Brace brace brace! When we brought you Chris Porter’s ever so slightly controversial take on the state of Access Rights in the UK it sparked a whole new area of debate on the area. We heard from a Policeman and then from a Rights of Way Officer with their take on how the situation stands and where the future might lie for more fair and increased access to the Rights of Way network for mountain bikers.
However, Chris has been fired up again by a recent debate on our forum regarding a feature we shot in the Cairngorms More commas than the last one though ;]
EROSION AND IMPACT
I did have a giggle when reading the access articles on the subject of erosion and impact. Especially the bit about the delicate, mountain landscape of the Cairngorm plateau…
There is not one single acre of the British Isles that is ‘natural’, where ‘natural’ should be understood as ‘not influenced by humans’… That would include the Scottish Mountains too…
If we want to reduce our impact on the planet then we should simply stop breathing out CO2 and die. The human being as a species is way too successful at breeding and staying alive to be compatible with nature and riding a bicycle on a path in the cairngorms isn’t really going to be the figurative straw on the figurative camel’s back that pushes these mountains into the abyss of environmental destruction.… (That sentence has been structured without commas but with apologies to Matt at Singletrack). One could argue that by partaking in a risky activity and exposing ourselves to risk of death, we MTBers are actually doing the world a favour?
Take Easter Island as an illustrative example. Mysterious and massive stone heads suggest a civilisation intelligent enough to create big, long lasting, civic structures. What actually happened (so studies suggest) was that the civilisation which was reliant on trees didn’t figure out how many years it takes for a tree to grow on their remote island, therefore how many trees they could safely fell before they ran out. They didn’t figure this out until after they ran out of trees… ‘Bollocks, we’ve chopped the bleedin’ lot down…’ Had they invented a pastime that involved nature (riding mountain bikes for example? Just throwing it in there…) rather than the ‘big stone head cult/religion’ thing, there might still exist a forested, island paradise.
So how is the Cairngorm situation any different? No big stone heads, but none of that mountain landscape is natural either…
Just like Easter Island before the humans vs Easter Island after…
The moorlands are managed mostly for hunting and shooting and the hills have been sheep-grazed almost to a monoculture over hundreds of years.
Half of the whole of Scotland is owned by just over 600 landowners (the famous naturalist Mohamed al Fayed owns 100sq miles – I was going to say ‘naturist’ there, but I might get sued…). I’m sure it’s nothing to do with nature preservation, landowners simply don’t want us on their land! Except on their terms…. Witness the clearances which made way for the sheep to graze when wool was worth fortunes. Witness also the offence of ‘aggravated trespass’ which was introduced in 1994 to make life difficult and illegal for hunt saboteurs (And Ravers and new age travellers ?-Ed). I think you can rest assured that though this was and still is used against the saboteurs, I’ll bet it has never successfully been invoked against a pack of heavy, hunt horses and dogs running riot through peoples gardens or other private property ‘accidentally’ trespassing in pursuit of a Fox.
So, on their terms then…
As part of the Visitor Management Plan of the Cairngorm Mountain area you are allowed to access any part of the mountain on foot (though you are asked not to stray off the footpaths). You are allowed to walk into the shop/restaurant/café at the top of the mountain there, though you will have to sign in and you must use the ‘Walkers entrance’. If you have used the railway to get to the shop/restaurant/café at the top, then you will NOT be allowed to access the mountain at all, not allowed outside the fence (I presume there’s a fence?)… All this is presumably to ‘protect’ the special flora, fauna, soils and habitats from damage, which are ‘easily damaged by trampling or disturbed by walkers, mountain bikers and dogs (off leads). I’d like to make two points in support of the walkers, mountain bikers and dogs here; 1) Is there not a f**king railway and shop/restaurant/café on the mountain? Is this classed as flora, fauna, soil or habitat? 2) does that mean none of the wild animals which are part of this special place are allowed to exceed the size and weight of a dog in case they also trample their own habitat to death?
But to be honest, you won’t be riding a bicycle on the bracken/heather/heath/bog of the Cairngorms anyway, you will be riding on a path… If you are in the bracken/heather/heath/bog you will be walking? Who would want to take their bike for a walk across that? The answer would be ‘not many’, probably not a big problem compared to, let’s say, ‘mountain railway construction’…
Incidentally, just started Keef’s biography, even the guitarist from the Stones fondly remembers riding his bicycle off-road at a place he calls the ‘glory bumps’… Hmmm, the glory bumps, a proto-1950s trail centre with permission to ride or no? Everybody loves riding bikes off-road, we’re gonna wear the whole f**king planet down if we aren’t careful! Actually, those weren’t the only ‘glory bumps’ he remembers fondly, ahem… Not the only laws he broke either, though it has to be said if he’d been prescribed his morphine via the drugs companies that would have been OK… Keef would have been on the right side of the drugs laws if he’d been into mushrooms in the 1960s, they were just fungus then, now they are evil. That’s right, the government have spent precious time in the commons and the lords making a naturally occurring, abundant fungus a Class A drug!
Lighten up… Go and ride some ‘illegal’ trails and ponder what ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ really means and who the law really serves, think for yourselves… These laws are all just a construct to control the population? It’s just a scratch in the dirt at the end of the day…
In fact you could pedal over from the ‘gorm and have a look at the aluminium smelting plant at Fort Bill if you believe what you do on your aluminium bike is low impact. You could maybe look up some pictures of a bauxite mine to see where the aluminium comes from.
Comments (25)
Comments Closed
GPWM
Are you getting paid a fiver for every ellipsis used?
Excellent article – something for the “sanctimonious conservationists” to think about.
“the bracken/heather/heath/bog of the Cairngorms” So never actually been on top of the Cairngorms then? Lots of that kind of thing in Scotland but not much of it on the Cairngorm plateau.
Obviously most of the UK’s mountain landscape is a product of years of land management, animal grazing tree felling etc etc yadda yadda but the environment that exists on the Cairngorms, above about 900 meters (ignoring the railway!) is semi artic tundra and isn’t really a by-product of our actions.
I’ve been to the bauxite mine at Weipa in Northern Queensland and whilst the strip mining makes a mess the reinstatement afterwards was good. And it’s a long, long way from anywhere – nearest town Coen, population 253.
Rip it Up!!
Good stuff we need more like this!
And in the words of the godfather of gonzo journalism late great Hunter S Thompson..
“In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are **** until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. We owe that to ourselves and our crippled self-image as something better than a nation of panicked sheep.”
—The Great Shark Hunt, 1979
Is Chris P anti fox hunting? Just a thought. 😉
Excellent
“There is not one single acre of the British Isles that is ‘natural’”
Untrue. The Cairngorm Plateau is an unusual example, which is what provoked the discussion about the magazine feature. I suspect he’s never hiked up there so does not fully appreciate what he is talking about.
I’m not against MTB up there if care is taken – that kind of riding will only appeal to a minority of riders so the additional impact is not likely to be much.
I accept CP’s point about the hypocrisy of the mountain railway and ski-resort paraphernalia in Corrie Cas, but not his conclusion: it should not have been built IMO, but since it’s there, it should not expand. I’m glad that sensibilities have evolved and, apart from CP, people are now concerned about their personal impact on the environment.
“Go and ride some ‘illegal’ trails”
I agree. But CP conflates legality with impact. Unlike the legality issues he faces in Wales, there is no legality issue in Scotland. On the Cairngorm, it’s only about impact.
Buzz-lightyear hits the nail on the head, far more accurately and eloquently than the ill-informed fool who wrote the article.
In future, I want all my forum posts to appear on this site as front-page articles.
I’ll include all manner of inaccuracies if that helps.
Buzz +1.
Additionally, the presumption that its ok to carry on mashing everything because our forebears did doesn’t really stand up to any kind of examination.
Still, more clearly reasoned and researched that the last, uh, ‘article’.
What I try to say to people if I ever discuss this sort of topic is – we are living in a small snap shot of the planets geography. I am in favour of minimising our impact on the land but at the end of the day it really doesn’t matter (unless you are a creationist/religious zealot who thinks the shape of the world now is exactly as it was 6,000 years ago when the world was created and will be forever more). What did any of these landscapes that we are trying to protect look like 10k/100k/1m/more years ago and what will they look like over the same sorts of periods into the future.
As I say I do feel I am a conservationist but I also believe myself to be a realist. “Mother” Nature could spring up a volcano/earthquake/whatever at any time and wipe out any protected habitat that “we” designate. And in 6 billion years or whatever the planet will be inside the globe of the sun when it becomes a red giant.
We are conserviong for our own pleasure/benefit. Don’t loose site of that.
Well said Mr.Porter, I have had disagreement with Chris in the past, but for me he is right on the money both with this article and the last one too. I cannot see how we as humans can ever hope to better what nature has managed to destroy naturally through the ages, for example, who or how could we ever create a tidal wave to rival that which devastated Japan ? These events are not linked but by the same token, if it rains very heavily all the paths and natural fauna are affected by this ? Even more damaging is the effect of snow, ice and sunlight, all of which combine to produce erosion and damage way beyond what a load of tossers riding bikes (or walking could ever do) i think it`s well past the time for worrying about what damage we may do….. it`s all been done already – millions of times over and not by mountain bikers/walkers/enduro bikes etc. I for one am F****d off with self appointed, smug, so called guardians of the countryside telling me where and when i can ride, and “do i know this is a footpath ?” There are bigger and better things to worry about in life and how much alleged damage we are doing to thousands of square miles of `pristine` grassy hills `aint one them.
Well, I suppose it was better than the last one.
By the sound of things, we can summise the following:
1) For most of the UK and enywhere else where the land has already been “worked”. – from an environmental/erosion point of view, ride where you want. Simple. Carry on. Even that faint wiggle of a singletrack. In the grand scheme of things it’s irrelevant.
2) Pristine Wilderness – so in the UK thats the Cairngorms and err um err the Cairngorms? Stick to the path.
Outside of the UK (NZ immediately springs to mind) maybe things are more complicated?
Personally I can’t be doing with petty, small minded environmentalism that seems to be evangelically pressed by some people. We get it at work, all about saving paper and our carbon footprint (we’re a consultancy business FFS, it’s mostly photocopiers, printers and lighting). All the time and money spent on that and the various ISO’s would (IMO) be better spent on some renewables on the roof and some waterless bogs (as we pay for daily cleaners anyway) i.e. some hard infrastructure, tangible energy / resource consumption reductions. Either that or make it mandatory that company cars are electric. But no, that’s a bit awkward and involves some real effort so instead they collect all the waste paper on one day a year and dump it in reception to show how much it represents. That or some bright spark came up with the idea to take away all the bins in the belief that we’ll throw less stuff away. It’s petty, small scale, insignificant bollox!
In the same vein I think the combined impact of MTBing is of a similarly insignificant scale, even if we were to skid everywhere. Nevermind the fact that if more people ride (wherever and whenever) then it’s probably better for the “environment” in the long run.
It’s a bit like a point someone made to me about archaeology; just because it’s old doesn’t mean it’s got any value (and therefore isn’t necessarily worth preserving). And just the same, just because MTBing has some impact, doesn’t mean it’s enough to bother with – certainly when you consider the bigger things.
Still, it’s easier to be fixated with them than try and deal with the shitty housing stock or industrial waste streams.
Bloody hell, rant on Friday 😎
What utter $hite. apart from the reference to aluminium smelters and bauxite mines that was quite good. Keep going like this and you can keep your sub.
Buzz-lightyear hits the nail on the head, far more accurately and eloquently than the ill-informed fool who wrote the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bia%C5%82owie%C5%BCa_Forest
hh45 said: On July 1, 2011
What utter $hite. apart from the reference to aluminium smelters and bauxite mines that was quite good. Keep going like this and you can keep your sub.
hh45 – Chris’s article is meant to be contentious and it’s fine not to like it – It doesn’t mean that we at Singletrack agree with everything that Chris say’s – it’s just another opinion on the access issue , and we think debate is good .
Cheers
Matt
Debate away but listen to something intelligent and balanced and informative. Saying that because sheep grazed the Highlands means that they aren’t worth protecting because they aren’t properly natural is really contemptous. This is not the way to get non mountain bikers to take us seriously. Mark’s very first article on RoW used more words discussing our obligations not to trash delicate surfaces, widen singeltrack, skid on thin soil, damage crops, leave gates open etc and that is the right approach that will get us somewhere. Fact!
Opinion is good – and the debate on stw about the cairngorms was good – informed, opinionated, passionate.
Unfortunately this piece is not. The auther clearly does not understand what is going on in Scotland or what is so special about the Cairngorms
I think this has been a good series of articles. I was pretty critical of the first one by this author, but think it’s provoked useful discussion. Again on this one though, I don’t think that you can thread together a coherent or informed argument from the piece. A few points:
1) I would agree/argue that there is nothing that can be said to be truly natural, but that is only a relevant point if we consider the value of ‘nature’ to trump anything else. Just because something isn’t ‘natural’ doesn’t mean that it has no value. The OP sentiment of ‘(Scottish/Cairngorm) mountains are unnatural = do what you like’ doesn’t form anything like a watertight argument.
2) The Visitor Management Plan that is made reference to refers only to those using the railway and ski infrastructure (on which it is not permitted to take bikes). Those responsible for implementing the VMP have no legal possibility to enforce access constraints on those not using their services. The VMP has no direct relevance to cycle activity in the Cairngorms – whether you agree with its content or not.
3) As pointed out by others, references to the bracken and heath of the Cairngorm plateau area suggest that the author hasn’t really any idea of the environment that he is referring to which was central to the original (and better informed) debate in the forum.
4) A railway may be argued to be more problematic than individuals (cyclists, walkers, climbers…), but this hardly absolves individuals of any consideration. Similar to other posters above suggesting that other issues are of greater concern means we should just forget/ignore our own direct impacts on the environment . The moral/ethical compass of “what I do is less bad than what someone/thing else does” is a flimsy one to follow.
5) Encouraging people to “Go and ride some ‘illegal’ trails and ponder what ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ really means”… is neither here nor there. Whilst the need to make more sense of access law is clear, the issue is not one of legality in the case in point. Even the OP is entitled ‘Erosion and Impact’. Indeed as the OP’s ramblings suggest (as far as I can tell), (il)legal behaviour is not always commensurable with (im)moral or (un)ethical behaviour.
6) Aluminium frame? I knew something was seriously wrong. 😛
Seriously though, the access debates are worth having and have been a good read. Sorry for rambling (verbally).