United Utilities land access

[IainR]

: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..

[Mr1470]

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.

[Chris K]

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!

[wharfeego]

[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.

[richsund]

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...

[IainR]

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?

[Graeme78]

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?

[IainR]

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..

[Chris K]

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.

[IainR]

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..