In reply to IainRUK:
>
> You are also trying to tie this up in words with semantics.
>
> If climbing is stated as having a negative impact, then it will have been demonstrated significantly.
I don't think it has. The survey seems to assume this as a given, supported only by US research in rather different circumstances, including a different understanding of what a national park is for. I think it's more complicated than that.
The survey asks simple questions: do you think climbing has a negative/positive impact? I felt able to answer yes to both.
>If we can't have areas untouched by man in NPA's where can we?
Virtually nowhere in the UK. A few parts of the Scottish highlands, perhaps. Parts of the coastline. Virtually all the rest of the UK's countryside has been shaped by man's activities. Certainly the Lake District has.
What UK national parks cannot do (as US parks have) is to exclude human activity. They are places where people live and work, and compromises have to be made. UK National Parks are creations of the planning system, with some different powers from other planning authorities.
>
> What about the good work done by climbers. That same argument was used by Fox Hunts.
Does that make it invalid? The case against foxhunting was on moral grounds, not environmental.
>
> As I said I'm mainly active in a sport which also does damage. I just think we should admit if there is damage.
>
I'm not denying there is damage. The question is how much, and to what extent does it matter? Even if we cause significant damage to a few crags, how important is that in the context of the Lake District as a whole?
> And balancing economic V environmental is a whole can of worms. Don't go there....
The environment doesn't exist in a vacuum. To take it to the extreme, suppose climbing in the Lake District were to be banned because of the environmental damage it causes (as has happened in some US national parks). Suppose hillwalking, which possibly causes more widespread damage, were to be banned. The impact this would have on the Lake District would be immense. Are you suggesting that any conclusions, and in particular any recommendations, drawn from a study like this should not recognise that impact?