UKC

Here is an article in a Scottish newspaper, The Press and Post, about the pros and cons of restricting acess to Skye mountain area honeypots, such as the Old Man of Storr and Fairy Glen, to reduce footfall damage. It would stop our current freedom to go to these places whenever we wanted. Perhaps we might have to buy a ticket. How does the UKC community view this idea as it might apply to the Brecon Beacons, North Wales, the Peak and the Lake District?

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/environment/5373154/should-we-res...

Yes. Please can you make sure you never go where I might want to. I can provide some general areas if required though I would prefer not to give specific fells.

No.

No, don't restrict access, just make it harder work. In the case of the Storr, build a carpark with a path, say, three miles further away and strictly enforce no parking any closer. 

As for the Fairy Pools, divert all the water underground into a small scale hydro scheme and be done with them.

Restricting parking seems to me to be the obvious way forward. 

Would only be right to start with Kinder Scout

Ban camper vans

No point restricting parking. There’s hardly any parking at (eg) Fairy Pools as it is, and folk just abandon their cars on the verge. 
 

either we adopt a ‘nudge’ approach as Durran suggests, or move to a permit system as I think they have in US, NZ for popular destinations. Or we do nothing and accept increasing congestion and erosion etc. 

There is now an absolutely vast car park at the Fairy Pools.

Ban people from London

The OS is considering adding new symbols to their maps.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/12/ordnance-survey-to-consult-...

They should add the relevant social media logos "insta", Tiktok etc for the honey pot sites and merely blank out all other areas besides the most tortuous route by road / crappy muddy field approach. 

The rest of us could then get the proper maps by proving our credentials as outdoor aficionados.

I live on the edge of the Brecon Beacons NP and as most people know, Pen Y Fan gets absolutely rammed with people during the summer  - and on any reasonably fine day throughout the year. The thing is though - during this time, I can still ride  on some epic bridleways throughout the park and see hardly anyone, so I'm glad they're all congregating around one very small area. 

Surely Durran is suggesting a restriction on parking? 

We should ban honeypots from hillwalking areas. They attract overweight bears.

Depends how you look at it. As much parking as is needed but just further away.

Tried that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53463896

I have a tradition of walking up Pen Y Fan with my father every year on the 28th December, always via a different route (we'll run out of variations eventually).

The summit will always be packed with people queueing for a selfie at the trig point. 

But if you pick a route from the Torpantau or Libanus sides, you'll usually pass less than 20 people all day if you discount the tiny stretch either side of the summit.

This year, there was only one other car in the National Trust car park on the Libanus side. Discounting those few metres either side of the summit, we didn't pass a single person all day. 

It would be super hard to enforce a permit system but they seem to work quite well in the USA from my experience. Cheap online permit that you have to get in advance and the cost of it covers a few park rangers who are usually young kids spot-checking you have one. 

No, keep the honeypots. They are trashed, in many cases, already, but by attracting so many visitors they leave the vast majority of places quieter and less damaged.

I was going to say that.  Cars cause far more damage than any walkers ever do.

I think the real issue is when you google "peak district walks" or "Lake district walks" the same to 10 appear despite there being hundreds of worthy alternatives. 

Similar applies to tripadvisor etc.

Is that actually true though? As far as I can see, vast hordes only go to Skye for a handful of honeypots. If they were restricted/made harder to get to/blown up they might well not go at all.

Most people are lazy, just have parking further away. You'll find all the best beaches in Scotland over a kilometre from a road are deserted. 

As others have said parking is the biggest limiter on visitor numbers.

But when you look at places like N.Wales the benefits of honeypot areas is that they justify infrastructure - toilets, dedicated parking, well signposted paths and path maintenance to ensure they are well defined and durable enough for the high footfall. This as several other people have already commented keeps equally beautiful areas immediately off the tourist trail in the unaltered state that the vast majority of us on UKC prefer.

Personally I think this is a good compromise, in that it allows relatively safe access for everyone, without spoiling the great outdoors with motorway style paths that look an eyesore and are boring to walk on.

The idea of visitor permits might work in the US where relatively few people actually live/work with the national parks, and their overall size is massive. But taking the Peak District, how do you differentiate from me heading out to Ladybower to walk, or going over The Snake as the most direct route between Machester and Sheffield.

Not even a kilometre. Most beaches are deserted. I generally don't bother with ones with other people on them.

I have three very different and conflicting opinions on this matter (this is a joke... sort of....).

1) I think everybody should have equal access to the outdoors, and be encouraged to use it for both physical and mental wellbeing (this is something I genuinely believe in).  However at the same time I think everyone should be banned from the outdoors when I go outside (or at least a 40 mile radius), naturally this wouldn't apply to you, just me. 

2) I think 'honey pot' areas should maintain easy access and parking etc. yes this will cause damage to that area, but it preserves other areas - use them almost sacrificially. I feel if we make access to 'honey pot' areas harder then other places that are remote / undamaged currently may suffer. 

3) A ban on all social media posts starting with the phrase "Visit the secret....." or "This is the best place...."

On a more serious note, it seems in the last few years 'the outdoors' seems to have grown in popularity. A few years ago if I told my friends I was going for a hike I would be laughed at, now everyone seems to be a self proclaimed mountaineer. So maybe we are heading towards a more US permit based system? In principal I think I like the idea - it allows individual ownership and responsibility of our national parks / outdoor spaces.  However based on how this country operates I think its also a very scary proposition which will limit access to quite a lot of people. 

One thing I am quite scared of is the current trend of tarmacking (sp?) anything that becomes reasonably popular. I am involved with a project at work, and it makes me angry, we have a disused railway line which is a unofficial cycle / footpath, its quite nice, covered trees, woodland feel - a sort of escape from the the build up environment it is in - the council has become aware of this and is going to make it into an urban greenway - Step 1 - chop most of the trees down and cut back all the vegetation so we can get heavy machinery in to lay a footpath. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall, they just don't 'get it'. Anyway, rant over! 

This is wrong.

When I went up Storr, I saw people hobbling along and I wondered if they'd actually be able to make it all the way. It would be a real injustice to say, you're too old/unfit/unwell you don't get to go anymore.

I take an equally unpopular but opposite view to that of the OP in that we should be encouraging more people to visit the countryside, not trying to restrict them.

But that is true of many places, whatever one's physical abilities. And as we all get older or less fit there will be more of them. I think we just have to accept that and go to the places we can manage. 

This is true, but to deliberately make changes to make more destinations beyond your physical abilities is a bit cruel.

A few years ago (maybe four or five) there was a BMC local area meeting in Keswick.

About two dozen or more people around the table, for a talk and discussions.

The topic of overcrowding and overuse came up.

There was almost unanimity that people should be discouraged from coming to the Lake District.

It was clear to almost everyone that the area was being harmed by overuse, overselling, cash cow status, the Lake District cash machine.

The mechanics and fairness of how to maintain the pleasantness of the area is complex to achieve.

The local indigenous aborigine people deserve special consideration IMHO.

It would also be useful to cancel "world heritage sh1te" status.

Also, stop public money going into Cumbria Tourist Board and charities actively promoting the cash cow Lake District.

Rather than trying to market to and manipulate people - leave visitors to make their own choices.

Lake District has had visitors for over 200 years, all welcome, but make it their personal choice, not pressure and sales/subsidy from quangos, charities, government agencies and subsidised marketing groups.

Leave people alone.

The tax payer should not be equally funding some groups selling the place hard, and other groups trying to restrict access. Lose-lose situation.

Whatever maintains the character, traditions, heritage, history, culture and way of life of these areas has to be a priority, otherwise they just get sold to the highest bidder as now.

The Lake District has already been sold to the highest bidders, but there is big opportunity for substantial roll-back and protection.

DC

I agree with that, but I don't see it as a reason to deliberately make places harder to get to in order to control the numbers of visitors either, any more than we should build a catered hut at Loch Etchachan to make it more accessible. The fact is that there's an incredible wealth of natural beauty in Scotland, some of it is easily accessed from a road and is very busy and some of it is fairly remote and is very quiet and if you want to have a place more-or-less to yourself and don't mind putting in some effort then you've got plenty to go at.

Oh were that the case on Skye, and the hordes ticking off the massively underwhelming 'fairy' pools didn't overwhelm the main access to Glen Brittle.

What about all those people who moved to the deserted countryside to enjoy their hobby of shooting, because they weren't allowed to keep a gun when they lived in a town? 

Grow up, and stop trying to derail threads.

I'd argue management and funding of honeypot sites is always the starting point for discussion long before any changes to access rights. Even considering change to access rights is a very dangerous line of thinking in my opinion. 

lets take something like Scafell as an example. The tourist path up is undoubtedly a honeypot with a huge number of users per day in peak season. Historically there were major issues with footpath erosion across wide swathes of land in the area. But with proper footpath management this erosion has been massively reduced without restriction of rights (check out some before and after photos on fix the fells etc). For sure the land is a long way from returning to being actually wild but hill sheep farming has a far bigger impact on wildlife than human footfall even in honeypot sites.

So there are solutions, the issue is how the management is paid for which is a whole other debate but US style permits or paid for ticketing to access footpaths is not the answer.

Personally I'm all for getting more people in the hills. Its good for people in so many ways and I would hate to imagine others would be denied the freedom to experience the hills as I have. 

I certainly would not propose it as a general policy, but it might be a sensible compromise in places such as the Skye honeypots which are being overrun and ruined for everyone. No

Are they being "ruined for everyone", though? Or are they just ruined for those of us who are used to a bit of peace and quiet in the hills, while the families, old folks, trainer-wearing sightseers and whoever else are actually having a lovely day out?

In 2020 it was reported that tourism had boosted the economy of Skye by £211 million.  The study found that in 2019, Skye and Raasay attracted 650,000 visitors which in turn supported 2,850 full-time equivalent jobs. 

Perhaps the local council should invest in some infrastructure at the honeypots instead of leaving it to volunteers.

No thanks!

https://observers.france24.com/en/americas/20210105-native-american-tased-p...

Well they've built massive car parks with, I think, toilets at Storr and the Fairy Pools.

I don't know. Are the Fairy Pool hordes fighting for parking and selfie space really having a lovely day out or are they just ticking them off while being a bit underwhelmed? Has anyone asked them?

Is the answer here not for people (like me, admittedly) who generally don’t like the company of others and are especially frustrated at being around large groups of people just to head somewhere less popular? 
 

(that’s a Scottish perspective possibly, don’t have any experience further south than the Cheviots other than a few days in the Lake District man years ago).

As said of Wales up thread, quite possible in most of the UK, occasionally making use of time and tide to ones advantage.

The car parks and toilets are a positive, but doesn't fix the single track access road from Carbost...and the nature of the fairy pools being a 5 minute underwhelming photo op and nothing more means you just have this traffic trying to squeeze in and out of the area both ways. I don't think there's a satisfactory solution that doesn't involve making the road two-way all the way up to Drynoch.....chances of that happening when they can't even maintain the current roads though....

On the plus side, at least you can still get in before the hordes and set up at the campsite for a few days before having to escape again.

I'm not sure the footbridges they've installed are a positive...although I am a big supporter of accessibility, I'm not sure it's appropriate in wilderness settings, but that's another can of worms.

The issue is not how to makes these places quieter for the 'rest of us' but how to deal with the impact on certain places large visitor numbers cause, for which there is never an easy answer and it is certainly a problem that is/will continue to grow in Scotland.

It would seem completely mad to spend millions on a road to facilitate thousands and thousands of people visiting a massively over-hyped, over-rated and already overcrowded burn just because social-media told them to. There's got to be better things for Skye to be spending money on for Skye peoples' benefit. There must be a better solution to the Fairy Pools nonsense.

There are plenty of less popular parts of North Wales, the Lakes and the Peak to head to if you don't want much company.  You don't have to do Snowdon, Mam Tor, Scafell Pike or Cat Bells.

Agreed! I am just totally baffled by the fairy pools. Looking down on it from the ridge, watching people trudge up there, turn round, trudge back to the car park.....why? 

Maybe they should just pick some other random spots that are better connected so it's less disruptive. I present to you the Fairy Bridge at Sli! Bang a paid car park in there with the funds going to road repairs so locals aren't forever wrecking their tyres in pot holes.

Your not wrong about how the place is marketed. I'd love to see roll back and protection on a number issues but mainly to make access easier not harder. maintaining the character, traditions, heritage, history, culture and way of life etc is a tricky one. 

In my experience a huge portion of local indigenous people have been priced out beyond the national park boundary (as you say, its all bought and sold for). With them went the community and culture. So I am cautious about prioritizing the opinion of those who happen to live or own property within the NP over other others. It needs to take in the wants and needs of the larger user base. 

I'm also cautious about using the past as a driver for the future when the concept of lake district heritage is so heavily skewed by Victorian romanticism. Hill sheep farming has had its day as a major industry and has its own issues on diversity. I doubt the reality for a huge percentage of Cumbrians over the past 400 years was that of mining/steel/gunpowder and their related industries which arguably shaped the lake district geography as much as farming. But people skip over that when discussing maintaining the land as a heritage site.

I think breaking away from heritage and focusing on providing a national park based around the ideals of the national park movement would be the way forward... 

that said the current national park setup in the lakes is infinitely better than some others, e.g the south downs

I can see both sides of this argument. If it allows pedestrians to get away from traffic then making it more accessible for disabled people, parents with prams etc is obviously a social benefit.

However it needs to be done well. Just flattening everything, slapping down some tarmac and then letting it decay into a flytipping track is completely wrong.

If you look at the old railway track between Keswick and Threlkeld, there was a huge outcry from Friends of the Lake District when the original railbed (which was rapidly turning into mud) was turned into a tarmac multi-use path. Anyone would have thought they were going to put an 8 lane motorway through there given the claimed 'environmental destruction'.

IMHO it's a vast improvement. The dangerous wooden boardwalk under the A66 has been removed and the old tunnel reopened, there's seating, replanting and in a couple of year's time the cut back trees will have regrown and any damage caused by heavy machinery will be invisible. It's also being well used, (and so far respected) by a huge range of different people.

You seemed pretty happy to assert that they were being "ruined for everyone" but now you don't know?

It's probably a biased sample, but I've just looked at the Tripadvisor reviews and while they aren't universally positive, a lot of people seem to be having a nice time there - about 80% of the reviews are four or five stars:
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Attraction_Review-g186585-d2335113-Reviews-Fa...

I definitely wouldn't feel like I was doing people a favour by discouraging them from going by simply making it harder to get there.

We should take the current green belts and just rewild everything outside of these.

We have to subsidize everyone living in the sticks anyway and farmers are the biggest bunch of parasitic socialists going when it comes to sucking up public money.

Strictly enforcing a no vehicles outside of town policy along with reintroducing wolves and bears would soon reduce pressure on these places.

The Fairy Pools are ruined compared with what they would have once been like. But the crowds probably don't realise this and so might still be having a nice time; ignorance is bliss.

It would primarily be stopping them getting trashed. You can either have them more trashed with more people or less trashed with less people. It can be argued either way which is preferable.

*Everything* has 4 or 5 stars on TripAdvisor....the site exists to push people to tourist attractions, you couldn't pick a less reliable source of information!

The fairy pools were once a picturesque wild little burn at the foot of the Cuillin....now it's become a mini theme park, pay your toll on the way in and follow the one way system, stick to the marked paths....any semblance of wildness is long gone.

I don't have the answer to sustainable tourism on Skye, but what's happened with the fairy pools isn't it.

It's people writing reviews. Many of the people writing reviews were saying they had a great day out when they went to the Fairy Pools. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to believe that quite a lot of the people who are going there on a busy day are still having a nice time, despite the fact that it doesn't look like my idea of fun.

Now, we might argue that restricting numbers by making it harder for tourists to get to would be good because it would enable me to have a nicer time when I went there, and my nice time is more important than theirs because I'm a proper outdoors person with a deep love of the mountains and they're just easily-led sheep who only want to tick something off in their NC500 guidebook and get a selfie for the 'gram. On the other hand, I might say that it's not much skin off my nose because if I want a picturesque burn with some nice plunge pools I can just go for a wander up Allt Dearg Beag or something and not have to deal with the crowds.

Nail on head 

Howgills, deserted tops and hidden waterfalls, a stones throw from the m6.

Taking the *vanishingly* small fraction of a percentage of the visitors to the Fairy Pools that use TripAdvisor, and then get through the algorithmic and UX pipeline that pushes them to leave positive reviews as somehow representative of the real world is probably not wise.

Unfortunately it is skin off the nose of anyone wanting to get anywhere in Glen Brittle....or get about anywhere on the island for that matter. 

Sticking a nice big car park, toll booth, foot bridge etc. there doesn't fix the traffic problem, or fix the roads in general on the island which are a disgrace.

Twenty five years plus ago driving past the tourists at Loch Ness and Urquhart castle, I commented thank god the tourists haven’t discovered skye.  I had a Chinese flat mate at the time, the two things he wanted to do were; Edinburgh and Loch Ness.  In fifteen years the tourists had found Skye.

Here we are saying Thank God they don’t go up into the Cullin.

But it’s enviable, in the absence of a global economic crash, tourists will start to want to go beyond the pools, led on by the same inspirational photographs that we admire.

The tourist influx has done a huge amount for the island economy.  Pre - Bridge the road down to Elgol, crofts were littered with abandoned cars / vans and tired houses, with some money at Elgol. The Northern peninsulas were harder hit and had lots of down at heel or ruined Croft houses. There has been a huge economic stimulus but not all have benefited and not all like the change.
 

The bridge created huge change, slowly at first but then rapidly with the devaluation of the pound and international publicity, plus to cheap flights. Pre bridge people went to the island for long weekends and week vacations. Queuing for the ferry acted as a filter. Post bridge hundreds of people were driving to Skye for a day. The type of tourist changed.

Perhaps it would be worth trying a big car park with a frequent reasonably priced shuttlebus down Glen Brittle. Alternatively people could use their own cars but with expensive toll (with return charged only on same day to encourage those campers etc overnighting in Glen Brittle). A few more local jobs, tolls pay towards roads and paths, and hopefully Glen Brittle road would  not need widening since traffic should be reduced.. Skye residents free. Possibly expand system to other locations if successful.

Imperfect but then so is status quo. Would also suit me and anyone else who doesn't have a car. 

Edit. Some time ago I spent a rainy half day on a coach from Portree round Trotternish peninsula. Could get on and off the regular buses anywhere. Probably more convenient and relaxing than driving and finding parking spots.

I love the fairy pools, admittedly I loved them more 20 (even 15) years ago when you could walk down there on a nice day to have a swim and a dive and probably only see half a dozen people.

Ive not been on Skye since 2015, it was getting bad then, I suspect it is much worse now. I’ve got a copy of Daniel Smart’s original “Wild Swimming” book, which probably contributed to the problem. I think that was published in around 2005 and actually suggests the fairy pools as a skinny dipping spot. You would have to be quite an exhibitionist these days.

Ban everyone except me and my mates

I remember it as a very good secluded swimming spot, as with one or two other Cuillin burns - hope they are still OK.  

The last time I was on Skye was New Year 2019.  Getting in and out of Glen Brittle was a nightmare - first week of January.

The "aborigine" people of the Lake District? Who exactly are they?

And on "Aborigine" - I've never heard it used outside of the Australian context, and there it is now seen as archaic and insensitive/racist.

And one of few-ish big hills in England that you can ride (or push!) your mountain bike to the top of, on a bridleway. Did it last summer from Sedbergh the descent down the valley to the northern end is possibly the best bit of biking I've done in England , so cool!

I’d hoped I’d picked that comment up as sarcastic for this reason.  

Its quite interesting reading through all the opinions on here. Most seem to have a similar view point, the two things that keep coming up are (and I am generalising): 

- Large scale management of areas (i.e the Lakes) for the interest of the local (indigenous) population so that they are not pushed out of home ownership / jobs etc. 

- Small scale management of honey pot activities (i.e the Fairy Pools) for the interest of sustainability and the environment.   

I think the small scale is easier to deal with - car parks, signs and good footpaths etc - crowd control essentially. The simple realisation you can't have several thousand people visit one particular place, and not suffer some sort of environmental damage without controls. If we have a natural foot path going to the fairy pools, its going to get muddy, so people will walk around the mud, in turn damaging more peatland and creating a larger 'path' encouraging it more - if you supply a fence to stop people wandering off the main path (funded by the carpark across the road) its preserves the peatland. Is a fence un natural and un slightly - yes, does it preserve the area - also yes. 

Naturally different schemed need different solutions, this is fairly easy as its only a few hundered m's from the car park. Others would be a lot more challenging. 

As for the large scale management - that's a huge problem, visitors want areas like the Lakes to be maintained exactly as Beatrix Potter would have seen, however we have to accept that traditional ways of life are, for the most part, not sustainable. We also need to allow and encourage 'indigenous' people to live and work within these areas - that requires bringing them into the 21st century (remember not everyone wants to work in the tourist industry). 

The more facilities you create the more people can come and visit a honey pot.  The more money the local economy can earn.  Protecting the environment is, unfortunately, merely a side issue of people exploiting the natural resource and beauty of these honey pots.  Don't put in the facilities and less people will come. It is, in a way, that simple.  Of course that doesn't happen, because of the financial benefits that the exploitation can bring.

I'm not sure it is that simple. I can think of numerous places where there are no facilities beyond roadside parking which are busier now than I've known them. Many of these are not the well-known Instagram honeypots but which are nonetheless popular and which are subject to significant environmental degradation. 

Change the name of the fairy pools to the sludge pots or something similar?

Who first started calling it The Fairy Pools anyway? They have a lot to answer for.

Propagate a 'traditional' Gaelic tale about the fairies murdering anyone taking selfies and posting on social meeja

I'm not sure I'd want to see a fully laden bus going either up or down the road to Glen Brittle, particularly on a regular basis. The brakes and clutch would need replacing on a pretty regular basis.

That worked with Black Moss Pot. 

I bow to your knowledge as I don't drive. Perhaps there are buses in Europe or elsewhere developed for mountainous areas. I presume the old postbus  service to Glen  Brittle only used fairly small vehicles.

Edit     youtube.com/watch?v=qkVC6w7yzOc&    "The world's most dangerous bus route"

Modern city buses are as good as any for this kind of work. They are usually auto so no clutch to worry about, and these days are often hybrid so don't rely all that much on conventional brakes anyway.

Honeypots are great. 

The best ones act as a filter and keep the hordes away from anything lovely that could get seriously damaged by their flipflops, concentrate MR incidents in popular and easy access places and provide a welcome boost to the local economy (or not). 

The best ones are designed with an effective bypass so anyone with a busy life and needs quick access to a crag isn't held up by the hordes. 

Bowness - superb - over-priced, well off the side of the main road, you can see the hills in the distance or go on a boat. It even has a Greggs. 

Ambleside - almost as good, but can cause slight congestion. Not so many swans. Plenty of shops to buy his & her's matching Rab Jackets. 

Keswick - high speed bypass to both borrowdale & newlands. Also plenty of Rab to keep good climbing shops profitable. 

Tarn Howes - well off the main roads, but small approach lanes. Tourists are only trapped in their own traffic. You can walk around twice if it's so busy you can't actually leave. 

Ingleton Waterfalls Trail - Even has it's own carpark and manages to actually charge people to visit what should be open access land. I suppose it has a bridge or two that were built in 1885 that need paying for somehow. Would be even better if it was actually 'owned' by someone who lived in this country. 

[I'm not even sure myself which bits of this are sarcasm] 

So spend money improving the pathways and protecting the environment from further damage, but don't build car parks or railways or any infrastructure to encourage people to visit.  The only reason such facilities are built, is to encourage more folks to visit for profit. Any one tries to say otherwise is kidding them selves.  I'm not saying that is always wrong, just that's how it is.

A mind-bending idea, I know, after over a decade of austerity and several decades of privatisation.... but, rather than banning and blocking and punishing people, perhaps some serious investment in the conservation of our green spaces would help...? You know, subsidies for beneficial agricultural policies; public transport; land management, e.g. planting moss or trees or cutting back brambles; wardens for parking and refuse; public toilets.

Or we could slide into one of the "conservatory fascisms" you lot of gits have fantasised about above. As you like.

I'm with you, I've always thought that borrowdale and langdale could be closed off to non resident traffic (though not disabled badge holders). Central car parks, reliable buses doing a loop. 

And why stop at mountain honeypots? The beaches down our way are rammed in the summer. Have a booking system for them too. You could have a beach ticket, or a surf and beach ticket if you want to go in the water? Would cut down the damage caused to the dunes and all the traffic backed up on the A30?

In case that diverts people to the moor, have a permit system for Haytor,  or Spitchwick, or Belliver? 

Or we could just accept that some places are popular in the busy times and go somewhere else if we like peace and quiet? There really isn't a shortage of those quiet places,  although it's popular to pretend that there is. 

As long as there are buses starting at 0300 in summer and 0500 in winter.

Of course, you'll be on the party bus taking people home after clubbing in Windermere, Ambleside, Keswick... plus sometimes we maybe have to flex plans around transport a little. 

Or make them nicer, imagine a nearly traffic free Borrowdale, you could in part make it one way for the limited traffic using it looping around through Grange, people can safely cycle there from town etc... 

A alternative to fences is to improve the path, making the surface easier to walk on than the surrounding land. An example is what has been done on The Pewits in the Lake District - this is a notorious area of peat bog that was being damaged in the way that you describe, people seeking to work their way around the worst area widening the damage. The solution has been to lay a flagstone path - this eliminates footfall on the bog, and has enabled remedial work to be started - raising the water level and re-planting moorland grasses. The resulting path is quite attractive, and is easy to walk upon.

Picture here - https://ibb.co/6F6d6FV