This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Not really a BMC area but anyway..........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4645896.stm
What is the MCofS for? They seem to be straying well off their mission of representing hill users to now dealing with very specific ecological issues such as the one in the link above. Although I cannot be sure at all, I suspect that this is driven by certain individuals in the MCofS as I can't for one second imagine a clud or general hill user coming to complain about soil damage through ashes being scattered.
It seems to me that there are many more pressing issues needing tackled and developed such as a Scottish Climbing Team, access issues and supporting things like the Fort William Film Festival.
Have they totally lost the plot?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4645896.stm
What is the MCofS for? They seem to be straying well off their mission of representing hill users to now dealing with very specific ecological issues such as the one in the link above. Although I cannot be sure at all, I suspect that this is driven by certain individuals in the MCofS as I can't for one second imagine a clud or general hill user coming to complain about soil damage through ashes being scattered.
It seems to me that there are many more pressing issues needing tackled and developed such as a Scottish Climbing Team, access issues and supporting things like the Fort William Film Festival.
Have they totally lost the plot?
In reply to Donald M:
Heard that on the radio this morning, and wondered if I'd overslept and it was April 1st.
Heard that on the radio this morning, and wondered if I'd overslept and it was April 1st.
In reply to Donald M:
eh ? a step too far in my book, probably why i have not been a member of the MC0fS since 96.
I've called dibbs on crowberry tower btw.
eh ? a step too far in my book, probably why i have not been a member of the MC0fS since 96.
I've called dibbs on crowberry tower btw.
In reply to Burnsie:
Aye me neither. It just seems like an organisation who is anti any development anywhere and often doesn't represent my views. I can't really see the effect they are having on Scottish Climbing and this constant move towards "protecting" and "conserving" the environment is not the reason they were set up. Fair enough if they want to do that then fine but they should be renamed The Mountain Conservation Organisation of North Britain then.
Aye me neither. It just seems like an organisation who is anti any development anywhere and often doesn't represent my views. I can't really see the effect they are having on Scottish Climbing and this constant move towards "protecting" and "conserving" the environment is not the reason they were set up. Fair enough if they want to do that then fine but they should be renamed The Mountain Conservation Organisation of North Britain then.
In reply to Donald M:
The clue is in the name, in particular the "M" bit of it. Many mountaineers care a lot about the state of the hills, and preserving the wildlife (in order to enjoy their day out). Therefore, any body that represents their interests will get involved with these issues. By contrast, what exactly does a 'scottish climbing team' have to do with mountaineering.
Mark
The clue is in the name, in particular the "M" bit of it. Many mountaineers care a lot about the state of the hills, and preserving the wildlife (in order to enjoy their day out). Therefore, any body that represents their interests will get involved with these issues. By contrast, what exactly does a 'scottish climbing team' have to do with mountaineering.
Mark
In reply to Donald M: add, sorting out access to the Grey corries forest roads as well to their list of must do's. I havent read your link yet, i will do in due course.
In reply to Anonymous:
More than ashes on a hill. It would be interesting to find out how many people have actually become concerned about the affect on soil ecology on mountain in Scotland by people scattering ashes.
The MCofS website says
"The MCofS represents 132 affiliated clubs based in Scotland, containing over 6,500 members; as well as over 1,800 individual members from all over the UK and abroad. It is funded in part by grant from SportScotland (formerly the Scottish Sports Council), in recognition of its role as the Governing Body."
How many of these clubs and individuals are concerned about this?
More than ashes on a hill. It would be interesting to find out how many people have actually become concerned about the affect on soil ecology on mountain in Scotland by people scattering ashes.
The MCofS website says
"The MCofS represents 132 affiliated clubs based in Scotland, containing over 6,500 members; as well as over 1,800 individual members from all over the UK and abroad. It is funded in part by grant from SportScotland (formerly the Scottish Sports Council), in recognition of its role as the Governing Body."
How many of these clubs and individuals are concerned about this?
In reply to Donald M:
A great number, I'd have thought. Obviously most of their eyes would glaze over if you started talking about phosphate enrichment and calcium levels, but as soon as these chemical changes cause significant effects on the vegetation and ecology of the hill tops, then I imagine that they would care a lot.
Mark
> How many of these clubs and individuals are concerned about this?
A great number, I'd have thought. Obviously most of their eyes would glaze over if you started talking about phosphate enrichment and calcium levels, but as soon as these chemical changes cause significant effects on the vegetation and ecology of the hill tops, then I imagine that they would care a lot.
Mark
In reply to Donald M:
I take it they are objecting more about the number of windfarms than the scattering of ashes, it seems a much bigger threat than a few plants getting fed.
I take it they are objecting more about the number of windfarms than the scattering of ashes, it seems a much bigger threat than a few plants getting fed.
I think this is in their remit. They are representing hill users by campaigning for the preservation of the hill.
In reply to sutty:
That depends on your priorities of course. Wind farms have next to no ecological effect, but a significant visual impact. Soil alteration has a smaller visual impact, but a significant ecological one. Silly to compare the two in my opinion, which is not to say the MCofS should ignore either; both are real issues to mountaineers.
Mark
> I take it they are objecting more about the number of windfarms than the scattering of ashes, it seems a much bigger threat than a few plants getting fed.
That depends on your priorities of course. Wind farms have next to no ecological effect, but a significant visual impact. Soil alteration has a smaller visual impact, but a significant ecological one. Silly to compare the two in my opinion, which is not to say the MCofS should ignore either; both are real issues to mountaineers.
Mark
In reply to Donald M:
Seems totally disproportionate, and I'd be surprised if it's representative of the overall views of the members - at least as it's reported on that link. The BBC might have misreported it, of course.
Seems totally disproportionate, and I'd be surprised if it's representative of the overall views of the members - at least as it's reported on that link. The BBC might have misreported it, of course.
In reply to Donald M: It seems bizarre to me that an unelected body of people can take it upon themselves to "represent" the views of everyone who happens to be a walker or climber in Scotland. The attitude seems to be that they know best, regardless. The most contentious issue is obviously wind farms and I find the presumption that all Scottish mountaineers must support their highly opposed viewpoint outrageous. On a more minor issue I notice they had a debate on their website about memorial cairns etc on the hills. Having received a significant number of comments strongly opposed to the MC of S view, they proceeded to issue a statement saying "you're all wrong, we know best, we have ignored everything you said". I suspect many of the leading lights in this body are schoolteachers/uni lecturers, judging by the patronising approach they display.
Like the BMC, any good work they do is totally undone by this sort of thing. If I wish to give money to a conservation organisation I will do so. If I wish to "represent" my views to a landowner or other body I will do so myself. What are the MC of S for?
Like the BMC, any good work they do is totally undone by this sort of thing. If I wish to give money to a conservation organisation I will do so. If I wish to "represent" my views to a landowner or other body I will do so myself. What are the MC of S for?
In reply to Anonymous:
>Wind farms have next to no ecological effect, but a significant visual impact
Well the footprint of one windmill will be larger than the footprint of someones scattered ashes.
The only plants that will grow at altitude are the ones designed to live there so feeding them will do no harm in my opinion. Some ecologists wish to dispute this?
>Wind farms have next to no ecological effect, but a significant visual impact
Well the footprint of one windmill will be larger than the footprint of someones scattered ashes.
The only plants that will grow at altitude are the ones designed to live there so feeding them will do no harm in my opinion. Some ecologists wish to dispute this?
In reply to Donald M:
Sounds like the BBC over-reacting. Here's the MCoS statement - the ashes bit is right at the end, and seems more like a passing remark than an active campaign.
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/access/memorials.html
Sounds like the BBC over-reacting. Here's the MCoS statement - the ashes bit is right at the end, and seems more like a passing remark than an active campaign.
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/access/memorials.html
In reply to sutty:
Yes. That's completely wrong. Here's a clue, think what makes them 'designed' to live there.
Mark
> The only plants that will grow at altitude are the ones designed to live there so feeding them will do no harm in my opinion. Some ecologists wish to dispute this?
Yes. That's completely wrong. Here's a clue, think what makes them 'designed' to live there.
Mark
In reply to Lewis climber: PS I should have said that I do not necessarily support wind farms, but I do object to the idea that any real mountaineer (whatever that is) should automatically be opposed to them, rather than making a personal decision. I object equally strongly to the Brian Wilson/ Free press line that anyone who is against wind farms is a white settler who should be ignored / and or naive and misguided.
In reply to sutty:
Utter rubbish. Go away and read up on soil ecology, plant strategies, succession and stress toleration in plants.
> The only plants that will grow at altitude are the ones designed to live there so feeding them will do no harm in my opinion. Some ecologists wish to dispute this?
Utter rubbish. Go away and read up on soil ecology, plant strategies, succession and stress toleration in plants.
In reply to sutty:
Of course, which is why the advice wasn't that people shouldn't scatter ashes. Instead it was that people should't all scatter ashes in the same place.
Another issue is that people will tend to scatter ashes on the highest tops (where windfarms are unlikely to be built). Naturally, the highest tops will support the rarest communities. In other words, although the areas affected will be small, the proportion of a particular ecosystem type affected will be much larger.
Mark
> Well the footprint of one windmill will be larger than the footprint of someones scattered ashes.
Of course, which is why the advice wasn't that people shouldn't scatter ashes. Instead it was that people should't all scatter ashes in the same place.
Another issue is that people will tend to scatter ashes on the highest tops (where windfarms are unlikely to be built). Naturally, the highest tops will support the rarest communities. In other words, although the areas affected will be small, the proportion of a particular ecosystem type affected will be much larger.
Mark
In reply to Lewis climber:
Well said that man. Basically I think we have the views of certain individuals at the MCofS showing through and taking precendence over consulation and opposed opinions. IF, and it is a big IF, that is the case, the MCofS will have failed to represent "mountaineers".
Brian Wilson is an idiot anyway. Hardly anyone takes notice of his wee magazine and if "white settlers" is an issue for him he should go back to where he came from himself. I note that the party of choice for the WHFP is losing support by the day in Highlands.
Well said that man. Basically I think we have the views of certain individuals at the MCofS showing through and taking precendence over consulation and opposed opinions. IF, and it is a big IF, that is the case, the MCofS will have failed to represent "mountaineers".
Brian Wilson is an idiot anyway. Hardly anyone takes notice of his wee magazine and if "white settlers" is an issue for him he should go back to where he came from himself. I note that the party of choice for the WHFP is losing support by the day in Highlands.
In reply to Anonymous:
Probably rarest because they're constantly being trampled under the boots of Munro baggers. I'm not convinced that a few ashes would make much difference in comparison. And what affect do discarded orange peel, banana skins, and apple cores have?
> Naturally, the highest tops will support the rarest communities
Probably rarest because they're constantly being trampled under the boots of Munro baggers. I'm not convinced that a few ashes would make much difference in comparison. And what affect do discarded orange peel, banana skins, and apple cores have?
In reply to Donald M: I went to a talk by Brian Wilson some 20+ years ago (he was editor of the WHFP at the time I think) & thought he talked a lot of sense, ever since I've been wondering if I'd been drugged as he just seems to spout rubbish
As for the MCoS, they have a management committee who decide on policies, areas of work, etc - if folk here feel they should be changed they should get involved
As for the MCoS, they have a management committee who decide on policies, areas of work, etc - if folk here feel they should be changed they should get involved
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
Rarest, because the availability of suitable habitat is smallest. Yes, discarded food waste will have a similar effect, but last time I checked the MCofS wasn't leaving advocating that either.
As to boots: I don't know how much of an affect this has. I guess the position that the MCofS starts from is that people should be able to climb hills (other organisations may differ in this). What, I imagine, the MCofS does support is doing this in the least damaging manner. To this end, advising people not to leave litter (of any kind) is consistent, and isn't that much to ask of people. Is it?
Mark
> Probably rarest because they're constantly being trampled under the boots of Munro baggers. I'm not convinced that a few ashes would make much difference in comparison. And what affect do discarded orange peel, banana skins, and apple cores have?
Rarest, because the availability of suitable habitat is smallest. Yes, discarded food waste will have a similar effect, but last time I checked the MCofS wasn't leaving advocating that either.
As to boots: I don't know how much of an affect this has. I guess the position that the MCofS starts from is that people should be able to climb hills (other organisations may differ in this). What, I imagine, the MCofS does support is doing this in the least damaging manner. To this end, advising people not to leave litter (of any kind) is consistent, and isn't that much to ask of people. Is it?
Mark
In reply to Doug: I appreciate that the policies of the MC of S are determined by its committee and (I suspect to a much lesser extent) by its members, and getting personally involved is the best way to change them, but why should I have to? My point was that I object fundamentally to a body claiming to represent me in this way, without asking me if I want them to. The end result is that Joe Public may understandably assume that as a mountaineer I agree wholeheartedly with all statements made by the MC of S. Perhaps they could change their name to "Association of Scottish Mountaineering Clubs (that can be bothered to affiliate) and random collection of individuals who do a bit of climbing but possibly enjoy getting involved in committees slightly more"?
In reply to Lewis climber:
Do you mean they should hold a referendum of all members before forming an opinion on anything? Or that they should never form an opinion on anything without first getting approval from the AGM?
If the first then people would be complaining about the exorbitant membership fees, if the second then people would be complaining that they never did anything.
> I object fundamentally to a body claiming to represent me in this way, without asking me if I want them to
Do you mean they should hold a referendum of all members before forming an opinion on anything? Or that they should never form an opinion on anything without first getting approval from the AGM?
If the first then people would be complaining about the exorbitant membership fees, if the second then people would be complaining that they never did anything.
In reply to Simon Caldwell: Neither, I'm not a member. What I object to is the existence of a body that purports to represents the views of all mountaineers with no real justification for doing so. If another group of people set up an organisation called say, the Scottish Mountaineering Association, why should their views have any less weight than those promoted by the MC of S? The total number of members is well under 10,000, the large majority of these being members of affiliated clubs i.e. they have not made an active decision to join. I would suggest that the membership represents a small minority of active Scottish hill-goers.
In reply to Donald M:
I didn't find the statement too contentious considering the way it was worded. I do wonder how much impact scattering of ashes will really have. Personally I wouldn't be that bothered about a few summits becoming a little greener having benefitted from the remains of some dear departed climbers. The effect would, I imagine, be very localised and temporary in the long term.
Agree with Erik about putting access to the Grey Corries on the top of their list of things to do.
I didn't find the statement too contentious considering the way it was worded. I do wonder how much impact scattering of ashes will really have. Personally I wouldn't be that bothered about a few summits becoming a little greener having benefitted from the remains of some dear departed climbers. The effect would, I imagine, be very localised and temporary in the long term.
Agree with Erik about putting access to the Grey Corries on the top of their list of things to do.
In reply to Removed User:
Localised yes, temporary, no. Once soil enrichment has taken place, it can't be reversed.
> The effect would, I imagine, be very localised and temporary in the long term.
Localised yes, temporary, no. Once soil enrichment has taken place, it can't be reversed.
In reply to Craig_M:
So how comes gardeners spend so much money on fertiliser each year?
> Once soil enrichment has taken place, it can't be reversed.
So how comes gardeners spend so much money on fertiliser each year?
In reply to Lewis climber:
I don't object to the organisation saying they represent mountaineers if they actually did, but I suspect that the prominence given by the MCofS to issues such as this is nowhere near representative of mountaineers in Scotland.
There are a whole load of more inportant things to do.
I don't object to the organisation saying they represent mountaineers if they actually did, but I suspect that the prominence given by the MCofS to issues such as this is nowhere near representative of mountaineers in Scotland.
There are a whole load of more inportant things to do.
In reply to Simon Caldwell:
You need to apply fertilisers if you are actively removing nutrients from the soil (e.g in agriculture). For gardeners this is less of an issue, but they do, to some extent, remove nutrients by clearing organic waste (grass clippings, leaves etc). In natural ecosystems nutrients will tend to remain in a natural cycle.
Of course there will be long term redistribution of these nutrients, and as Eric points out the effects will be temporary in the long term (a tautology if ever I heard one) but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem now.
Mark
> So how comes gardeners spend so much money on fertiliser each year?
You need to apply fertilisers if you are actively removing nutrients from the soil (e.g in agriculture). For gardeners this is less of an issue, but they do, to some extent, remove nutrients by clearing organic waste (grass clippings, leaves etc). In natural ecosystems nutrients will tend to remain in a natural cycle.
Of course there will be long term redistribution of these nutrients, and as Eric points out the effects will be temporary in the long term (a tautology if ever I heard one) but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem now.
Mark
In reply to Donald M:
Different people have different views about what is important. I for one do not give a toss if the MCofS does not support a few people hauling themselves up bits of plastic. In contrast I consider anything that is affecting the mountain environment as important, and a priority issue for the organisation.
Dave
Different people have different views about what is important. I for one do not give a toss if the MCofS does not support a few people hauling themselves up bits of plastic. In contrast I consider anything that is affecting the mountain environment as important, and a priority issue for the organisation.
Dave
In reply to Donald M:
100 words on a web page about mountain memorials? How much time and money do you think the MCofS 'wasted' over this?
Mark
> There are a whole load of more inportant things to do.
100 words on a web page about mountain memorials? How much time and money do you think the MCofS 'wasted' over this?
Mark
In reply to Donald M:
I heard a woman from the MCofS Access and Conservation Committee this morning saying that she really didn't think that scattering ashes would be a significant problem. She made the remarkably common-sense observation that most mountain tops are quite windy places and any scattered ashes would be blown over a considerable area. I really doubt the MCofS will spend any significant time on this issue, and I suspect this report is more a case of an over-enthusiastic journalist making a big deal of nothing in particular.
I heard a woman from the MCofS Access and Conservation Committee this morning saying that she really didn't think that scattering ashes would be a significant problem. She made the remarkably common-sense observation that most mountain tops are quite windy places and any scattered ashes would be blown over a considerable area. I really doubt the MCofS will spend any significant time on this issue, and I suspect this report is more a case of an over-enthusiastic journalist making a big deal of nothing in particular.
In reply to tony:
I'm sure you a right. I was more worried about the general trend withing the McofS. I could be totally wrong but I get the impression that the balance of mainly conservation/mainly mountaineering has changed a lot in recent years. Of course the two are connected however.
I'm sure you a right. I was more worried about the general trend withing the McofS. I could be totally wrong but I get the impression that the balance of mainly conservation/mainly mountaineering has changed a lot in recent years. Of course the two are connected however.
In reply to Donald M:
I'm surprised that there is a measurable effect, but if there is, no reason why the McofS can't comment? High mountain top soils are a very particular environment - don't want them full of bonemeal
I'm surprised that there is a measurable effect, but if there is, no reason why the McofS can't comment? High mountain top soils are a very particular environment - don't want them full of bonemeal
In reply to Donald M:
I've still to work out why the MCofS are commenting about the Lewis wind farms as they are planned for a moor and not a mountain/climbing environment. The smart arse Mark above may ask himself if the clue is in the name in this issue?
I've still to work out why the MCofS are commenting about the Lewis wind farms as they are planned for a moor and not a mountain/climbing environment. The smart arse Mark above may ask himself if the clue is in the name in this issue?
In reply to Donald M:
in that case, make it representative. Join, get elected, replace those that are taking in ways you think are fruitless.
> nowhere near representative of mountaineers in Scotland.
in that case, make it representative. Join, get elected, replace those that are taking in ways you think are fruitless.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...