This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
After an attempted visit to this great Sports climbing crag, we were turned away by the landowner.
We had quite a friendly discussion about it but there was no changing his mind. He said basically that he was fed up due to several reason
Dogs being taken to the crag
Littering
Damage to walls
He gave me several examples of this just in the last month so clearly a few selfish people have spoilt it for the rest of us.
We had quite a friendly discussion about it but there was no changing his mind. He said basically that he was fed up due to several reason
Dogs being taken to the crag
Littering
Damage to walls
He gave me several examples of this just in the last month so clearly a few selfish people have spoilt it for the rest of us.
In reply to Conan: always is as always was. most climbers are wankers. the crag is not "great" in any sense however.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Whether the crag is great or not is irrelevent
The actions of a few moronic individuals has undermined all the hard work done by Musgrove et al.
Good routes actually
Whether the crag is great or not is irrelevent
The actions of a few moronic individuals has undermined all the hard work done by Musgrove et al.
Good routes actually
I disagree that the crag is 'not great in any sense'. Its outlook for a quarried venue is so good you forget it's a quarry, it's got lower graded climbs which are actually good, and the place was well suited for families with lots of space away from the crag base.
But as with most things in life nobheads ruin it for everyone else. I hope the BMC can in some way appease the land owner.
But as with most things in life nobheads ruin it for everyone else. I hope the BMC can in some way appease the land owner.
In reply to Conan:
Dave Musgrove's on the case, let's hope it's not too late
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=459083
Dave Musgrove's on the case, let's hope it's not too late
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=459083
In reply to Graham Booth:
I know, just thought I'd say it anyway, my opinion.
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
> Whether the crag is great or not is irrelevent
> Whether the crag is great or not is irrelevent
I know, just thought I'd say it anyway, my opinion.
1
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
The real problem is that now the k*obheads will go somewhere else and potentially ruin access to somewhere decent.
ALC
The real problem is that now the k*obheads will go somewhere else and potentially ruin access to somewhere decent.
ALC
1
In reply to a lakeland climber:
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
>
> The real problem is that now the k*obheads will go somewhere else and potentially ruin access to somewhere decent.
>
> ALC
LOL>
> The real problem is that now the k*obheads will go somewhere else and potentially ruin access to somewhere decent.
>
> ALC
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Funny how it always 'other' climbers who block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc.
Chris
> [...]
> LOL
> LOL
Funny how it always 'other' climbers who block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc.
Chris
In reply to Conan: Rob Dyer the BMC national access officer and myself have spent several hours at Foredale this morning talking to the farmer, his family and several residents of Foredale Cottages.
There are several issues which we could not resolve and to be fair we had much sympathy for many of the concerns expressed. In general one of the main problems is simply that Foredale has become a victim of its own success and the visitor numbers, particularly on fine weekends and summer evenings have become a grave irritation to the local residents. That could perhaps be eased by negotiating a different access route but – see below – would it work?
A more specific problem for the residents of the cottages is that despite all our clearly positioned BMC notices directing climbers where to park and walk some are still driving and/or walking up to and through the residents private parking area. On top of that it is claimed some have become abusive and rude when challenged and were seen kicking down the residents own notice board. I really find it impossible to defend such behaviour and if the offenders can be identified they should be vilified by us all. They cannot possibly have any excuse!
Another concern of the residents is regarding the lack of toilet facilities at the crag and worries that their water supply may become polluted. One climber has been seen urinating close to the water supply pipe source.
Mr Pearson himself has several concerns regarding damage to walls and fences and gates being left open (he initially agreed to us, in conjunction with the YDNPA, providing new gates and stiles but he has since rescinded this idea). He also believes that climbers are still taking dogs to the crag?
His major concern most recently, however, is that he has discovered that a local climbing wall has been offering a series of guided courses at Foredale at £90 per head. (Rob will speak to the wall concerned about this).
The bottom line is that whilst Moughton Nab and its approaches are on Access Land Mr Pearson doesn’t accept this gives a right to climb and confrontation on this point at this stage would be counter-productive. The current access route to Foredale is clearly across Mr Pearson’s Land and he has every right to restrict access that way as he sees fit.
Our consultations and negotiations will continue but in the mean-time please avoid any further confrontation.
P.S. Please remember that any responses you make to this post will be read by the residents and Mr Pearson. Please keep any comment constructive.
Dave
There are several issues which we could not resolve and to be fair we had much sympathy for many of the concerns expressed. In general one of the main problems is simply that Foredale has become a victim of its own success and the visitor numbers, particularly on fine weekends and summer evenings have become a grave irritation to the local residents. That could perhaps be eased by negotiating a different access route but – see below – would it work?
A more specific problem for the residents of the cottages is that despite all our clearly positioned BMC notices directing climbers where to park and walk some are still driving and/or walking up to and through the residents private parking area. On top of that it is claimed some have become abusive and rude when challenged and were seen kicking down the residents own notice board. I really find it impossible to defend such behaviour and if the offenders can be identified they should be vilified by us all. They cannot possibly have any excuse!
Another concern of the residents is regarding the lack of toilet facilities at the crag and worries that their water supply may become polluted. One climber has been seen urinating close to the water supply pipe source.
Mr Pearson himself has several concerns regarding damage to walls and fences and gates being left open (he initially agreed to us, in conjunction with the YDNPA, providing new gates and stiles but he has since rescinded this idea). He also believes that climbers are still taking dogs to the crag?
His major concern most recently, however, is that he has discovered that a local climbing wall has been offering a series of guided courses at Foredale at £90 per head. (Rob will speak to the wall concerned about this).
The bottom line is that whilst Moughton Nab and its approaches are on Access Land Mr Pearson doesn’t accept this gives a right to climb and confrontation on this point at this stage would be counter-productive. The current access route to Foredale is clearly across Mr Pearson’s Land and he has every right to restrict access that way as he sees fit.
Our consultations and negotiations will continue but in the mean-time please avoid any further confrontation.
P.S. Please remember that any responses you make to this post will be read by the residents and Mr Pearson. Please keep any comment constructive.
Dave
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Sorry, but do I know you? Or more importantly, do you know who I am?
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
> [...]
>
> Funny how it always 'other' climbers who block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc.
>
>
> Chris
> [...]
>
> Funny how it always 'other' climbers who block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc.
>
>
> Chris
Sorry, but do I know you? Or more importantly, do you know who I am?
1
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
That depends I guess, who are you?
Chris
PS The comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread that it is always 'someone else' that is the issue.
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
>
> Sorry, but do I know you? Or more importantly, do you know who I am?
>
> Sorry, but do I know you? Or more importantly, do you know who I am?
That depends I guess, who are you?
Chris
PS The comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread that it is always 'someone else' that is the issue.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Dave,
It is very hard not to see his point of view really. The only thing that I think could be done is to maybe have a donation set up for a replacement of the fence and gate.
You can completely understand all of his points and there is no excuse for being abusive or vandalising things, the only thing I can say is a few individuals do not make a majority.
Matt
Dave,
It is very hard not to see his point of view really. The only thing that I think could be done is to maybe have a donation set up for a replacement of the fence and gate.
You can completely understand all of his points and there is no excuse for being abusive or vandalising things, the only thing I can say is a few individuals do not make a majority.
Matt
In reply to Dave Musgrove: I wonder if a way forward would be to set up a longer approach to the quarry via the surrounding access land? The problem appears to be a few anti-social individuals upsetting the farmer and residents of the cottages. This would be much more inconvenient for climbers but would probably reduce the numbers and hopefully any nuisance minority. It would be relatively easy to contain climbers within the quarry itself - there is a wall and gate which could be kept shut and signed. This way the climbers are out of sight and sound of the cottages and there would be no reason to cross their water supply. This seems to be piped out of a large cave above the usual approach route so I'm not sure what anyone was doing there anyway.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
As others have said I completely sympathise with the land-owner's point of view if some climbers have been ignoring the access agreement. Hopefully it wouldn't happen again after exposure on here and in the climbing press and I wonder if a contribution from the BMC, and/or visiting climbers, towards access management - possibly an annual sum? - might be offered.
As others have said I completely sympathise with the land-owner's point of view if some climbers have been ignoring the access agreement. Hopefully it wouldn't happen again after exposure on here and in the climbing press and I wonder if a contribution from the BMC, and/or visiting climbers, towards access management - possibly an annual sum? - might be offered.
In reply to Conan:
The annoying thing is the selfish idiots just don't care. If someone went up to them and said "you've just ruined access to one of the bits of climbable rock we have in this island (it's not like we've got infinite amounts...) they'd say "So What?".
The annoying thing is the selfish idiots just don't care. If someone went up to them and said "you've just ruined access to one of the bits of climbable rock we have in this island (it's not like we've got infinite amounts...) they'd say "So What?".
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I would imagine that for everybody involved in the thread, that's because it *is* someone else. Unless you know otherwise, I doubt that any posters were responsible for the behaviour listed.
> The comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread that it is always 'someone else' that is the issue.
I would imagine that for everybody involved in the thread, that's because it *is* someone else. Unless you know otherwise, I doubt that any posters were responsible for the behaviour listed.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
Moughton, yes there's a wall to cross. Foredale, I'm baffled, where does anyone need to cross any walls, or run the slightest risk of damaging one? The "gate" such as it is, has always been very rickety, but is no more rickety than it was five years ago.
Anyone being able to miss the sign indicating the route up to the crag boggles the mind, it's just so obvious, and disappointing in general that some pretty simple to follow instructions can be breached.
good luck finding a resolution, glad I got Shot in the Dark done before I missed out, it'd be a shame to lose the place.
Moughton, yes there's a wall to cross. Foredale, I'm baffled, where does anyone need to cross any walls, or run the slightest risk of damaging one? The "gate" such as it is, has always been very rickety, but is no more rickety than it was five years ago.
Anyone being able to miss the sign indicating the route up to the crag boggles the mind, it's just so obvious, and disappointing in general that some pretty simple to follow instructions can be breached.
good luck finding a resolution, glad I got Shot in the Dark done before I missed out, it'd be a shame to lose the place.
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
PS. for clarity, would you suggest that the left-hand approach to Moughton should also be avoided in the short-term to avoid making things worse?
PS. for clarity, would you suggest that the left-hand approach to Moughton should also be avoided in the short-term to avoid making things worse?
In reply to richardh:
I believe that technically all of Moughton Nab is on Access Land and the law would be on your side whilst climbing there. However it would be probably be better to let the situation calm down for a while and avoid any possible confrontation in the whole area for a while until we have had further dialogue.
Dave
I believe that technically all of Moughton Nab is on Access Land and the law would be on your side whilst climbing there. However it would be probably be better to let the situation calm down for a while and avoid any possible confrontation in the whole area for a while until we have had further dialogue.
Dave
In reply to Toreador:
I don't know 'otherwise' I have never even been to the crag.
You say you doubt any poster were responsible of the behaviours listed?
One of the main concerns expressed was "visitor numbers, particularly on fine weekends and summer evenings have become a grave irritation to the local residents".
I suspect if you have been there and it has been busy then are are part of the problem.
Chris
>
>
> I would imagine that for everybody involved in the thread, that's because it *is* someone else. Unless you know otherwise, I doubt that any posters were responsible for the behaviour listed.
>
> I would imagine that for everybody involved in the thread, that's because it *is* someone else. Unless you know otherwise, I doubt that any posters were responsible for the behaviour listed.
I don't know 'otherwise' I have never even been to the crag.
You say you doubt any poster were responsible of the behaviours listed?
One of the main concerns expressed was "visitor numbers, particularly on fine weekends and summer evenings have become a grave irritation to the local residents".
I suspect if you have been there and it has been busy then are are part of the problem.
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I was referring to your list: "block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc."
I guess the visitor numbers bit is part of "etc etc"
If it weren't for all the other issues I doubt anyone would mind too much about visitor numbers - why should they, if everyone was thoughtful and quiet, you wouldn't even notice them from the houses. Sadly it's the thoughtless noisy majority that get noticed
> One of the main concerns expressed was "visitor numbers, particularly on fine weekends and summer evenings have become a grave irritation to the local residents".
I was referring to your list: "block access, park in the wrong places, take dogs when asked not to, make too much noise, light fires, cut trees down etc. etc."
I guess the visitor numbers bit is part of "etc etc"
If it weren't for all the other issues I doubt anyone would mind too much about visitor numbers - why should they, if everyone was thoughtful and quiet, you wouldn't even notice them from the houses. Sadly it's the thoughtless noisy majority that get noticed
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Thanks for the suggestion Andy but I don't really think money is the main issue here. We had already offered to fully fund replacement gates and stiles from the BMC Access Fund which was initially accepted but then declined by Mr Pearson. Any payment of an annual sum to Mr Pearson would, I am sure, only upset the cottage residents more. They tend to act as a community group up there and all are affected in a detrimental way by our prescence crossing the land. I do understand however, how Mr Pearson felt aggrieved when he found someone else was hoping to profit from running courses on his land.
Dave
Thanks for the suggestion Andy but I don't really think money is the main issue here. We had already offered to fully fund replacement gates and stiles from the BMC Access Fund which was initially accepted but then declined by Mr Pearson. Any payment of an annual sum to Mr Pearson would, I am sure, only upset the cottage residents more. They tend to act as a community group up there and all are affected in a detrimental way by our prescence crossing the land. I do understand however, how Mr Pearson felt aggrieved when he found someone else was hoping to profit from running courses on his land.
Dave
In reply to Dave Musgrove: Hi Dave
This post has just been brought to my attention regarding access problems at Foredale Quarry.
This is a very delicate situation and i don't believe your post on this forum helps the situation one bit especially the comments about the commercial use of the venue.
The BMC should not divulge this level of detail on a forum like this but find more constructive ways of solving the access problem and be pro active not reactive.
Can i say that Harrogate Climbing Centre intended to run 2 courses at Foredale Quarry on a three to 1 ratio on the basis that access was allowed at the time.
We have now moved the venue and with drawn the adverts for the two courses at Foredale.
If the actions of HCC has caused offence i apologise but it is no different to courses run on many other crags by climbing centres and outdoor centres throughout the UK.
I think the following simple steps should be taken in response to this problem.
1 The BMC issues an access statement and e-mails all climbing centres and outdoor instruction providers on Monday morning.
2 Post a press release on the BMC web site and UKC asap.
3 All climbing centres to re direct courses to other suitable venues with immediate effect..
4 Leeds Wall remove the free mini guide download from their web site with immediate effect.
I think if you can show you have taken sensible and pragmatic action the land owner and residents are much more likely to consider options.
If you need any help or support please let me know.
This post has just been brought to my attention regarding access problems at Foredale Quarry.
This is a very delicate situation and i don't believe your post on this forum helps the situation one bit especially the comments about the commercial use of the venue.
The BMC should not divulge this level of detail on a forum like this but find more constructive ways of solving the access problem and be pro active not reactive.
Can i say that Harrogate Climbing Centre intended to run 2 courses at Foredale Quarry on a three to 1 ratio on the basis that access was allowed at the time.
We have now moved the venue and with drawn the adverts for the two courses at Foredale.
If the actions of HCC has caused offence i apologise but it is no different to courses run on many other crags by climbing centres and outdoor centres throughout the UK.
I think the following simple steps should be taken in response to this problem.
1 The BMC issues an access statement and e-mails all climbing centres and outdoor instruction providers on Monday morning.
2 Post a press release on the BMC web site and UKC asap.
3 All climbing centres to re direct courses to other suitable venues with immediate effect..
4 Leeds Wall remove the free mini guide download from their web site with immediate effect.
I think if you can show you have taken sensible and pragmatic action the land owner and residents are much more likely to consider options.
If you need any help or support please let me know.
1
In reply to J Dunne:
I think that, by the sounds of it, the farmer has more than reasonable grounds for complaint, and I think that publicising those grounds to the wider community is perfectly reasonable - if nothing else to make very clear to those whose actions jeopardise the access that thoughtless behaviour has consequences.
I am not, I would stress, talking of the climbing centre/group issue, but if the farmer is of the view that they are an issue then its his land and up to him to decide what to allow.
If the farmer/residents are checking this thread then Dave's comments and your comments are complimentary - he (and several others) have discussed the effect of thoughtless litterbugs and dog handlers, and your post has covered the climbing centre angle.
I think the thread as a whole does show in itself that the climbing community is taking the matter seriously, and is generally appalled by the behaviour of the minority who unfortunately spoil things for the majority, a situation which has parallels in plenty of other activities.
I disagree that counducting the damage limitation exercise out of the glare of publicity would be more effective in allaying the residents fears. Whilst justice may be done if done quietly, albeit effectively, I think it is just as important for the residents to see that efforts are being made, not just to be aware, in an abstract way, that there are movements behind the scenes. This thread provides that visible evidence.
I think that, by the sounds of it, the farmer has more than reasonable grounds for complaint, and I think that publicising those grounds to the wider community is perfectly reasonable - if nothing else to make very clear to those whose actions jeopardise the access that thoughtless behaviour has consequences.
I am not, I would stress, talking of the climbing centre/group issue, but if the farmer is of the view that they are an issue then its his land and up to him to decide what to allow.
If the farmer/residents are checking this thread then Dave's comments and your comments are complimentary - he (and several others) have discussed the effect of thoughtless litterbugs and dog handlers, and your post has covered the climbing centre angle.
I think the thread as a whole does show in itself that the climbing community is taking the matter seriously, and is generally appalled by the behaviour of the minority who unfortunately spoil things for the majority, a situation which has parallels in plenty of other activities.
I disagree that counducting the damage limitation exercise out of the glare of publicity would be more effective in allaying the residents fears. Whilst justice may be done if done quietly, albeit effectively, I think it is just as important for the residents to see that efforts are being made, not just to be aware, in an abstract way, that there are movements behind the scenes. This thread provides that visible evidence.
In reply to Conan: I agree with John Hat, and I am on the side of the farmer. Regarding dogs at crags, the last time I climbed at Bamford there was a ban on dogs, yet there were climbers there with dogs.
In reply to J Dunne:
I feel that Dave Musgroves posting was excellent and has already done much to help the situation, however your immediate criticism of it is not helpful at all.
From what you don't say it is clear that you did not bother to speak to the farmer beforehand about your intention to run courses at the quarry - an unbelievably irresponsible and impolite way for any commercial organisation to behave - especially given the delicate nature of access at the venue, something you were aware of.
The damage has already been done and it is also clear that you have no intention of learning from this experience, given that your website still gives the locations of your courses.
My personal opinion is that it is unbelievably stupid for a commercial organisation to advertise exactly where it is holding its courses (unless it has obtained the agreement of the owners and interested parties in advance).
I would have no hesitation in advising prospective clients to avoid any organisation which is so unaware and careless of potential consequences yet thinks it is competent enough to take people on an activity where the whole essence of safety relies upon awareness of potential dangers.
The damage has been done and your 'public suggestions' to the BMC and Leeds Wall smack of an abdication of any responsibility for the mess you have helped to create. Thank you Mr Dunne.
I feel that Dave Musgroves posting was excellent and has already done much to help the situation, however your immediate criticism of it is not helpful at all.
From what you don't say it is clear that you did not bother to speak to the farmer beforehand about your intention to run courses at the quarry - an unbelievably irresponsible and impolite way for any commercial organisation to behave - especially given the delicate nature of access at the venue, something you were aware of.
The damage has already been done and it is also clear that you have no intention of learning from this experience, given that your website still gives the locations of your courses.
My personal opinion is that it is unbelievably stupid for a commercial organisation to advertise exactly where it is holding its courses (unless it has obtained the agreement of the owners and interested parties in advance).
I would have no hesitation in advising prospective clients to avoid any organisation which is so unaware and careless of potential consequences yet thinks it is competent enough to take people on an activity where the whole essence of safety relies upon awareness of potential dangers.
The damage has been done and your 'public suggestions' to the BMC and Leeds Wall smack of an abdication of any responsibility for the mess you have helped to create. Thank you Mr Dunne.
In reply to Conan:
As Foredale is a no go at the moment can anyone recommend similar low graded sports climbing venues around that area.
As Foredale is a no go at the moment can anyone recommend similar low graded sports climbing venues around that area.
In reply to Conan: Foredale, it might not be the best crag in the Dales but it has given me a lot of pleasure to climb there.I was hoping that I would be going back to enjoy it's unique atmosphere and some of its splendid climbs. It is also a great place to meet old friends and indeed meet new ones so I was saddened to read what has happened to this important climbing venue. I try, and to my belief I have followed the guide lines set out to keep Foredale active and if the farmer and the cottage residents feel otherwise I appologise. I do believe also that most visitors do likewise and feel the same way about what has happened. What can we do to help resolve this situation I am not sure, but at present Foredale is a great loss to Yorkshire climbing and to climbers who also come to our great National Park to enjoy its other attractions and climbing venues. Finally, I hope that a solution can be made, and urge climbers not to antagonise the problem by 'sneaking' in. This would only make the situation worse. I enjoy our wonderful countryside and its diverse climbing venues, Foredale is one of these and I sincerely hope that all parties can come to a resolution that will be a success story...Thankyou.
In reply to Derby Grit:
and I think you've gone a bit the other way there,
I thought apart from the opening line, the suggestions were fine, but yes, the website should certainly be changed as part of the solution, if there is one.
and I think you've gone a bit the other way there,
I thought apart from the opening line, the suggestions were fine, but yes, the website should certainly be changed as part of the solution, if there is one.
In reply to Conan: Is the actual crag on private land, or just the access? If not, is there another access route on public/ open private land?
BR
BR
In reply to Dave Musgrove:
This is a sad loss of a great venue - maybe not a Malham however there is a load of super routes with a stunning view over to Penyghent.
Unfortunately the popularity of the crag was underestimated when the guide came out with folk parking up the road - I was approached by Mr Pearson at that time, and despite having driven down from Penrith we accepted the position and left then relayed this to Dave M - and subsequently the agreement to park lower down was made and quite happily followed = with a few other restrictions.
The residents of the cottages had a quite secluded part of the Dales and then had the occasional climber walking past.
This is some elses "back yard" and visitors there (and anywhere else) should abide by the rules and act sensible.
Climbing centres use crags around the country and it is good to get folk out into the open air. Should it be or infact is it a policy to ask permission off land owners where there is a commercial interest - I don't believe so. I can think of one crag where this is understood and there is a charge for parking for the crag with an extra charge for minibuses - which seems quite acceptable.
This situation at Foredale has been prickly for some time and in reflection should the landowner have been approached. Groups by there nature will bring more folk - and exascibate the situation with the local residents.
I was there the other week and saw Dave and his gang there continuing their good work. We had a great day there on some superb routes.
I would be happy to pay something to park at the bottom before going up to the crag - but this may only one of a numebr of issues.
I hope something can be done.
This is a sad loss of a great venue - maybe not a Malham however there is a load of super routes with a stunning view over to Penyghent.
Unfortunately the popularity of the crag was underestimated when the guide came out with folk parking up the road - I was approached by Mr Pearson at that time, and despite having driven down from Penrith we accepted the position and left then relayed this to Dave M - and subsequently the agreement to park lower down was made and quite happily followed = with a few other restrictions.
The residents of the cottages had a quite secluded part of the Dales and then had the occasional climber walking past.
This is some elses "back yard" and visitors there (and anywhere else) should abide by the rules and act sensible.
Climbing centres use crags around the country and it is good to get folk out into the open air. Should it be or infact is it a policy to ask permission off land owners where there is a commercial interest - I don't believe so. I can think of one crag where this is understood and there is a charge for parking for the crag with an extra charge for minibuses - which seems quite acceptable.
This situation at Foredale has been prickly for some time and in reflection should the landowner have been approached. Groups by there nature will bring more folk - and exascibate the situation with the local residents.
I was there the other week and saw Dave and his gang there continuing their good work. We had a great day there on some superb routes.
I would be happy to pay something to park at the bottom before going up to the crag - but this may only one of a numebr of issues.
I hope something can be done.
In reply to Dave Musgrove: It is unbelievable that a few selfish and unthinking individuals appear to have caused this great venue to be banned. Most climbers I know and have known over 43 years are considerate and have proper regard for landowners interests and observe all access conditions. I really really hope that the landowner can be mollified in some way. Perhaps by replacing fencing and the provision of a stile, PLUS some clear signs stating NO DOGS. Maybe some alternative approach to the quarry can be negotiated.
In reply to Chris Craggs:
I am Uncle Sam's Auntie Bess, if you've managed to work it out yet. I have been climbing probably longer than you. First went to Foredale in the early 80's then again about ten years later. We had no problems. Haven't been since so not guilty of any access issues. Meh. It is always "someone else" to everybody else because those who did it will never admit to it.
I go back to my first point. Climbers are stupid and selfish. Check - Chapel Head Scar, White Scar, Craig-y-Forwen ad nauseum.
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
> [...]
>
> That depends I guess, who are you?
>
> PS The comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread that it is always 'someone else' that is the issue.
> [...]
>
> That depends I guess, who are you?
>
> PS The comment was aimed at the general tone of the thread that it is always 'someone else' that is the issue.
I am Uncle Sam's Auntie Bess, if you've managed to work it out yet. I have been climbing probably longer than you. First went to Foredale in the early 80's then again about ten years later. We had no problems. Haven't been since so not guilty of any access issues. Meh. It is always "someone else" to everybody else because those who did it will never admit to it.
I go back to my first point. Climbers are stupid and selfish. Check - Chapel Head Scar, White Scar, Craig-y-Forwen ad nauseum.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess:
Sounds like we agree then.
I still don't know who you are, should I? (Not got a great memory btw!)
Chris
PS I started climbing in 1966
> It is always "someone else" to everybody else because those who did it will never admit to it.
>
> I go back to my first point. Climbers are stupid and selfish. Check - Chapel Head Scar, White Scar, Craig-y-Forwen ad nauseum.
>
> I go back to my first point. Climbers are stupid and selfish. Check - Chapel Head Scar, White Scar, Craig-y-Forwen ad nauseum.
Sounds like we agree then.
I still don't know who you are, should I? (Not got a great memory btw!)
Chris
PS I started climbing in 1966
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Out of curosity how often do people ask you on the UKC forums who are you whilst expressing how much they know about the uk climbing scene?
Out of curosity how often do people ask you on the UKC forums who are you whilst expressing how much they know about the uk climbing scene?
In reply to The third:
Hardly ever. Not sure if that is a good thing or bad one!
Chris
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> Out of curosity how often do people ask you on the UKC forums who are you whilst expressing how much they know about the uk climbing scene?
Hardly ever. Not sure if that is a good thing or bad one!
Chris
In reply to Conan: I have removed the download links to the mini-guides for Foredale and Moughton from the Leeds Wall web site and replaced them with a link to this thread so interested parties can obtained up to date information about the situation. Hopefully this will only be a temporary measure.
I like others on this thread have enjoyed many visits to Foredale, and have always taken care to follow the BMC guidelines on parking and approach. I've also often enjoyed a post climb pint in the pub at Helwith Bridge. While fully understanding the views of the local residents, I hope they can see their way to sharing this part of the Dales with myself and other climbers in the future...
Andy
I like others on this thread have enjoyed many visits to Foredale, and have always taken care to follow the BMC guidelines on parking and approach. I've also often enjoyed a post climb pint in the pub at Helwith Bridge. While fully understanding the views of the local residents, I hope they can see their way to sharing this part of the Dales with myself and other climbers in the future...
Andy
In reply to Andy Wild:
Right up there with Malham, Kilnsey etc - I'm amazed Foredale wasn't higher on Ondra's list of crags to visit to be honest. I don't think he really got the best out of British sport by spending all his time at Malham when he could have been attempting one of Foredale's majestic lines.
Shame to lose access to the main wall though, that was pretty cool and a bit different to other low grade venues. Got what we deserved though, it's like Eagle Tor all over again. Maybe give all the residents digital cameras, instructions on how to get photos onto this site and operate some sort of name and shame vigilante scheme?
> great venue
Right up there with Malham, Kilnsey etc - I'm amazed Foredale wasn't higher on Ondra's list of crags to visit to be honest. I don't think he really got the best out of British sport by spending all his time at Malham when he could have been attempting one of Foredale's majestic lines.
Shame to lose access to the main wall though, that was pretty cool and a bit different to other low grade venues. Got what we deserved though, it's like Eagle Tor all over again. Maybe give all the residents digital cameras, instructions on how to get photos onto this site and operate some sort of name and shame vigilante scheme?
1
Statement from Harrogate Climbing Centre
We are saddened to hear that for a variety of reasons access to Foredale Quarry has been revoked.
When the issue was brought to our attention by this UKC post on Friday, we immediately removed the advertised Learn to Lead courses at Foredale Quarry from our website.
Our choice to deliver future courses at Foredale, for a maximum of nine people over the year, was based on our wish to distribute commercial climbing activity across a variety of venues to avoid over-use of any single venue. In this drive toward sustainability, the local residents were not taken into consideration and this is a failure on our part.
As the National Trust’s official partner at Brimham Rocks and Malham Tarn, we were mortified to hear that we are linked to an access issue elsewhere in the Dales, given the levels of environmental and sustainability practice built into all of our outdoor courses. In this instance however, we have failed to consider the needs of Mr Pearson and the other residents and apologise for any offence caused.
We would have been happy to have discussed any issues with the local residents before this became a problem, and would value the chance to do so in order to provide reassurance that we will no longer use Foredale for any commercial activity. We have reviewed our policy on outdoor venues to ensure that no such oversight is repeated in the future.
As climbers, we are keen to ensure that access issues such as this one are resolved, not for the benefit of commercial enterprises such as ourselves, but for the benefit of all parties concerned. We would gladly offer support to any parties involved in order to resolve this situation.
• Mike Lloyd – Harrogate Climbing Centre Manager
We are saddened to hear that for a variety of reasons access to Foredale Quarry has been revoked.
When the issue was brought to our attention by this UKC post on Friday, we immediately removed the advertised Learn to Lead courses at Foredale Quarry from our website.
Our choice to deliver future courses at Foredale, for a maximum of nine people over the year, was based on our wish to distribute commercial climbing activity across a variety of venues to avoid over-use of any single venue. In this drive toward sustainability, the local residents were not taken into consideration and this is a failure on our part.
As the National Trust’s official partner at Brimham Rocks and Malham Tarn, we were mortified to hear that we are linked to an access issue elsewhere in the Dales, given the levels of environmental and sustainability practice built into all of our outdoor courses. In this instance however, we have failed to consider the needs of Mr Pearson and the other residents and apologise for any offence caused.
We would have been happy to have discussed any issues with the local residents before this became a problem, and would value the chance to do so in order to provide reassurance that we will no longer use Foredale for any commercial activity. We have reviewed our policy on outdoor venues to ensure that no such oversight is repeated in the future.
As climbers, we are keen to ensure that access issues such as this one are resolved, not for the benefit of commercial enterprises such as ourselves, but for the benefit of all parties concerned. We would gladly offer support to any parties involved in order to resolve this situation.
• Mike Lloyd – Harrogate Climbing Centre Manager
In reply to Parthian Climbing: Well done Mike Lloyd, that's what I'd call a professional & fair response to this situation. I'm heartened that the HCC has admitted its part in this situation and has now taken responsibility for its actions. This is in stark contrast to the post by a Mr Dunne, who seemed to be going all Chris Huhne on us, trying to blame everyone else!
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Of course we agree. I thought that had been made clear.
p.s. I started climbing in 1970. you win. but then I knew you did.
> (In reply to unclesamsauntibess)
>
> [...]
>
> Sounds like we agree then.
>
> I still don't know who you are, should I? (Not got a great memory btw!)
>
>
> Chris
>
> PS I started climbing in 1966
>
> [...]
>
> Sounds like we agree then.
>
> I still don't know who you are, should I? (Not got a great memory btw!)
>
>
> Chris
>
> PS I started climbing in 1966
Of course we agree. I thought that had been made clear.
p.s. I started climbing in 1970. you win. but then I knew you did.
In reply to The third:
I was hoping for a response akin to the Eddie Izard sketch about the Star Wars Canteen - this is not a game of "who the f*ck are you?", sadly an opportunity missed. I know a lot about the uk climbing scene. I know a lot about CC too.
> (In reply to Chris Craggs)
> Out of curosity how often do people ask you on the UKC forums who are you whilst expressing how much they know about the uk climbing scene?
> Out of curosity how often do people ask you on the UKC forums who are you whilst expressing how much they know about the uk climbing scene?
I was hoping for a response akin to the Eddie Izard sketch about the Star Wars Canteen - this is not a game of "who the f*ck are you?", sadly an opportunity missed. I know a lot about the uk climbing scene. I know a lot about CC too.
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: My dad's bigger than yours.
In reply to Conan: Thats a shame that the Quarry has closed, as I fancied a few lower grade bimbles myself there soon.
Out of intrest, is the owner of the land pissed off about people being on his land, or pissed off that someone is making money out of running profitable courses on his land? If it's the latter, will he be running courses there soon, or just letting it drift into the ecosystem of the Yorkshire Dales again for no one to enjoy?
I think we need to know what the motives are before we start to sling mud at various parties, be they dog owners, familys with kids, the odd person having a sneeky wildy.
There are many restricted zones in the UK that have no access because of owners throwing dummies out of prams, do we need another?
Out of intrest, is the owner of the land pissed off about people being on his land, or pissed off that someone is making money out of running profitable courses on his land? If it's the latter, will he be running courses there soon, or just letting it drift into the ecosystem of the Yorkshire Dales again for no one to enjoy?
I think we need to know what the motives are before we start to sling mud at various parties, be they dog owners, familys with kids, the odd person having a sneeky wildy.
There are many restricted zones in the UK that have no access because of owners throwing dummies out of prams, do we need another?
In reply to Andrew Smith: Well as there's hardly a fortune to be made out of climbing courses then i strongly suspect it's the former. And as it's his neighbours that're getting pissed off it sounds like he's considering them too.
In reply to Andrew Smith:
Accusing a landowner of childishness because he is fed up with selfish and inconsiderate behaviour of climbers he has generously allowed across his land is out of order.
As for our enjoyment, or the lack of it in future, the right of his and his neighbours to the quiet enjoyment of their property is a more pressing concern, and rightly so in this instance.
Sadly, there seems to be a number of climbers who have little regard for minimising the impact they have on the small rural locations they visit, so it's going to be hard to give him the guarantees he needs that things will be better in future.
A more permanent solution, in my view, will have to involve a much more circuitous walk-in from somewhere with adequate parking, which would have the added effect of dealing with the over-popularity of the crag by discouraging those who aren't prepared to stretch their legs a bit.
> (In reply to Conan) will he be running courses there soon, or just letting it drift into the ecosystem of the Yorkshire Dales again for no one to enjoy?
>
> There are many restricted zones in the UK that have no access because of owners throwing dummies out of prams, do we need another?
>
> There are many restricted zones in the UK that have no access because of owners throwing dummies out of prams, do we need another?
Accusing a landowner of childishness because he is fed up with selfish and inconsiderate behaviour of climbers he has generously allowed across his land is out of order.
As for our enjoyment, or the lack of it in future, the right of his and his neighbours to the quiet enjoyment of their property is a more pressing concern, and rightly so in this instance.
Sadly, there seems to be a number of climbers who have little regard for minimising the impact they have on the small rural locations they visit, so it's going to be hard to give him the guarantees he needs that things will be better in future.
A more permanent solution, in my view, will have to involve a much more circuitous walk-in from somewhere with adequate parking, which would have the added effect of dealing with the over-popularity of the crag by discouraging those who aren't prepared to stretch their legs a bit.
In reply to sandy:
Just to let you know that typing Foredale Quarry into Google still produces a working link to the pdf mini guide as top link.
> (In reply to Conan) I have removed the download links to the mini-guides for Foredale and Moughton from the Leeds Wall web site and replaced them with a link to this thread so interested parties can obtained up to date information about the situation. Hopefully this will only be a temporary measure.
>
Hi>
Just to let you know that typing Foredale Quarry into Google still produces a working link to the pdf mini guide as top link.
1
In reply to unclesamsauntibess: just to confirm by CC you mean climbers club or Chris Craggs?
In reply to Andy Wild:
Unfortunately, Andy, it IS believable. I was at Pothole Quarry a while ago to watch a group of 'climbers' light a campfire on the quarry floor whilst their dogs ran loose in the fields around; and they toproped a route with a rope simply running round a tree and one of their number spent 2 hours on a toprope on one of the best routes in the quarry. Not quite sure how you accommodate the pillocks who simply do not understand.
> (In reply to Dave Musgrove) It is unbelievable that a few selfish and unthinking individuals appear to have caused this great venue to be banned. .
Unfortunately, Andy, it IS believable. I was at Pothole Quarry a while ago to watch a group of 'climbers' light a campfire on the quarry floor whilst their dogs ran loose in the fields around; and they toproped a route with a rope simply running round a tree and one of their number spent 2 hours on a toprope on one of the best routes in the quarry. Not quite sure how you accommodate the pillocks who simply do not understand.
In reply to The third: who mentioned climbers club?
1
In reply to MHutch:
Most farmers up here are in receipt of pretty generous agricultural subsidies paid for by you and me. Allowing reasonable access to natural amenities seems a fair swap. After all, the justification for such subsidies is to encourage countryside stewardship for the benefit of us all.
Reasonable access does not necessarily mean that the farmer be expected to put up with dogs, litter, fires, camping etc...
Nobody in this crowded island has a *right* to quiet enjoyment of their property - least ways if there is such a thing could someone please inform the bikers who race up and down Ribblesdale from 6am till midnight every sunny weekend. And the RAF too!
> Accusing a landowner of childishness because he is fed up with selfish and inconsiderate behaviour of climbers he has generously allowed across his land
Most farmers up here are in receipt of pretty generous agricultural subsidies paid for by you and me. Allowing reasonable access to natural amenities seems a fair swap. After all, the justification for such subsidies is to encourage countryside stewardship for the benefit of us all.
Reasonable access does not necessarily mean that the farmer be expected to put up with dogs, litter, fires, camping etc...
> the right of his and his neighbours to the quiet enjoyment of their property
Nobody in this crowded island has a *right* to quiet enjoyment of their property - least ways if there is such a thing could someone please inform the bikers who race up and down Ribblesdale from 6am till midnight every sunny weekend. And the RAF too!
In reply to hakey:
There is an argument for allowing access on land receiving subsidies, albeit unworkable a lot of the time, however, the quarry will most likely be exempt from any grant/subsidy calculations and, at the end of the day, it's his private land I believe.
> (In reply to MHutch)
>
> [...]
>
> Most farmers up here are in receipt of pretty generous agricultural subsidies paid for by you and me. Allowing reasonable access to natural amenities seems a fair swap. After all, the justification for such subsidies is to encourage countryside stewardship for the benefit of us all.
>
> Reasonable access does not necessarily mean that the farmer be expected to put up with dogs, litter, fires, camping etc...
>
> [...]
>
> Nobody in this crowded island has a *right* to quiet enjoyment of their property - least ways if there is such a thing could someone please inform the bikers who race up and down Ribblesdale from 6am till midnight every sunny weekend. And the RAF too!
>
> [...]
>
> Most farmers up here are in receipt of pretty generous agricultural subsidies paid for by you and me. Allowing reasonable access to natural amenities seems a fair swap. After all, the justification for such subsidies is to encourage countryside stewardship for the benefit of us all.
>
> Reasonable access does not necessarily mean that the farmer be expected to put up with dogs, litter, fires, camping etc...
>
> [...]
>
> Nobody in this crowded island has a *right* to quiet enjoyment of their property - least ways if there is such a thing could someone please inform the bikers who race up and down Ribblesdale from 6am till midnight every sunny weekend. And the RAF too!
There is an argument for allowing access on land receiving subsidies, albeit unworkable a lot of the time, however, the quarry will most likely be exempt from any grant/subsidy calculations and, at the end of the day, it's his private land I believe.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
> (In reply to hakey)
> There is an argument for allowing access on land receiving subsidies, albeit unworkable a lot of the time, however, the quarry will most likely be exempt from any grant/subsidy calculations and, at the end of the day, it's his private land I believe.
My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
In reply to hakey:
I'll let you put it to him!
If I receive child benefit would you like to see my children?
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
I'll let you put it to him!
If I receive child benefit would you like to see my children?
In reply to hakey:
Hi
I take your point re the argument re the farmer having a 'moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land'.
However, what constitutes 'reasonable public access'? Does it include climbers ignoring the agreed access arrangements by driving and/or walking up to & through the residents' private parking area? If as claimed does it include climbers being abusive & rude & kicking down the residents' noticeboard? Does it include urinating near to the residents' water supply? etc etc . ..
IMHO such matters are a partnership & all parties have a responsibility to observe agreements & behave responsibly. So far as I can see the farmer has tried to accommodate climbers on his land but it would seem that his efforts have been in vain so far as some climbers are concerned. He may (or may not - I don't know) be in receipt of government subsidies but even if he is I’m not aware that that means he has to give up all rights to what happens on his land.
In conclusion I would just like to state my thanks to Dave Musgrove et al in Yorkshire, to the BMC and last but not least to Mr Pearson & the Foredale residents for all their efforts with regard to facilitating climbing at Foredale. Your efforts are much appreciated. It's a great climbing venue & I hope the current problems can be resolved.
Hi
I take your point re the argument re the farmer having a 'moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land'.
However, what constitutes 'reasonable public access'? Does it include climbers ignoring the agreed access arrangements by driving and/or walking up to & through the residents' private parking area? If as claimed does it include climbers being abusive & rude & kicking down the residents' noticeboard? Does it include urinating near to the residents' water supply? etc etc . ..
IMHO such matters are a partnership & all parties have a responsibility to observe agreements & behave responsibly. So far as I can see the farmer has tried to accommodate climbers on his land but it would seem that his efforts have been in vain so far as some climbers are concerned. He may (or may not - I don't know) be in receipt of government subsidies but even if he is I’m not aware that that means he has to give up all rights to what happens on his land.
In conclusion I would just like to state my thanks to Dave Musgrove et al in Yorkshire, to the BMC and last but not least to Mr Pearson & the Foredale residents for all their efforts with regard to facilitating climbing at Foredale. Your efforts are much appreciated. It's a great climbing venue & I hope the current problems can be resolved.
In reply to hakey:
So, following your logic anyone in receipt of housing benefit has to allow unfettered access to their house to any other member of the public?
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
So, following your logic anyone in receipt of housing benefit has to allow unfettered access to their house to any other member of the public?
In reply to Karl Lunt:
A ridiculous comparison.
One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
> So, following your logic anyone in receipt of housing benefit has to allow unfettered access to their house to any other member of the public?
A ridiculous comparison.
One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
In reply to Bulls Crack:
I've put it to a couple of farmers in the past.
> (In reply to hakey)
>> [My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.]
> I'll let you put it to him!
I've put it to a couple of farmers in the past.
In reply to DeeCee:
Reasonable access would mean reasonable behaviour from both sides...
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> However, what constitutes 'reasonable public access'? Does it include climbers ignoring the agreed access arrangements by driving and/or walking up to & through the residents' private parking area? If as claimed does it include climbers being abusive & rude & kicking down the residents' noticeboard? Does it include urinating near to the residents' water supply? etc etc . ..
>
> However, what constitutes 'reasonable public access'? Does it include climbers ignoring the agreed access arrangements by driving and/or walking up to & through the residents' private parking area? If as claimed does it include climbers being abusive & rude & kicking down the residents' noticeboard? Does it include urinating near to the residents' water supply? etc etc . ..
Reasonable access would mean reasonable behaviour from both sides...
We have just published dave Musgrove's detailed account of the access situation at Foredale - http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=62335
In reply to hakey:
It's a reasonable argument where stock/crop management + conservation objectives aren't too compromised but, as another poster says, it takes two.
> (In reply to Karl Lunt)
>
> [...]
>
> A ridiculous comparison.
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
>
> [...]
>
> A ridiculous comparison.
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
It's a reasonable argument where stock/crop management + conservation objectives aren't too compromised but, as another poster says, it takes two.
In reply to hakey:
That might be one of the arguments. But is it actually a condition of any monies they receive? And the 'stewardship' arguement cuts both ways; restriction of access might be one way of 'looking after the landscape'.
> (In reply to Karl Lunt)
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public
That might be one of the arguments. But is it actually a condition of any monies they receive? And the 'stewardship' arguement cuts both ways; restriction of access might be one way of 'looking after the landscape'.
In reply to andyathome:
No it isn't unless they have permissive access options.
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> That might be one of the arguments. But is it actually a condition of any monies they receive? And the 'stewardship' arguement cuts both ways; restriction of access might be one way of 'looking after the landscape'.
> [...]
>
> That might be one of the arguments. But is it actually a condition of any monies they receive? And the 'stewardship' arguement cuts both ways; restriction of access might be one way of 'looking after the landscape'.
No it isn't unless they have permissive access options.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Yes, I agree - which is why I was very careful to use the phrase *reasonable* access in my first post.
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> It's a reasonable argument where stock/crop management + conservation objectives aren't too compromised but, as another poster says, it takes two.
> [...]
>
> It's a reasonable argument where stock/crop management + conservation objectives aren't too compromised but, as another poster says, it takes two.
Yes, I agree - which is why I was very careful to use the phrase *reasonable* access in my first post.
In reply to andyathome:
It is the argument you hear over and over as justification for public money being used to subsidise what would otherwise be economically unproductive upland hill farms.
I don't have a fundamental problem with this - but I do think the public should get value for money. And - seeing as we're paying for it - I also think there's room for a debate about how that land is managed. Is economically unproductive sheep farming and the resultant close-cropped green desert we so in many upland areas really the best use for that land?
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> That might be one of the arguments.
> [...]
>
> That might be one of the arguments.
It is the argument you hear over and over as justification for public money being used to subsidise what would otherwise be economically unproductive upland hill farms.
I don't have a fundamental problem with this - but I do think the public should get value for money. And - seeing as we're paying for it - I also think there's room for a debate about how that land is managed. Is economically unproductive sheep farming and the resultant close-cropped green desert we so in many upland areas really the best use for that land?
In reply to hakey:
Farmers under Stewardship schemes are generally paid to keep numbers lower than they would otherwise.
> (In reply to andyathome)
>
> [...]
>
> It is the argument you hear over and over as justification for public money being used to subsidise what would otherwise be economically unproductive upland hill farms.
>
> I don't have a fundamental problem with this - but I do think the public should get value for money. And - seeing as we're paying for it - I also think there's room for a debate about how that land is managed. Is economically unproductive sheep farming and the resultant close-cropped green desert we so in many upland areas really the best use for that land?
>
> [...]
>
> It is the argument you hear over and over as justification for public money being used to subsidise what would otherwise be economically unproductive upland hill farms.
>
> I don't have a fundamental problem with this - but I do think the public should get value for money. And - seeing as we're paying for it - I also think there's room for a debate about how that land is managed. Is economically unproductive sheep farming and the resultant close-cropped green desert we so in many upland areas really the best use for that land?
Farmers under Stewardship schemes are generally paid to keep numbers lower than they would otherwise.
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Yep. I know.
But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
> Farmers under Stewardship schemes are generally paid to keep numbers lower than they would otherwise.
Yep. I know.
But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
In reply to hakey:
So you believe that posting these sorts of 'arguments' on a public forum (that can be read by the land owner and residents) is going to help us regain access to Foredale?
> (In reply to Karl Lunt)
>
> A ridiculous comparison.
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
>
> A ridiculous comparison.
>
> One of the arguments for giving farmers public money, particularly in upland areas, is that they are looking after the landscape for the greater benefit of the public - surely one of the benefits of which should be reasonable access to natural amenity?
So you believe that posting these sorts of 'arguments' on a public forum (that can be read by the land owner and residents) is going to help us regain access to Foredale?
In reply to Karl Lunt:
No, I don't believe anything of the kind. I doubt that what I've said here will have much effect either way.
And not sure what you're getting at with the 'arguments' in quotes - are you suggesting that they are not actually arguments? If so, what?
> (In reply to hakey)
>
> So you believe that posting these sorts of 'arguments' on a public forum (that can be read by the land owner and residents) is going to help us regain access to Foredale?
>
> So you believe that posting these sorts of 'arguments' on a public forum (that can be read by the land owner and residents) is going to help us regain access to Foredale?
No, I don't believe anything of the kind. I doubt that what I've said here will have much effect either way.
And not sure what you're getting at with the 'arguments' in quotes - are you suggesting that they are not actually arguments? If so, what?
In reply to hakey:
I don't understand your argument. That's exactly what the farmer had previously been doing in allowing access for climbing, until his public spirited trust was abused.
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> [...]
>
> Yep. I know.
>
> But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
>
> Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
>
> [...]
>
> Yep. I know.
>
> But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
>
> Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
I don't understand your argument. That's exactly what the farmer had previously been doing in allowing access for climbing, until his public spirited trust was abused.
In reply to hakey: it's called rhetoric - when you try and use 'arguments' in place of facts to try and persuade people to your point of view. Have you been to Foredale? Have you talked to the farmer/residents and actually listened to them - I have. I know what response your reasoned 'arguments' would most likely get. Which makes me glad that Dave Musgrove is negotiating on our behalf.
In reply to kevin stephens:
Well I'm at a loss as to how I can restate my general (ie not just specific to this particular case) argument any more clearly.
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> I don't understand your argument.
> [...]
>
> I don't understand your argument.
Well I'm at a loss as to how I can restate my general (ie not just specific to this particular case) argument any more clearly.
In reply to hakey:
Ah I see now; a thread hijak.
Ah I see now; a thread hijak.
In reply to Karl Lunt:
Rhetoric? In an argument? Who'd a thunk it? :-O
> (In reply to hakey) it's called rhetoric - when you try and use 'arguments' in place of facts to try and persuade people to your point of view.
Rhetoric? In an argument? Who'd a thunk it? :-O
In reply to hakey:
If it is under stewardship then it will be managed for one or several objectives: biodiversity/landscape/historical conservation/permissive access . The payments are worked out on an income-foregone basis so theoretically don't form a subsidy.
The single farm payment is a subsidy along with a newer hill farm allowance which is probably what you are thinking of?
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> [...]
>
> Yep. I know.
>
> But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
>
> Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
>
> [...]
>
> Yep. I know.
>
> But that's missing the point I was making - we are paying for the management of the land, but I don't recall there being a public debate about what precisely that management should entail.
>
> Why not manage the land, say, for biodiversiity, or to maximise its natural amenity value to the public?
If it is under stewardship then it will be managed for one or several objectives: biodiversity/landscape/historical conservation/permissive access . The payments are worked out on an income-foregone basis so theoretically don't form a subsidy.
The single farm payment is a subsidy along with a newer hill farm allowance which is probably what you are thinking of?
In reply to Bulls Crack:
Yep - is it the UEL something or other now? The general point is that many farm subsidies, particularly those that help support farms that would otherwise not be economically viable, are sold to the public as payment for managing the land for public benefit.
It seems to me that, as such, there is a moral argument that the public should see tangible evidence of benefit. One obvious way to achieve this is through reasonable* rights of access to natural amenity - and climbing venues being a prime example of natural amenity from which the public might gain considerable benefit.
*reasonable for both sides - crops, stock management, environmental issues should all be taken into account.
Anyway - I think I'm just restating the same point over and over, so probably best I leave it at that.
(Heaven forfend I further derail the thread with my discussing a more general point rather than the specifics of this case! )
> The single farm payment is a subsidy along with a newer hill farm allowance which is probably what you are thinking of?
Yep - is it the UEL something or other now? The general point is that many farm subsidies, particularly those that help support farms that would otherwise not be economically viable, are sold to the public as payment for managing the land for public benefit.
It seems to me that, as such, there is a moral argument that the public should see tangible evidence of benefit. One obvious way to achieve this is through reasonable* rights of access to natural amenity - and climbing venues being a prime example of natural amenity from which the public might gain considerable benefit.
*reasonable for both sides - crops, stock management, environmental issues should all be taken into account.
Anyway - I think I'm just restating the same point over and over, so probably best I leave it at that.
(Heaven forfend I further derail the thread with my discussing a more general point rather than the specifics of this case! )
In reply to hakey:
You can't spend the same money twice. The real public benefit of agricultural subsidies is seen in food prices that aren't sustainable at farm level. You need to correct that problem before you can even think of claiming that the money gives any right of acccess to farmland.
> (In reply to Bulls Crack)
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
>
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> My argument is simpler - a farmer reliant upon public money in the form agricultural subsidies has a moral obligation to agree reasonable public access to natural amenities on all of his land.
You can't spend the same money twice. The real public benefit of agricultural subsidies is seen in food prices that aren't sustainable at farm level. You need to correct that problem before you can even think of claiming that the money gives any right of acccess to farmland.
In reply to timjones:
A good point.
The UEL scheme is again an environmental one paying a small amount for limkited 'improvements'- although some would argue that it's a way of supporting farms in environmental guise, so is not a direct subsidy.
> (In reply to hakey)
> [...]
>
> You can't spend the same money twice. The real public benefit of agricultural subsidies is seen in food prices that aren't sustainable at farm level. You need to correct that problem before you can even think of claiming that the money gives any right of access to farmland.
> [...]
>
> You can't spend the same money twice. The real public benefit of agricultural subsidies is seen in food prices that aren't sustainable at farm level. You need to correct that problem before you can even think of claiming that the money gives any right of access to farmland.
A good point.
The UEL scheme is again an environmental one paying a small amount for limkited 'improvements'- although some would argue that it's a way of supporting farms in environmental guise, so is not a direct subsidy.
In reply to Conan:
Where does this issue fit in with 'right to roam'?
Anyone ignoring access agreements & signposts etc are idiots, but I don't think this should mean that the vast majority of climbers, who are considerate & caring towards the countryside & local residents & add to the local economy etc. etc. should be denied access.
If access is followed, this has minimum impact on local residents, who would just see ant-like figures panting their way up the hillside.
How many climbers have been identified breaking the agreement? Is this a side-issue, with the main concern being one of using the site for commercial gain?
It seems totally unreasonable that anyone using the great outdoors to introduce & coach others (for payment or not) should have to notify the landowner.
Climbers need to respect the environment & the community of course, whilst assertively exercising their right to enjoy their awesome sport & encourage others to do the same
Where does this issue fit in with 'right to roam'?
Anyone ignoring access agreements & signposts etc are idiots, but I don't think this should mean that the vast majority of climbers, who are considerate & caring towards the countryside & local residents & add to the local economy etc. etc. should be denied access.
If access is followed, this has minimum impact on local residents, who would just see ant-like figures panting their way up the hillside.
How many climbers have been identified breaking the agreement? Is this a side-issue, with the main concern being one of using the site for commercial gain?
It seems totally unreasonable that anyone using the great outdoors to introduce & coach others (for payment or not) should have to notify the landowner.
Climbers need to respect the environment & the community of course, whilst assertively exercising their right to enjoy their awesome sport & encourage others to do the same
In reply to woodsy:
It's not open access land - hence the problem.
I do sympathise with a more general right of access - akin to the Scottish Land Reform Act - but at the moment we're stuck with CROW
> (In reply to Conan)
> It seems totally unreasonable that anyone using the great outdoors to introduce & coach others (for payment or not) should have to notify the landowner.
> Climbers need to respect the environment & the community of course, whilst assertively exercising their right to enjoy their awesome sport & encourage others to do the same
> Climbers need to respect the environment & the community of course, whilst assertively exercising their right to enjoy their awesome sport & encourage others to do the same
It's not open access land - hence the problem.
I do sympathise with a more general right of access - akin to the Scottish Land Reform Act - but at the moment we're stuck with CROW
In reply to All:
I am closing this thread now.
Can you continue any discussion relevant to Access to Foredale on this thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=460311
Please keep other discussion off the thread.
Alan
I am closing this thread now.
Can you continue any discussion relevant to Access to Foredale on this thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=460311
Please keep other discussion off the thread.
Alan
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...