In reply to Paul F:
> (In reply to r0x0r.wolfo)
>
> It's badly written, either by design or fault. "The National Trust has launched its vision to undo decades of damage "
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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 ?
The expert just listed the ways in which he would help the moors recover, why are you asking stupid questions?