UKC

Presumably someone who didn't want to get their shoes a bit muddy has removed stones from the farmers wall to lay stepping stones from the roadside stile to the gate on the path. The wall may not be in the best of condition but it is still needed to keep sheep from getting onto the road. Actions like this will only upset a farmer who is very tolerant of the antics of groups visiting the crag. Perhaps it was the same people who left their lunch boxes etc at the foot of the crag?
Anyone who wishes to avoid the daunting prospect of the muddy section (dry in summer anyway) only has to walk a couple of minutes up the road to the quarry entrance and back along the top of the crag

In reply to nigel n:

Did you put them back and/or tell the farmer?

In reply to WJV0912:

Maybe it was the farmer, stopping it muddying up further. Though I undoubtedly suspect it was some urban numpties.

In reply to WJV0912:

Next time I am up there with a pair of gloves and outdoor clothes I will move them. Both as a volunteer and in the course of work I seem to spend a lot of time sorting out problems caused by people who think the landscape is solely for their personal enjoyment.

In reply to nigel n:

I'm a waller! This really annoys me.

It causes the farmer extra work and removing the topstones exposes the wall below to exploring sheep and people - it becomes a target for escaping sheep - and people. A few sheep through a tiny gap will soon have a big gap opened. The farmer will end up having to block the gap off, repair it if he can or phone up a waller and so on.
Time, money expense - because some 'country lover' doesn't want their boots to get muddy.

In reply to nigel n:

Stones now returned to wall - not sure by who

In reply to nigel n:

Maybe it was Dave!

In reply to nigel n:

Good to see sheep farmers getting some support on here.

In reply to nigel n: What gets me is it's only about 15 feet (just looked on google maps - 1 car's length) from the wall to the gate on one of the shortest walk-ins in the country - what are they going to do on a long walk-in, like 5 minutes.

One other thought, it is just possible (although I think it's unlikely) that this was done by somebody going for a walk rather than a climber.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I'm not sure why they wouldn't.... lets face it, sheep farmers give us most of the landscapes that us climbers enjoy. There'd be a lot more overgrown/unusable crags if it weren't for hungry sheep and tolerant farmers

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Have you been away for a bit..............?

In reply to balmybaldwin:


I have no words.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Do you mean the sheep ascend the routes, 'cleaning' as they go?

In reply to nigel n:

I was wearing a brand new pair of Cordovan Wingtip Shoes and white Ralph Lauren socks.
I think you owe me a public apology

In reply to balmybaldwin:

Or we'd have some right proper natural views, with trees and everything!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Whatever the rights and wrongs I doubt the wall was dismantled for environmental reasons.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

You can't see very far from a forest.

In reply to Tom Valentine:


I haven't, but I've obviously missed something.

In reply to nigel n:

As a slight aside, lots of non-climbers use Windgather - not sure why but it does often attract a few local youth of an evening! So may not have been climbers...

Glad the stones are back in situ.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I assumed Balmy baldwin would have known that The Moors and Sheep are not popular on UKC

In reply to captain paranoia:

I disagree, the view from the belays at the top of Rivelin are delightful. Especially in autumn with the golden foliage.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Really? I can't say I've noticed that in the sixteen years I've been here...

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

That's a view of a forest, not from within a forest.

In reply to captain paranoia:

No, the top is tree lined also. It's as most crags would be if the surrounding land was tree covered. It's a fact, it's there for you to see. How can you argue against?!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Yes, but it's a view from the edge, from the top, surely?

In reply to captain paranoia:

That's what I said, if you read my post properly.

I'd rather work for a fantastic view from the top than turn up and be treated to a baron, ecological desert view at all times. But that's just me.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


I did read your post. My point was that continuous tree cover means there are few points where you can see the wider landscape. I've walked in areas like this, and find it boring, missing the continuous views.

I guess we have different preferences.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

I'm pretty impressed , actually.
From the time I typed the word "Moors" to the first appearance of the word "desert" was nearly four hours. Admirable restraint .
I suspect that "burren" is a word connected to " barren" since that particular Co Clare landscape might seem a bit sterile to the casual observer.
I value diversity in all its forms, and that includes diversity of landscape.

In reply to Michael Gordon:


No. I mean keeping down saplings that would otherwise become trees shading and causing lichen growth etc and even the most persistent of climbers trying to clean a crag will find it difficult with an irate farmer trying to stop them

In reply to James Coulson:


...yep....my son and his mates!! They didn't move any stones though!!

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Well, OK. I'm not sure that 'not being irate' necessarily deserves praise!

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Just wait till you go up a skyscraper, that'll blow your mind if your after views regardless of the environment...

In reply to sfletch:

I'm not ..but as you mention it, I once went up the Petronas Towers. In hindsight it was a bit silly really because the only thing to see in KL is the Petronas Towers...

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Woops accidentally replied to the wrong comment! I was going after the anti-tree chaps.

In reply to sfletch:

For the record, I'm not 'anti-tree'. I just accept the UK landscape for what it is; a man-made environment that is different from the post-glacial natural. And simply pointing out that being in a forest restricts views of wide horizon vistas; that doesn't seem a very controversial statement.

Unsurprisingly, I'm not proposing we embark on a policy of global deforestation.

View from the Petronas Towers? I thought the smog was so bad you could barely see the adjacent tower...

I've seen the view from the empire state building; it's flat, and pretty boring...

In reply to sfletch:

I'm not "anti tree" either. And Capt P has expressed my point of view better than I could have done myself.

In reply to captain paranoia:


Apathy, it's a good job everybody involved in conservation doesn't take that approach.

In reply to sfletch:

It's not apathy; it's an acknowledgement that the UK landscape is the result of thousands of years of human modification for farming and other purposes. It's possible to be a conservationist and desire to preserve that created landscape, and not have a desire to attempt to return to a post-glacial 'natural' landscape.

Which period of post-glacial tree cover would be your preference? Immediate post-glacial permafrost tundra? Early adopter species? Mature species?

In reply to captain paranoia:
How about we stop over-grazing and burning the land and let nature see which woodland would suit it best.

No need to pick a time period, it's nature not a battle re-enactment society.

In reply to sfletch:

I categorise bodies like Moors for the Future as conservationists.
You probably don't agree.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I think they are what you'd call a victim of shifting baseline syndrome. Ironically they campaign ferociously that the 'natural' uplands are being threatened by run-off.

It would seem the 'natural' habitat they so dearly protect is not waterproof.

In reply to sfletch:

Thanks for the post.
Once again I am finding UKC offers pointers to some extremely informative reading.
The Yorkshire bird study is particularly interesting to me.