This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
![[Walking off Ben Nevis, 2 kb]](http://img.ukclimbing.com/t/139693.jpg "[Walking off Ben Nevis, 2 kb]")
The Nevis Partnership to cease operations due to funding cuts:
“While I fully appreciate the current squeeze on funding will create casualties, I'm also concerned that Ben Nevis and Glen Nevis attract many thousands of visitors from around the world to Lochaber..."
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=52473
In reply to UKC News:
So, time for three peak people to contribute to that charity as part of their money raised, or find the path wrecked, and maybe closed as dangerous in a year or so.
So, time for three peak people to contribute to that charity as part of their money raised, or find the path wrecked, and maybe closed as dangerous in a year or so.
In reply to sutty: I think the race could be an issue. I'd be happy for the race fee to be pushed up quite a bit if all the increase went to footpath management.
On Snowdon I think there are 2 footpath teams working full time. Even though I suspect Ben Nevis is a less popular peak you'd still think they could afford to run one full time footpath/conservation team.
On Snowdon I think there are 2 footpath teams working full time. Even though I suspect Ben Nevis is a less popular peak you'd still think they could afford to run one full time footpath/conservation team.
In reply to IainRUK:
The demise of the Nevis Partnership isn't good news, but I think it would be premature to say that it means there won't be any more path maintenance. The John Muir Trust is active on path maintenance on many of its other sites, and I suspect they may increase their activity on Ben Nevis.
I'd be interested to know if it's one particular member of the Nevis Partnership who has reduced funding, or if it's an across-the-board decrease. Don't suppose we'll get to know that one.
I guess one difference with Snowdon is that Snowdon is in a National Park, whereas Ben Nevis isn't - maybe time to start lobbying for a Lochaber and Rannoch National Park, covering Ben Nevis, Aonach Mor and Beag, Glen Coe, the Mamores, Rannoch Moor and assorted other bits. That would increase funding for all sorts of activities.
The demise of the Nevis Partnership isn't good news, but I think it would be premature to say that it means there won't be any more path maintenance. The John Muir Trust is active on path maintenance on many of its other sites, and I suspect they may increase their activity on Ben Nevis.
I'd be interested to know if it's one particular member of the Nevis Partnership who has reduced funding, or if it's an across-the-board decrease. Don't suppose we'll get to know that one.
I guess one difference with Snowdon is that Snowdon is in a National Park, whereas Ben Nevis isn't - maybe time to start lobbying for a Lochaber and Rannoch National Park, covering Ben Nevis, Aonach Mor and Beag, Glen Coe, the Mamores, Rannoch Moor and assorted other bits. That would increase funding for all sorts of activities.
In reply to UKC News: According to the same news item on the MWIS site, it's the Highland Council funding which has been reduced.
In reply to Dave Dear:
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/03/16/nevis-scheme-to-end-as-cash-dri...
Well well, Highland Council, what a suprise... I don't think. They've been attacking their budget with a hatchet over the last month or so. Anything with any value to the community has been a victim of their blinkered bloody attitude to spending cuts. This is just the latest in a list of ill advised cuts. Idiots.
http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/03/16/nevis-scheme-to-end-as-cash-dri...
Well well, Highland Council, what a suprise... I don't think. They've been attacking their budget with a hatchet over the last month or so. Anything with any value to the community has been a victim of their blinkered bloody attitude to spending cuts. This is just the latest in a list of ill advised cuts. Idiots.
In reply to sutty: Have you climbed ben nevis? Did you contribute path money?
In reply to Calum Nicoll:
The last time I climbed on Ben Nevis was before any of the partnerships were set up to contribute to. I have donated to the John Muir trust in the past to help their work, and to MRT in the area.
The real point I was making that you seem to have avoided is there are commercial operators damaging the paths to a larger extent to what would happen if they were not there.
I have also usually bought all my food in the local shops, not driven up with it to dump the wrappers all over the place like some of these 3 prick teams do.
The last time I climbed on Ben Nevis was before any of the partnerships were set up to contribute to. I have donated to the John Muir trust in the past to help their work, and to MRT in the area.
The real point I was making that you seem to have avoided is there are commercial operators damaging the paths to a larger extent to what would happen if they were not there.
I have also usually bought all my food in the local shops, not driven up with it to dump the wrappers all over the place like some of these 3 prick teams do.
In reply to sutty:
a good idea. Having spoken to a number of people who have done it or are planning on doing I don't think they take into consideration at all about the impact they have. they are just interested in getting it done.
a good idea. Having spoken to a number of people who have done it or are planning on doing I don't think they take into consideration at all about the impact they have. they are just interested in getting it done.
In reply to UKC News:
I'm sensing a bit of negativity toward the 3 peaks event.
Whilst not being a participant myself it is worth noting that an estimated 110,000 walkers reach the summit each year while only around 670 runners started the 3 peaks race on the hill last year.
S
I'm sensing a bit of negativity toward the 3 peaks event.
Whilst not being a participant myself it is worth noting that an estimated 110,000 walkers reach the summit each year while only around 670 runners started the 3 peaks race on the hill last year.
S
In reply to Slugain Howff:
I dont think Sutty was refering to the running event, but to the plethora of charity 3 Peaks walks that use and abuse the hill. At a very rough guess I'd speculate that these can bring between 200 and 500 extra persons onto the Ben on summer weekend days. Not an inconsiderable contribution to erosion and littering, but I've yet to hear of any charities or enablers making any sort of donation towards the former Partnership's work. Maybe it is time for this to change?
I dont think Sutty was refering to the running event, but to the plethora of charity 3 Peaks walks that use and abuse the hill. At a very rough guess I'd speculate that these can bring between 200 and 500 extra persons onto the Ben on summer weekend days. Not an inconsiderable contribution to erosion and littering, but I've yet to hear of any charities or enablers making any sort of donation towards the former Partnership's work. Maybe it is time for this to change?
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
Correct, think slug got the Ben race and three peaks mixed up.
I was wondering how much a climber should pay toward going on the hill via NF car park, there are a lot every week now. Even £1 each could bring in half a million a year if everyone going up by a route paid it.
Correct, think slug got the Ben race and three peaks mixed up.
I was wondering how much a climber should pay toward going on the hill via NF car park, there are a lot every week now. Even £1 each could bring in half a million a year if everyone going up by a route paid it.
In reply to UKC News: OK. National Park/ mountain area entry fees. There, I've said it. Doesn't pay was made to pay.
In reply to sutty:
Apologies sir - in my defence I live a sheltered existence in the Eastern side of the Grampian Massif where human encounters are rare.
S
Apologies sir - in my defence I live a sheltered existence in the Eastern side of the Grampian Massif where human encounters are rare.
S
In reply to sutty:
A mountain of the importance and footfall of the Ben definately needs a management strategy, and that in turn needs to be paid for. It is certainly appropriate that users contribute in some subtle and non-confrontational fashion, but to me so do local and central government. The decison-makers need to realise that the Ben is a significant contributor to a fragile rural economy, as well as having a more spiritual importance as the highest point in our land, and the one place where hardcore alpinists and one-off ramblers rub shoulders.
Letter to Mr Salmond coming up methinks...
A mountain of the importance and footfall of the Ben definately needs a management strategy, and that in turn needs to be paid for. It is certainly appropriate that users contribute in some subtle and non-confrontational fashion, but to me so do local and central government. The decison-makers need to realise that the Ben is a significant contributor to a fragile rural economy, as well as having a more spiritual importance as the highest point in our land, and the one place where hardcore alpinists and one-off ramblers rub shoulders.
Letter to Mr Salmond coming up methinks...
In reply to tony:
Is there any historical or other reason why the region isn't a national park is seems from the face of it that it unquestionable worthy of both the need of protection and an outstanding national treasure. Drawing the boundary would be the hard part- what to leave out!
> (In reply to IainRUK)
> I guess one difference with Snowdon is that Snowdon is in a National Park, whereas Ben Nevis isn't - maybe time to start lobbying for a Lochaber and Rannoch National Park, covering Ben Nevis, Aonach Mor and Beag, Glen Coe, the Mamores, Rannoch Moor and assorted other bits. That would increase funding for all sorts of activities.
> I guess one difference with Snowdon is that Snowdon is in a National Park, whereas Ben Nevis isn't - maybe time to start lobbying for a Lochaber and Rannoch National Park, covering Ben Nevis, Aonach Mor and Beag, Glen Coe, the Mamores, Rannoch Moor and assorted other bits. That would increase funding for all sorts of activities.
Is there any historical or other reason why the region isn't a national park is seems from the face of it that it unquestionable worthy of both the need of protection and an outstanding national treasure. Drawing the boundary would be the hard part- what to leave out!
In reply to Jamie Bankhead:
Highland council needs to be written to, probably an open letter to the papers pointing out the spend value of the visitors each year.
Did Slugain say 110,000 summitted by the tourist path, they must have spent at least £30 each in the area, £3.3 million pounds at a conservative estimate. Probably at least double that amount.
Highland council needs to be written to, probably an open letter to the papers pointing out the spend value of the visitors each year.
Did Slugain say 110,000 summitted by the tourist path, they must have spent at least £30 each in the area, £3.3 million pounds at a conservative estimate. Probably at least double that amount.
In reply to Toby S:
Highland Council has no money and needs to cut services. There are several councillors with a very good understanding of the NP and indeed several HC officials also.
Highland Council has no money because the pot it get's money from is becoming smaller. The pot is at the Scottish Government which also has very little money and no ability to raise any. Indeed, every single penny leaves Scotland and comes back in the form of a block grant from a the UK Government.
It's the "Union Dividend" we are direcly experiencing here.
Highland Council has no money and needs to cut services. There are several councillors with a very good understanding of the NP and indeed several HC officials also.
Highland Council has no money because the pot it get's money from is becoming smaller. The pot is at the Scottish Government which also has very little money and no ability to raise any. Indeed, every single penny leaves Scotland and comes back in the form of a block grant from a the UK Government.
It's the "Union Dividend" we are direcly experiencing here.
In reply to jonnie3430:
If the NTS are anything like the English version, then sutty's suggest £1 parking fee would be more like £10...
> Can we give it to the National Trust please?
If the NTS are anything like the English version, then sutty's suggest £1 parking fee would be more like £10...
In reply to UKC News:
Fortunately a large part of Ben Nevis is owned by the JMT, so there is no need for a campaign for NTS involvement. I say fortunately because the history of NTS management of large tracts of the scottish mountains under its stewardship has historically, how shall we put this..... been 'open to critcism'.
However Ben Nevis is not owned by a single organisation, nor is its management solely the concern of the differing owners.
What we are losing in the Nevis partnership, was a very able body which not only managed to identify the issues, but also reached consensus between the partners on how to tackle them (no small achievement), and then raised or won the required funding, and got on with it.
As to the future I'm sure the JMT will do the best it can for the bit it owns..................
Fortunately a large part of Ben Nevis is owned by the JMT, so there is no need for a campaign for NTS involvement. I say fortunately because the history of NTS management of large tracts of the scottish mountains under its stewardship has historically, how shall we put this..... been 'open to critcism'.
However Ben Nevis is not owned by a single organisation, nor is its management solely the concern of the differing owners.
What we are losing in the Nevis partnership, was a very able body which not only managed to identify the issues, but also reached consensus between the partners on how to tackle them (no small achievement), and then raised or won the required funding, and got on with it.
As to the future I'm sure the JMT will do the best it can for the bit it owns..................
In reply to UKC News:
"Over 150,000 per year climb to its summit". Do you expect anyone to believe this? That's ON AVERAGE 421 people per day. I really struggle to believe this.
"Over 150,000 per year climb to its summit". Do you expect anyone to believe this? That's ON AVERAGE 421 people per day. I really struggle to believe this.
In reply to whistler:
Agreed. Surely it must be more than that.
> That's ON AVERAGE 421 people per day. I really struggle to believe this.
Agreed. Surely it must be more than that.
In reply to whistler:
I can realistically envisage summit numbersbeing close on 5,000 on a lot of summer weekends, but there will be loads of autumn and winter days when the number is less than 50, and probably 20-odd manky weather days when the total is between 0 and 10.
> That's ON AVERAGE 421 people per day. I really struggle to believe this.
I can realistically envisage summit numbersbeing close on 5,000 on a lot of summer weekends, but there will be loads of autumn and winter days when the number is less than 50, and probably 20-odd manky weather days when the total is between 0 and 10.
In reply to Jamie Bankhead: Yeah, I think a lot of people on here will only really see the Ben in winter, I've only experienced the Ben in the summer months in September, when it was almost a procession, start to finish. In winter on a good day I bet there have been a few times when I've seen 10's of people on the summit at the same time.
On Snowdon we must see 1000's a weekend in summer.
On Snowdon we must see 1000's a weekend in summer.
In reply to UKC News:
I wonder who cut the funding, assuming it was witdrawal of promised funds, not just failure to secure future funding.
I wonder who cut the funding, assuming it was witdrawal of promised funds, not just failure to secure future funding.
In reply to Donald M:
Plenty of money sloshing around for trams, commonwealth games etc and there was plenty for the parlimant building ie as long as it is an ego project for MSPs there is money.
> Highland Council has no money because the pot it get's money from is becoming smaller. The pot is at the Scottish Government which also has very little money and no ability to raise any. Indeed, every single penny leaves Scotland and comes back in the form of a block grant from a the UK Government.
>
> It's the "Union Dividend" we are direcly experiencing here.
>
> It's the "Union Dividend" we are direcly experiencing here.
Plenty of money sloshing around for trams, commonwealth games etc and there was plenty for the parlimant building ie as long as it is an ego project for MSPs there is money.
In reply to pol:
Utter nonsense, if you think anywhere is sloshing about with money then you are very wrong.
Utter nonsense, if you think anywhere is sloshing about with money then you are very wrong.
In reply to Donald M: Unfortunately in the opinion of a vast number of people it is you who are taking utter nonsense.
The simple fact there are 586,000 public sector employees in Scotland is ample evidence to me and many others that the Scottish government and local authorities are indeed 'sloshing about with money'. That is before we even start to consider completely idiotic wastes of money like the second Forth crossing.
The simple fact there are 586,000 public sector employees in Scotland is ample evidence to me and many others that the Scottish government and local authorities are indeed 'sloshing about with money'. That is before we even start to consider completely idiotic wastes of money like the second Forth crossing.
In reply to UKC News: Despite being a critic in general terms of outwardly charitable organisation that attract public funding I think it would be a great shame if the wide consensus generated by the Nevis Partnership was allowed to collapse or for long-term footpath maintenance plans to be abandoned or scaled back.
A highly publicised and promoted 'voluntary' levy matching the cost of footpath maintenance for all those visiting the mountain must surely be the way ahead. If this was widely supported amongst the outdoor industry then I think that very quickly all organised groups visiting the mountain would start to pay along with a reasonable fraction of individual visitors.
A highly publicised and promoted 'voluntary' levy matching the cost of footpath maintenance for all those visiting the mountain must surely be the way ahead. If this was widely supported amongst the outdoor industry then I think that very quickly all organised groups visiting the mountain would start to pay along with a reasonable fraction of individual visitors.
In reply to Mark Stevenson:
What? "The vast majority"?
If you are genuinelly saying that this is ample evidence to back up a claim about ego projects set up by Westminster then I would suggest that you are at best vague about this and at worst hold a very poor understanding of where money comes from.
I agree with you though, the second forth crossing is not a great idea and as per usual seems to be going over budget.
Biggest targets to save money and divert it to Nevis Parnership would be Trident at £20 billion + and ID cards at £6billion +.
Back on topic, having done some very limited work with the NP I can see there is great value in their activities. However, and not related to this particular discussion, there has to be an open and frank discussion of how many organisations are required. Lochaber Geopark, OCUK, Nevis Parternship, SNH, JMT, MCofS etc all with an interest in the same piece of land and all with their own separate offices.
What? "The vast majority"?
If you are genuinelly saying that this is ample evidence to back up a claim about ego projects set up by Westminster then I would suggest that you are at best vague about this and at worst hold a very poor understanding of where money comes from.
I agree with you though, the second forth crossing is not a great idea and as per usual seems to be going over budget.
Biggest targets to save money and divert it to Nevis Parnership would be Trident at £20 billion + and ID cards at £6billion +.
Back on topic, having done some very limited work with the NP I can see there is great value in their activities. However, and not related to this particular discussion, there has to be an open and frank discussion of how many organisations are required. Lochaber Geopark, OCUK, Nevis Parternship, SNH, JMT, MCofS etc all with an interest in the same piece of land and all with their own separate offices.
In reply to Donald M:
£26 billion to the Nevis Partnership? Hopefully we'll get a toilet out of that.
£26 billion to the Nevis Partnership? Hopefully we'll get a toilet out of that.
In reply to drmarten:
It would be hard to spend that money. I think I would put somefoot path restoration on the to do list
It would be hard to spend that money. I think I would put somefoot path restoration on the to do list
In reply to Donald M: My cynicism about there currently being lots of waste and inefficiency extends equally to all of the public sector, especially Quangos and much of the charitable sector. The only real difference is scale - Westminster just has a much bigger budget to potentially squander on projects compared to the Scottish Parliament, Highland Council and other organisations.
Your point about multiple organisations with overlapping interests in this area is extremely well made and I completely agree with your sentiments that they should look closely at their activities.
Your point about multiple organisations with overlapping interests in this area is extremely well made and I completely agree with your sentiments that they should look closely at their activities.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...