I would think it is mainly the racing which causes the most erosion, particularly championship races - the last championship AW had 600+ runners, all of whom will have run over the same ground within less than an hour, and it regularly has 400+ runners. Whilst there maybe more walkers over the same ground over a year the concentrated effect of a race has to have a significant impact.
I know loads of races have no limits - doesn't make it right though does it? All races have a limit if you think about it, a point at which it either becomes a farce, or starts to damage the surroundings or gets too unwieldy for the safety factors to work properly.
I just think it would be good for the sport if a few more organisers admitted it, that's all. Then maybe people like the National Trust wouldn't give people like Wynn a hard time when she tries to kick start a new race?? Just a thought!!
It's not just the race and the runners though, is it? Last time I did this race we were sitting in a traffic jam for half an hour - I know locals in the area, and they get thoroughly pissed off with it.
Damn right there's damage! New path through the green soup on Maiden Moor - new path down the side from Catbells summit. Neither there before the bally waltz I'll have you know! As for the locals - are there any left? All holiday pads now aren't they?
Well if it aint for usin whats the point in it being there eh!Originally Posted by Ernest Flange-Nibbler
Here are some options Re the waltz or any popular race.
A Cancel race all together.
B Relocate.
C Don't run every year.
D Alternate courses.
E As part of running event runners have to do 'x' hours work on the local environment to repair it. This happens at some major races in the U.S.A. and I personally think is a good idea.{Not practical for all races but major ones which are causing issues. It may even thin the fields a bit.}.
F Raise the cost.
G Insist all runners first aid trained.
Not all of these options do i agree with however if the trick is to cause less damage and as part of that lower numbers to cause less damage in the first place then all of these options may do that.
I think thats a good point and if the car parking charges are high enough hopefully they will encourage more people to car share, cycle to the race or park elsewhere and walk in - how about free parking for cars with more than four occupants? (I suggest IHMR had the right idea about this last year as well).
What!!
Have you counted the numbers of walkers going up Catbells on a summer weekend - I have - nearly as many as our race entry. Have you seen the crap our marshals collect every year.... thats nowt to do with our race... have you any idea how much money the race puts back into the valley... that'ed be all the profits....... have you read the CROW Act....
You may have a point about race numbers although I don't believe they cause any environmental problem at the AW. However your point about traffic disruption is daft. I know locals who are not thoroughly annoyed by it and just make sure they avoid the area at that time. If everything that caused a little bit of inconvenience was not allowed, you would have to cancel every single lakeland show and every major event virtually anywhere in the country!
I agree with Cougar about the car parking charges though
I have been twice with full cars and I have to say that has applied to those that I know that have been to the race.
Fell runners everywhere should try to car share and I think they do tend to.
But there are a lot of cars. The last 2 years has also been part of the Junior FRA Champs, and I think this will be the third and last (for a while) this year.
That alone has been part of the increase in numbers.
Secondly, look at the total amount of senior runners. It has only exceeded 200 when the race has been allocated Champs status, or the FRA Junior has been attached.
It will be interesting to see if the numbers are lower this year. Altough it is the Juniors still, it goes up against the PPP which I am sure will have an effect.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote