is totally specious dreamed up by someone with too much time and not enough job to fill it with.

I object on REAL countryside issues, rather than imagined ones, where fellrunners cause permanent damage, take the scree from scafell pike on borrowdale being worn out by the race - we should not.

I have had a number of angry exchanges with runners dropping gel wrappers and similar things.

I object to mountain bikes most of the time, footpaths or bridleways either for the most part, because of the simple equation that mountain bikers ignore. wheel+soft ground+gradient = continuous groove. Groove + downpour = massive gouge, Gouge channels mountain bikers and more water making it very much worse. They routinely destroy paths causing very expensive damage and repairs. My view is they have no place in hill country. boots have nowhere near the same power to create a water course in a path. The constant destruction of the paths around darwin tower for example are a legacy to mountain biker stupidity. UU should focus energy on real problems such as those, by banning bikers from their land, not imaginary ones like fellrunners.

But as for the plight of a handful of birds in a minute proportion of millions of acres for one day?
Someone should be given a more useful job like stocktaking paperclips daily instead, instead of banning fellraces.

The only places I have ever seen signs up banning dog access 'due to ground nesting birds' is on shooting moors. It all about justifying their own massive self interest if you ask me. The moorland association even go out of their way to 'control' predators (aka have more shooting fun) and, surprise, surprise pin that on the protection of ground nesting birds too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The only places I have ever seen signs up banning dog access 'due to ground nesting birds' is on shooting moors. It all about justifying their own massive self interest if you ask me. The moorland association even go out of their way to 'control' predators (aka have more shooting fun) and, surprise, surprise pin that on the protection of ground nesting birds too.

---

Yep, that's certainly the impression I get in Calderdale. Wouldn't be surprised if the grouse moor owners get paid by some quango or other for all this wonderful conservation work they are doing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The only places I have ever seen signs up banning dog access 'due to ground nesting birds' is on shooting moors. .

---

Generally I agree. There are other areas trying to protect other ground-nesting birds though, so if you see such signs away from the moors they are likely to be for nature conservation reasons: plovers & skuas nest on the ground for instance. Mind you, small dogs are probably more at risk from the skuas than vice versa.

Thanks Splatcher. Good to hear that, and I personally would respect any signage in those circumstances. It's such a shame that genuine conservation gets so mixed up with grouse moor management, but I suspect that's just the way the moor owners like it...

I have to say Pennine as a club are mindfull of these issues on our Thursday runs in the Kinder area. During nesting time we try to stay to foot paths and pay particular care to the members' dogs.

here in Littleborough just outside rochdale we came across a raft of new signs last night... ''ground nesting birds keep out'' ''no dogs'' ''conservation area'' this on a stretch land beside a stream in a man made culvert besides what was once a farm track but is now a drive to a private house that has a lot of work done recently including the felling of many trees.. the branches of which would have been similar to those which have recently found there way into a nice pile in the ''conservation area''..

badge of convienance?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alwaysinjured

I object to mountain bikes most of the time, footpaths or bridleways either for the most part, because of the simple equation that mountain bikers ignore. wheel+soft ground+gradient = continuous groove. Groove + downpour = massive gouge, Gouge channels mountain bikers and more water making it very much worse. They routinely destroy paths causing very expensive damage and repairs. My view is they have no place in hill country. boots have nowhere near the same power to create a water course in a path. The constant destruction of the paths around darwin tower for example are a legacy to mountain biker stupidity. UU should focus energy on real problems such as those, by banning bikers from their land, not imaginary ones like fellrunners.

---

Really? Mountain biking has only really been popular for 20-25 years and the number of participants and the erosion they cause is minimal compared to walkers. The vast majority of mountain bikers don't enjoy mud plugging and will avoid soft trails if possible. Yes, there are exceptions but there's an antisocial minority in every pastime. It's also easy to point out specific trails but again, the same could be applied to scars of the landscape that have never seen a knobbly tyre. Also, a large proportion of mountain bikers ride exclusively at the ever increasing number or purpose built trail centres so, although the amount of mountain bikers is increasing, the traffic on "natural trails" is probably no more. It's sounds as though you've had a few bad experiences with a few bad mountain bikers and are tarring them all with the same reactionary brush.

Haha. I always worry about my dog being taken out when there are mountain bikers about ;). He doesn't bother chasing ground nesting birds... or mountain bikers for that matter. Like I said before this is all about land owners/managers users lame excuses to restrict access. Having run 140 miles of the cornish coastline a few weeks ago it came as no surprize that the only place that there were signs trying to scare walkers about the danger from adders was where the completely open access path passed through the miltary owned firing ranges for about 5 miles - they were exagerating adder attack so as to either put off walkers completely or keep them solidly on the path... staring at the ground.... looking out for adders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

Really? Mountain biking has only really been popular for 20-25 years and the number of participants and the erosion they cause is minimal compared to walkers. The vast majority of mountain bikers don't enjoy mud plugging and will avoid soft trails if possible. Yes, there are exceptions but there's an antisocial minority in every pastime. It's also easy to point out specific trails but again, the same could be applied to scars of the landscape that have never seen a knobbly tyre. Also, a large proportion of mountain bikers ride exclusively at the ever increasing number or purpose built trail centres so, although the amount of mountain bikers is increasing, the traffic on "natural trails" is probably no more. It's sounds as though you've had a few bad experiences with a few bad mountain bikers and are tarring them all with the same reactionary brush.

---

I suggest you take a trip to Rivington and have a look at the damage caused by mountain bikers on the path from the belmont road.
I would also suggest a walk over Holcombe moor and have a look at the damage caused by mountain bikers leading down to moorbottom road, in at least three locations, as well as damage caused by mountain bikers on the moor itself. Mountain Bikers are also responsible for the damage caused in Redisher woods, a national nature reserve. The erosion in these areas has been caused by mountain bikers, the grooves worn into the surface are approximately 1.5 to 2 inches wide with a knobbly tread with continuous ware, which seems to come from some ignorant sods who seem to think that riding on the footpaths is fine. These areas are not hard pack they are soft moors and it doesn't take a large number of mountain bikers to do an awful lot of damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Graeme78

I suggest you take a trip to Rivington and have a look at the damage caused by mountain bikers on the path from the belmont road.
I would also suggest a walk over Holcombe moor and have a look at the damage caused by mountain bikers leading down to moorbottom road, in at least three locations, as well as damage caused by mountain bikers on the moor itself. Mountain Bikers are also responsible for the damage caused in Redisher woods, a national nature reserve. The erosion in these areas has been caused by mountain bikers, the grooves worn into the surface are approximately 1.5 to 2 inches wide with a knobbly tread with continuous ware, which seems to come from some ignorant sods who seem to think that riding on the footpaths is fine. These areas are not hard pack they are soft moors and it doesn't take a large number of mountain bikers to do an awful lot of damage.

---

As i said, it's easy to point to specific examples but the same could be done for any number of eroded horrors that have never seen a tyre. With regards to riding on footpaths, I would argue that, on suitable footpaths at times on day when not heavily used by other users, it's fine. The ROW designations in this country were made before mountain biking even existed and there are plenty of footpaths that are 100% suited to bikes and equally plenty of bridleways that are not. The ROW and access laws in this country need a complete overhaul to reflect the changed leisure use of the countryside... until then, I'll continue to follow this code http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/ethics.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nikalas

As i said, it's easy to point to specific examples but the same could be done for any number of eroded horrors that have never seen a tyre. With regards to riding on footpaths, I would argue that, on suitable footpaths at times on day when not heavily used by other users, it's fine. The ROW designations in this country were made before mountain biking even existed and there are plenty of footpaths that are 100% suited to bikes and equally plenty of bridleways that are not. The ROW and access laws in this country need a complete overhaul to reflect the changed leisure use of the countryside... until then, I'll continue to follow this code http://www.cheekytrails.co.uk/ethics.htm

---

I agree with some of what you are saying and some of what is on your code of conduct. I would disagree with your further aspects of your code of conduct and could happily dissect to show how ludicrous somethings are .
eg. after 6pm, it's fair game, I would disagree with that given that you have no idea what you will meet, it's like suggesting it's ok to speed when no one else is around.
The closer the trail is to civilisation the more acceptable it is to ride it, again I would disagree, most of the South Pennines area is on the doorstep for a lot of people.
The fewer the amount of bridleways the more rights you have to be cheeky, maybe the land isn't great for cycling.
There are aspects which show consideration, but I rarely encounter MTBers who seem to hold true to these things, eg yielding to other users, not the case with the cyclists we saw a couple of weeks ago.

i bought my first mountain bike in late 1989. there was no chance of meeting another rider out on the moors/fells/ bridleway at that time. even in the boom racing years of 90-95 i cant recall meeting another bike. how ever in recent years not seeing another cyclist is the norm. the great majority never take thier mountain bikes off road , just like land rovers, as a rambler/ bike rider i think i could count on one hand the number of bikes ive met on footpaths..

however in that same time frame i have seen walker numbers multiply expotentially and the use of walking poles and aggressive soled footwear become the norm. the recent habit of walking in ever larger groups is now normal practice. i see many areas of the dales lakes and snowdonia where a bike has never ridden scared irrepairably by the boots of lovers of nature and guardians of our countryside, who would never do such a thing willingly.

however i believe in live and let live and not casting the first stone. we are all countryside users and have frankly as much right to use it as the ground nesting birds of legend.

Our leaders legislate otherwise though by default. the introduction of grants /tax schemes to help the land remain the same has meant that many sports have already being forced out of the country side and many more will follow as landowners strive in the dash for EU cash

I would like to agree with you about bikes on paths etc but isn't this a slippery slope? if mountain bikers do what they want and think is reasonable then trail/quad bikers will feel free to do likewise and then 4x4s etc.

I sometimes wonder whether some of this 'damage' is actually that big a deal, regardless of whether it's caused by runners, walkers, mountain bikers, horse riders, or whoever the scapegoat of the moment is.
Is there any *real* harm done, other than to the aesthetics of us humans who seem obsessed by making everything ordered, neat and tidy? When I'm out in the wilds I don't expect everything to be manicured. I expect to get muddy and wet feet, and maybe have to tackle tricky terrain. If a path becomes unusable, alternative routes will evove and others will get 'reclaimed' - surely this is all just part of the way nature works.
Recently I walked up Sail in the Lake District and was confronted by a bit of 'fell fixing' which looks like the great wall of china. Is this really preferable to a natural path, however eroded it is?
Attachment 7054

No.. moorlands don't recover fast.. plus PR looks awful.. huge scars caused by a sport.. look at how people view 4x4ers... as a group they have isolated themselves.

But you will see plane wrecks from the war and vegetation is still sub optimal for the area.. 60 years on.. some areas, thin soils, just don't recover fast.

Plus I eally do not think the 'It was them approach helps'..

All Mbikers, climbers, runners should be in it together, as one group.. small disparate groups are weaker.

4x4ers got isolated and isolated themselves, it may have been a minority but they ignored requests, so the authorities made their trails boring.. you see it in the peak.. took the fun out of it for them.. we don't want huge tracks like they've done at Totley moss.. if you think slabs are bad you should see some other responses..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richsund

Is this really preferable to a natural path, however eroded it is?

---

I sort of agree with you but the other side of the argument is that people divert to the left or right to avoid "getting muddy" resulting in an ever-widening path in which undergrowth is killed off. This in turn leads to wind/water errosion. Mud in the case highlighted may not be an issue, but in the peaks and dales it would be very much so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrPatrickBarry

I sort of agree with you but the other side of the argument is that people divert to the left or right to avoid "getting muddy" resulting in an ever-widening path in which undergrowth is killed off. This in turn leads to wind/water errosion. Mud in the case highlighted may not be an issue, but in the peaks and dales it would be very much so.

---

many have short memories just how bad some paths were before the flags... they may not be ideal but its much less of a hugely eroded bog trot than it used to be...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IainR

many have short memories just how bad some paths were before the flags... they may not be ideal but its much less of a hugely eroded bog trot than it used to be...

---

I remember rosedale on the north york moors, being on the lyke wake walk route had in places developed into a huge and ever widening swamp. mainly due to people trying to avoid getting muddy. Paradoxically the shallowest bit was often the middle line :confused:

Elsewhere on the moor were sections of flagstones, in place since the monastries were the landowners, providing trods from valley to valley. Often the only indication were the single stone bridges over streams...the flags went on a bit after this then just disappeared into the heather, making it very hard to follow them. This gives me hope for the future, we tend to think so short term, give it a few hundred years, when everybody is obese and the current large numbers of geriatric walkers and runners finally shuffle off, the hills and moors will recover.

After all huge areas of the lakes/wales were scarred by extractive industries and now some people say how much extra interest it brings to a walk or run.