UKC

The Peak District National Park Authority is to permanently prevent motor vehicles from using the Long Causeway at Stanage, near Hathersage, to protect the national park’s special qualities.


Members of the Authority’s Audit, Resources and Performance committee decided that a permanent Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is necessary to conserve nature and the quiet enjoyment of the wild landscape.

The decision follows a public consultation last year in which the Authority received almost 2,500 responses, with 1127 objecting to the proposed TRO and 1327 supporting a vehicle ban.

Long Causeway runs from Redmires Reservoir on the outskirts of Sheffield, to Stanedge Pole where it crosses the highway authorities’ boundary between Sheffield City Council and Derbyshire County Council. It then descends below the iconic Stanage Edge to Dennis Knoll.

In reply to rubbercrumb:

Hopefully they ban you from climbing stanage with that attitude. I take it you drive your car around the roads around stanage?

In reply to rubbercrumb: That's terrible! What about the off roaders HUMAN RIGHTS to rip up the causeway. The Peaks Authority are acting worse than Hitler.

In reply to xplorer:

You should get some sort of prize for that....

E

In reply to rubbercrumb:



Cool. When are they going to ban trad climbers with all that jangly climbing gear on their harnesses? You can't go for a walk along the top of Stanage on a Sunday afternoon without it sounding like you're wading through a herd of cattle with bells on their necks.

In reply to rubbercrumb:

I'll still be riding my KTM up and down the causeway.

I think a kinder trespass kind of event with 4x4's, crossers and quads should do the trick.

I f*cking hate ramblers, and slimy stuck up trad climbers.

By the way trad is what I do, but I'm now single minded like you!!!

In reply to teflonpete: Just banning hexes would do the trick.

In reply to Sir Chasm:
Yeah, but breathing causes environmental damage too, so it's hypocritical to object to anything anyone ever does anywhere.

In reply to Enty:

What's the difference with driving around the Peak District in your car and driving up a green lane in a 4x4.

You can't see it can you? There's a possibility that stanage won't be available to anybody soon.

This banning of 4x4's doesn't give me much confidence that stanage will remain open for everyone, let alone 4x4's.

In reply to xplorer:

Agreed. I think climbers are on pretty thin ice wanting to ban things that might intrude on the wild environment or the peace and quiet (as long as it's not climbing).

In reply to Enty:

Do you even climb at stanage? Obviously not, you don't even live in the country.

Has your day ever been ruined by a 4x4 at stanage?

Or is it that you really care about plants and shit?

In reply to xplorer:


Yeah Enty, what have you ever done on grit? ;0)

In reply to xplorer: 2/10
although being a friday you seem to have a few people taking the bait

In reply to xplorer:


In the former you drive to the location, then do something more peaceful and responsible such as walking or climbing for most of the day.

In the latter you drive to the location, and then hare around making a hell of a racket and annoying everyone else. It is far more anti-social.


Not a whole day, no. But there have been times when climbing at High Neb when ten-minute durations have been marred by anti-social people tearing up the Causeway in off-road vehicles making an utterly ridiculous amount of noise that is totally out of kilter with the idea of a National Park.

In reply to MagnusL:

I wouldn't be surprised if someone contacted the owners and maybe new owners of stanage, asking them to research the effects of thousands of rock climbers wondering about the base of the crag, climbing fragile habitats, of animals and rare plants, leaving litter, etc etc.

And by the way, I climb on stanage at least twice a week, I'm a dedicated climber. But we can't act like we do no damage.

In reply to teflonpete:


What's he ever done on Tarmac more like

In reply to xplorer:

Genius. Pure genius

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Anti social people?

Are you for real?

That's a hell of a distorted view of people you have there?

In reply to xplorer: I can't believe no one has posted this yet "First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."

You're right, it'll be climbers next. Mark my words.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

My point is that right now on a walking forum someone could be writing this




I don't find the sound of engines ruins my ability to enjoy a day out in the countryside and if people are going to kick off about wanting to ban things they should perhaps check for 'glass houses' before throwing stones...

In reply to xplorer:

I don't wish to speak on behalf of anyone else, particularly one so erudite as Coel. However, I can say that I find the noise of 4x4's incredibly anti-social, as I do jet-ski's when I'm swimming in the sea.

The noise from both of these activities is all pervading and for that reason I say anti-social.

In reply to xplorer:


Yes, I'm for real. There have been occasions when I've been climbing at High Neb when the amount of noise made by off-roaders tearing up the Causeway at high speed and high revs has been -- in my opinion -- "anti social".

Note that High Neb is a few hundred yards from the Causeway, yet the noise was still excessive from there. And it was vastly greater than the sound of cars passing by on the road, which was not noticeable at all (though admittedly the road is a bit further away still).

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You're right, it'll be climbers next. Mark my words.

It really will be, by the way things are going;

Temp TRO
Causeway getting re surfaced
North lees possibly selling off parts of stanage
Banning vehicles altogether

Seems like there is money to be made on stanage privately in some way.

I never thought I would see national park users happy that other users are getting pushed out.

It's a sign of things to come.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

There are plenty of anti social climbers to you know.

To be honest I see plenty of arrogant, ignorant anti social climbers at stanage, it's one of the worst places for it.

In reply to xplorer: AS I live in close proximity to the causeway and it is one of my regular offroad bike routes. I think a permanent ban is fantastic and a step in the right direction. If you want to drive down badly rutted roads in a 4X4 Lodge lane is pretty F**ked and there are some big filling loosening holes on Redmires Road.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

If you seriously believe all 4x4 users are anti social, then I feel sorry for you coel. And your views are distorted beyond belief

In reply to MagnusL:


People simply being there is an unreasonable complaint. Leaving bags around? Hmm, that is a rather localised "mess" compared to the sound off-roaders can make.


The noise that climbers make is vastly less than what off-road vehicles can make, and is not out of proportion to the number of people.


Some bits are worn, yes, but the wear/people ratio is vastly lower than that caused by off-road vehicles.


I don't think that places like Stanage are particular littered, are they? I don't see that climbers can sensibly be accused of causing litter to the same degree that off-roaders cause noise.


You do have a point there. I do think that people use chalk excessively.

In reply to muppetfilter:

Cyclists will be banned before you know it mate!

Living in close proximity to the causeway must mean you live in robin hoods cave? No?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

People simply being there is an unreasonable complaint. Leaving bags around? Hmm, that is a rather localised "mess" compared to the sound off-roaders can make.



Are you the noise police?

In reply to xplorer:


What I'm saying is that driving down Stanage Causeway in an off-roader at high revs is anti-social. That's not saying that "all 4x4 users are anti social", it's saying that that activity is anti-social.

In reply to Coel Hellier: We have an issue down here too - several times I've been walking in the Beacons, some of the best and wildest mountain country we have south of Snowdonia, then b*gger me if a convoy of 20+ 4 x 4s don't turn up, grinding their way from Brecon to Merthyr over yet another Roman road through some of the remotest terrain in S Wales.

And yes it does spoil my day, if I wanted to walk along a road I would have chosen the A470.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Don't tell me, I think climbers should be able to use Stanage, tell the people who find climbers annoying and destructive (and there are plenty of them).

In reply to xplorer:


Yes, I'm the noise police. And I'm glad that off-roaders are being banned at Stanage -- they are far too noisy.

I would also object to someone taking a ghetto blaster to Stanage and playing load, blaring music, it is out of keeping with the environment.

In reply to MagnusL: Can you post a couple of links to forums where people are complaining about climbers? Just so we can see what we're up against.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

How can it be anti social, that is just your own personal view.

It was perfectly acceptable to use the causeway if you wanted to in a 4x4

They weren't committing any offence.

Just because it annoys you, it doesn't mean it's not ok.

In reply to xplorer:
The idea is that national parks are for *quiet* enjoyment, a phrase used in many planning documents and so on. Also when enjoyment of them and presevervation come in to conflict, preservation wins. On both counts off-roading on the Stanage Causeway should be, if not banned, restricted so it doesn't damage it and doesn't cause undue noise.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

I just think you are a typical boring, anti social stanage trad warrior.

In reply to rubbercrumb:

Banning them is a step in the right direction, not only is it 4x4 that ruin the peace but also those idiots on off road motorcyles, ripping up the trails and having no regard to other users of the great quiet country side, like someone else said if I wanted to walk on a road, I'd have gone walking on one..

In reply to MagnusL:

I'm not convinced they do exist, at least in any numbers, but do you think they can make a case for climbing being even 1000th as damaging on a participation basis.

In reply to MG:

Will you have the same view when, we are no longer allowed to climb there, because some private owner can make more money using the land for something else.

The local councils haven't banned 4x4's for the benefit of walkers and climbers, and other park users. Give it a couple more years and you will understand. Trust me

In reply to xplorer:


By being far too noisy! Duh!


Yep, it is. And the view of many others.


Which is why they are changing the rules! "Within the rules" is not the same as "not anti-social".


But if it annoys a large fraction of the other users of the Park then that does mean it is anti-social. That's what "anti social" means.

In reply to The New NickB:


More people climb than 4x4, I think it can be generally said that walkers and climbers cause a lot more damage than a few thousand 4x4's.

Do you know how much money is spent repairing damage walking paths?

In reply to Coel Hellier: In fairness, the main noise issues on the causeway are from bikes, rather than 4 wheel vehicles, and that's something that can be levelled at road bikes equally.

The environmental issues (speaking as someone who does give a damn about the plants etc) are really about proportionality. A single off road vehicle does a lot more damage per unit/passenger than the equivalent walker, climber MTBer. This is both to the road infrastructure (which the council is obliged to repair at public expense) and to the wider environment. Much of the ecological damage to the SAC was as a consequence of vehicles deliberately driving off the semi paved track to liven up the experience. These upland habitats, to put it simply, can't self repair easily - damage stays done.

I drive a 4x4. I can understand the appeal of off road driving, but when you look at the damage in the Dales, Brecon, Lakes or wherever it's difficult to argue against outright bans on the majority of these byways

In reply to xplorer:


That's entirely different to this issue, and not why off-roaders have been banned.


Yes they have.


Nope, I don't trust you.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Your distorted, strange views mean absolutely nothing to me.

Next time your at stanage, you better keep your mouth shut, you may offend me by talking to loud.

90% of climbers are miserable, anti social pompous, big girls blouses

In reply to xplorer:


That won't happen.

Trust me.

In reply to xplorer:

Nice ...
Just bought some new Tyres for my Delica, Was hoping to break em in on the Causeway ;-( never mind. I will just have to drive up the field and see if i can get to the Plantation instead. It might catch on i could ferry fat boulderers or sport climbers up there .

In reply to Coel Hellier:

" The local councils haven't banned 4x4's for the benefit of walkers and climbers, and other park users.

Yes they have."


No they haven't, are you that simple?

In reply to xplorer:


OK, no probs. But in that case I'll feel free to ignore the views of off-roaders.

In reply to toad:

Why won't it happen?

Plenty of climbing venues have been lost, due to new owners realising their properties worth

In reply to xplorer:
What a wanker you are, you are doing your fellow offroaders no favours at all with your bleeting.

In reply to xplorer:

How many are plenty and where are they .... just to save me turning up to places where I used to climb and cant anymore

In reply to liz j:

Great, you seem like a loverly lady Liz, I wish my mum was as nice as you.....

In reply to xplorer: I live a lot closer than you do... ;0)
so have a more valid voice in what to me is a very local issue.If they closed it to bikes it wouldn't bother me too much considering how many superb trails are available from this side of Sheffield.

I am however enjoying your red hot Troll action this drab Friday afternoon.

In reply to rubbercrumb:

All that banning 4x4's from causeway will do is, push off-road era to other green lanes

In reply to xplorer:

I'm sure she is....

In reply to xplorer:



I have to say, that's not my experience of climbers (boulderers yes, but climbers no - only messing)

I've mostly found climbers to be the opposite in fact. Generally happy, social friendly big girls blouses. Just my experience. And I've also known 4x4ers to be just the same (but with lumber jack shirts rather than BGB's), but the vehicles they drive in the country make way too much noise.

In reply to pebbles:

Surely more than 2?

E

In reply to liz j:

She is much nicer than you Liz. You have already proven that

In reply to Tony the Blade:


Yes normally I would agree, but stanage does seem to have its own cliques.

Anyone who thinks for one moment that climbers could be banned from Stanage needs to have their heads tested. It's one of the most iconic areas of the Peak District and results in a phenomenal amount of trade for the surrounding area, not to mention drawing attention to other areas of the Peak.

Plenty of lanes are closed to 4X4's on the basis of conservation of wildlife and erosion prevention, there's nothing to get all mardy about.

That said I respect the fact that 4x4 enthusiasts who have enjoyed this area in the past will be frustrated by the ban.

In reply to xplorer:

Well for one thing a quick glance at the map reveals that Stanage is access land.

In reply to Enty:


nah look at the work they are putting in. score/posts.

In reply to MischaHY:

The causeway to 4x4 users is what stanage is to climbers

I just find it strange that some park users believe it's a victory that other park users are being pushed out.

It it's happening to them, it will happen to us climber to eventually.

In reply to Mike Peacock:

Yes it is open access land at the moment, due to the fact that north lees have allowed it to be. What happens if the new owners don't do the same.

We have very little power as climbers on stanage, almost none, to stop a private owner doing what they want.

Green belt land has proven that, it was set up to stop development, but in quite Afew places it has had the opposite effect

In reply to muppetfilter:

You live closer yes, but I'm there more, does that mean I have more rights than you?

I'm glad I could improve your day! I'm merely making a mockery of this thread as I do with all threads that show how ignorant and naive people are.

Funny how the op hasn't posted since his first post. Has never posted about climbing on a climbing forum.

In reply to xplorer: "Funny how the op hasn't posted since his first post. Has never posted about climbing on a climbing forum."

Apart from all his posts going back years. But don't let facts interrupt your fertile imagination, you funny little fellow.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You funny large fellow

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Prove that the op has contributed to this forum.

I've checked the profile and it's pretty obvious he doesn't contribute.

3 posts and two have been about the causeway. Both started by him. And never posted again.

But don't let the facts effect your funny out take on your funny little bubble

In reply to xplorer:
You do know about the CROW Act?

In reply to xplorer:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/search.php?forum=0&dates=1&na...

Actually, he has been around quite a while.

Can I be a funny fellow as well, sounds like fun :-D

In reply to toad:

That only crows and maybe ravens are allowed on the causeway in their 4x4's?

In reply to toad:

You do know about green belt land?

In reply to xplorer:

Rather more than you, I suspect. You're comparing oranges and trilobites

In reply to xplorer:

Can it, certainly the damage done in areas like the Stanage Causeway is disproportionately caused relatively small numbers of 4x4 vehicles, rather than tens of thousands of walkers and climbers.

Quite a lot, I sometimes even sign the cheques. Numbers are important here, we accept that large numbers of people will cause some damage and accept the cost of repair because those people are enjoying the environment and benefiting the local economy. With much greater damage, smaller numbers, local benefit plus the antisocial aspects, the balance of the equation is rather different.

In reply to xplorer:

Do you? Please explain the relevance.

In reply to toad:

Do you really think the so called act is in changeable and completely set in stone.

Do you know nothing about the British political history. When money is involved nothing else matters.

If shale gas was found below the grit on stanage do you think the CROW act would protect it then.........? Exactly

In reply to The New NickB:

The relevance is down to the fact, that you think stanage will always be available for us to use.

If someone believes they can make more money by using stanage in a different way. No amount of acts and laws will stop it. If you believe otherwise you have your head in the grit

In reply to xplorer:


Yep, I know about British political history. It is all about a thing called "democracy", which, coupled with universal franchise, has led to a long-term shift of power from those who have money to the broad mass of the people. Compare, e.g. CROW and Scottish equivalent to the pre-Kinder-trespass days.

In reply to Tony the Blade:


Have a quick read through the posts again, he started with the funny comments.

You skim readers are funny

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Ah democracy.

You still believe you have a say on how land is used?

Would you be able to stop fracking? With your powerful democracy

In reply to xplorer:

His posting history goes back to November 04. You illiterate moron.

In reply to xplorer: bored now. Wittering about fracking is silly. Why don't you use a more relevant example, like Longstone Edge?

In reply to xplorer:


Yep.


Sure, we would, if that was the voters' priority then of course we would. Actually, though, the voters priority is more about ensuring available fuel at a cheap price. Most of the pressure groups of the left care much more about "fuel poverty" than about the environment -- and politicians reflect that. We get the politicians that we vote for.

In reply to xplorer:

Go on make a case for that happening!

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Using personal insults sir chasm, what an absolute clown you are.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Are you nick clegg

In reply to toad:


What about Longstone edge, now there's an example for you.

In reply to xplorer: Being unable to read is nothing to be proud of.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Unable to read?

Making insults is nothing to be proud of either. In fact some would say insulting people is a whole lot worse.

Don't teach your children to insult people, teach them to read instead

In reply to The New NickB:

What type of case are you looking for?

Wood
Plastic
Leather

I can make any one of them

In reply to rubbercrumb:

I'm a climber at stanage, and I don't want them bloody 4x4's ruining my day. So let's ban them from the causeway, and push them to another green lane, to ruin some one else's day.

Do you see my point

In reply to xplorer:


Yep, I do. So let's ban them from all green lanes.

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Coel, I thought you like democracy?

You can't have it your way every time kid. It's either a democracy or your hitler

In reply to xplorer: I'm going to start the Stanage bombing society. It is my right to fly Vulcan's over Stanage and drop bunker buster bombs. I assume you are fine with that.

In reply to xplorer: Godwin.

And you were doing so well up to then

In reply to xplorer: Ah well, that brings that to an abrupt halt, just in time for the weekend.

In reply to xplorer:


Yes, I do. How do you think a vote would go on banning off-roaders from all green lanes? I bet it'd pass, because the number of walkers, climbers, bird-watchers, and others who want to enjoy the peace of the countryside far outnumbers the few off-roaders.


I hope that off-roaders also accept that principle.

In reply to MG:

Airworthy vulcans are kind of thin on the ground. You may do better with less cool but more modern aircraft.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



Sir Chasm already Godwinned at 14:20!

In reply to davidbeynon:


But they are very good at making a hell of a racket and guzzling up fuel, much like off-roaders.

In reply to xplorer:

Yes, unable to read. You've, repeatedly, made a mistake about the op's posting history. That's ok, we all make mistakes. When you've grown up a bit perhaps you'll be able to acknowledge your errors. You petulant little child.

In reply to toad:

Is no one allowed to mention hitler no?

I didn't called him hitler, just the fact that if he wants to ban something outright with that view, then yes it is like hitlers views.

F*ck Godwin

In reply to Sir Chasm:

It has nothing to do with not knowing how to read, obviously I've just missed the link, linking to his posts from 6 months ago. So that's your mistake, you petulant middle aged oap, who never climbs.

In reply to xplorer:

If you think that banning 4x4 drivers from a couple of fairly inconsequential green lanes is in any way comparable to waging warfare and committing genocide across an entire continent then you need help.

In reply to xplorer: This is all getting rather unpleasant. I climb. So what's your point?

In reply to davidbeynon:

You obviously have only read some posts and not all.

That means you have no say on the matter.

Read all posts, and then make a comment, with the correct facts

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I haven't made it unpleasant, that is totally down to sir chasm starting with the personal insults.

This shows how people ignore certain facts. Just have a quick look at sir chasms posts to me please

In reply to xplorer:

Advice you would do well to heed.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


It has entertainment value though!

In reply to xplorer:

Unobtainium might give you a fighting chance!

In reply to xplorer:

I have tried to do nothing but highlight this op as being ignorant and arrogant.

I didn't start any insulting until sir chasm started with the childish insults, I wasn't surprised with that.

I've made my points, and kept myself entertained, while I'm sat here in the passenger seat on my way to the gorms for a month.

Now I'll leave it up to you Nobel men to finish my work for me.

I'm touching rock in about half an hour. What you touching, plastic keys?

In reply to davidbeynon: Cut him some slack, he's just having a bit of a hissy fit because he can't use his nasty, destructive toy on the causeway any more.

In reply to xplorer:

Keep going, this is comedy gold. :0)

In reply to xplorer: 'I've made my points, '

Er ... which is? Democracy is good when you agree with the outcome, it's like Hitler if you don't?

reply to Coel Hellier: I would suggest the two remaining airworthy SR71's would be better than the one remaining Vulcan for noise and fuel consumption. I have seen both fly and although the Vulcan remains my favourite , the SR71 made the ground shake like nothing I experienced before or after as it took off at Mildenhall airshow ....on one engine only!

(I was a kid and the excitement at watching that was only equal to waiting for the Space shuttle to come in and land at Stanstead on the back of a 747...although that was a bit of an anti climax and my dad told me off for using up a whole real of film on my Kodak disc 4000 camara as it flew past....ahh, the good old days of my stress free youth)

In reply to teflonpete:

It's not so little, it's quite a beast actually, a brand new range rover sport lent to us by a nice British climbing company.

In reply to xplorer: Please, please - I don't like victim blaming but can you please stop making such a fool of yourself? You'll be talking about Mt Ogwen next.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Why does it matter to you?

In reply to Bjartur í Sumarhús:


There is the other Vulcan at southend restricted to ground runs only so could make xplorer happy and have that running up and down the causeway. Might need some minor work to get it to fit but be worth it.

In reply to xplorer: It's like watching a car crash - you don't want to but you can't help yourself. And even if the victim is an idiot, you still have to feel sorry for them.

In reply to rubbercrumb: that's great news. They always look like lost doggers anyway.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

This is a bit of a predicament then.

If you haven't already worked it out..... Ive wound you up, without you knowing it's exactly what I wanted to do.

Believe me, you don't need to feel sorry for me.

It's the arrogant and ignorant posters on here that you need to be sorry for, including yourself.

You close your eyes and blank out the fact, that we are loosing our freedom in the national parks, you openly celebrate other parks users being push out. How can you think that is normal behaviour.

Stanage is currently going through a possibly unstable time, but you've forgotten about that.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I climb everyday nowadays, because I can. If you don't, I feel sorry for you!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Why am I not improving very fast?

Do you know me, was you at burbage south on Monday?

In reply to gd303uk:

If they *were* doggers, there'd be a much higher proportion of women taking part.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Who's dj viper, and what's he got to do with me?

In reply to xplorer:

I take it you seen me fail on life assurance?

In reply to rubbercrumb:
I'm not too bothered about 4x4s on the green lane, it's those that decide that their vehicles are either not manly enough to get over the terrain in the right of way or that the terrain is just not hardcore enough and then go driving along the land either side of the track. And I still don't understand why motox bikes have to be so noisy.

In reply to xplorer:

Was that a bit like when I 'failed' on The End of the Affair?

It looked nice enough, but I just kept on walking

In reply to Tom Last:

It's a horrible little bugger if you ask me

In reply to xplorer:

No. Cloth.

In reply to gethin_allen:

It's historical from Roman times, and 4x4s drive along it. Surely it's important to try and preserve our history in this country?

I can take or leave 4x4s in general to be honest though, I just think the remaining stones are worth preserving.

In reply to Enty:

The Green Ink Award?

In reply to Removed User:

Although in this case I think it will be a Sharpie rather than a fountain pen!

In reply to rubbercrumb:

Great news, and long overdue.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If we're back to sensible discussion, then yes, Stanage Causeway has been an anomaly for years. I'm not averse to off roading on some of the long green lanes in Lincolshire for example, or even bits of Wiltshire ridgeway, but Long Causeway was never appropriate - it was just a little stretch of rough road that reminded me more of Scarborough Marine Drive than a proper off road experience

In reply to xplorer:

Yes, couldn't agree more either. It is indeed time to update the law on BOATs to ban all motorised vehicles from all public green lanes.

4x4 owners can afford to pay for custom off road, private playgrounds and can stop trashing our national gem of the public rights of way network. Glad we're on the same wavelength.

In reply to wintertree:

Ok I lied about the KTM, I don't off road in any way shape or form. So banning 4x4 doesn't and wouldn't affect me directly, but to celebrate a victory of ridding the national parks of user groups isn't what we need.

Sooner or later we will loose a lot of our national parks, it's inevitable. Celebrating the loosing freedom in our parks is ridiculous.

The BMC have stated that their worried about the north lees estate's future.

In reply to xplorer: How do you loose a National Park? Leave the gate open?

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

I think loosing happens when there are insufficient bolts in place ...
<ducks>

In reply to xplorer:


Sure it is - if that user group is not compatible with the concept of a national park.

Removing a bunch of folks tearing up the very fabric of the national park itself in vehicles with 200+ times the power output of a runner, climber of horse rider, whilst contributing nothing to the maintenance of the park, all done under the protection of a law that predates the automobile, that is not loosing a national park, that is common bloody sense catching up decades to late. It is not the thin end of the wedge.

You can only have some freedoms in a national park because other freedoms are sacrificed, it's a balancing act and if you can't see that here there's nout anybody can say to change that. There are plenty of other freedoms one doesn't have in a national park, and damn right to otherwise we would genuinely loose the parks.

In reply to xplorer:
>

Sound advice from the bloke who repeatedly made jokes about incontinence when engaged in debate with people older than himself. People caring for dying parents probably didn't find your comments as funny as you did.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Incontinence, what are you on about?

In reply to Fat Bumbly2:

Great stuff!

I absolutely dominated this thread from the word go!

The vote for and against 4x4 on the causeway was pretty close if you look at the figures.

Shows how much support they have. Did you sign against. I bet you didn't

In reply to wintertree:

I'll be back about 8 when I'm back from a day of trad, just to continue my excellent work. Definitely rattled a few cage's

In reply to xplorer:
Prat...

In reply to xplorer: I don't live in England so no,but I would have if local. Ditch the frekkin engine you lazy gits. If I want land ploughed, I'd get a professional in with a proper (ie non Chelsea) tractor.

Will never forget the damage done by bogged down elimination organs to the Radnor Forest or hills above Merthyr.

In reply to xplorer:

Sorry but I can't work out what you mean. Something belonging to cages?
Occupants? Prisoners?

In reply to xplorer:
>

Looks to have levelled out (for climbers & walkers at least)

http://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2013/09/20/victory-for-climbers-campaign-a...

In reply to rubbercrumb: Looks like xplorer hasn't got back from his day of trad yet. While he's not here can I just thank everybody else for livening up my Saturady evening, one of the funniest threads I've read in a long time.

In reply to pec:

Does anyone remember that Fast Show sketch in which they go living off the land in their 4x4 and end up getting their supper from Pizza Hut?

In reply to pec:


Are you implying that everyone else made this thread funny, and not me? Hmmm

I'd go get a hobby if I were you, there's lots more to do than reading threads on a Saturday ......... CLIMBING

In reply to rubbercrumb:

Are the BBC inferring that the erosion to Kinder since 1932 is due to the Kinder Trespass and opening up the moors to walkers?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24162587

and should rambling be banned to let the moors recover?

In reply to Paul F:

No. If anything the article is simply highlighting that the moors are culturally significant and important to people.

Mr Begg added: "These are fundamental things that society needs us to be doing, alongside providing a better future for nature. It is also about being able to connect people back to nature."

Yeah that sounds like they want to ban everyone from the moors alright.

In reply to FreshSlate:

It's badly written, either by design or fault. "The National Trust has launched its vision to undo decades of damage "
with no mention of how this 'damage' has occurred. Is it natural erosion or man made erosion caused by either de-forestation by shooting estates leaving the topsoil/peat to wash away?
Or is it damage caused by walkers?

The article mentions damage and then the Kinder trespass, the implication being that since the moors were opened up, the damage has occurred.

My second point was a question, not a statement. There is a clue in the ? at the end. Would a ban help the moors recover ?

In reply to xplorer:


Absolutely not, you've certainly made me laugh.


You might note that the time of my post was a few hours after it went dark, rather too late to be climbing. Likewise I'm posting this at 10.30pm because I've just got back from a great days climbing.

In reply to Paul F:
It could have been been specific about the cause of the damage, yes. It would look like a poor choice of article to link in this thread, as it could quite easily have nothing to do with walkers or any other user of that nature.


The article does indeed mention the damage, then in bold, is a new section called 'woodland revival', which describes their plans to repair and improve the landscape. After listing some positive effects of this, then mentions kinder scout trespass and it's 'pivitol role' in opening these places up to the public. To top it off, it ends:

Mr Begg observed: "We are very aware of that cultural depth and we want to continue to inspire people through the direct contact with nature."

It would indeed seem ridiculous on one side to blame walkers for causing deforestation and large scale run off problems and then end the entire article by encouraging 'direct contact' with nature. I suggest you should re-read the article or find another that actually remotely supports the point you're trying to make.



The expert just listed the ways in which he would help the moors recover, why are you asking stupid questions?

In reply to FreshSlate:

You have read the rest of this thread…..?

In reply to Paul F:

Yes.

A) You have taken an article and via the most tenuous link possible badly interpreted it to be blaming open access for problems that couldn't possibly be put down to walkers. As you realise that it would take a lack of comprehension and a vivid imagination to blame walkers with damage on a scale that takes a 50 year plan and aims to reforest large parts of the valleys you instead pose it as a question.

B) Then you ask, whether a ban on walkers would help the moors. Which would make sense as long as A wasn't completely contrived and stupid.

C) As I pointed out, the brains behind the revival was very clear and encouraged access to nature and even used such completely unambiguous terms as 'direct contact', he could not have crushed anyone's idea of banning people from the moors further, yet you still proceeded to ask that very question.


The most annoying thing is, that there must be countless of better examples to play devils advocate too. Yet you come up with this. Did you choose this one purely because it may or not involve kinder? Or the potential for a ban to last 50 years and thus the seriousness of it.

In reply to rubbercrumb:

Be careful what you wish for.

jk

In reply to Enty:

nah, he's had to intervene way too many times to keep it going. a good troll is self sustaining once started.

In reply to FreshSlate:

So you are a No then ?

In reply to Coel Hellier:

Way off topic, but if there's a Europe wide market for gas, I struggle to see how fracking will bring prices down in the UK by much. Capitalism isn't known for people being generous. I might start a thread on this actually...