Forum menu
What a load of bollocks. No care for the natural environment as an excuse from the people who send huge logging machines into the woods. And inherently dangerous? From the people who sanction other inherently dangerous tracks to be built. From what I've seen (not ridden, nowhere near good enough) the building is top work. There is dry stone walling of the highest calibre. And the 'holes' are nowhere near anywhere a rambler, walker or otherwise would pass.
Some of the features up at wharncouver are ****ing huge. This doesn't surprise me, it does seem like there might be some justification for the FC to think people were taking the piss.
Here in the FoD the FC are the biggest destructive force in the woods, especially now the price of timber has risen. They occasionally put up signs asking for the trail building to stop, but the locals routes are nothing like the scale of the construction at Wharncliffe. Don’t get me started on how annoying the Wildlife Trust people and their pointless pet projects are either... Hopefully the petition and publicity will lead to some kind of compromise.
How big can a borrow pit be? Once you're 2 feet down it becomes a pain in the arse to get the dirt out.
I feel like there's legitimate concerns there, which they've surrounded with what smells like total bullshit.
My problem with all this is that the FC are seeming to pander to a few select complainers and dragging out all of the weird justifications they can think of to try and make out that it is a considered response.
Granted @raybanwomble some of the trails have features that are bigger than you would want to hit, same here. But these trails are well hidden and the eyesore comment can only really be levelled at the final jump on Crescendo. The other features are tucked up in the woods ABOVE the cycle network trail that they mention. It is impossible to “stray” onto these tracks. It would take a concerted effort to reach any of the features let alone the top of the trails.
Almost all of the trail entrances are reasonably concealed, stumbling across the trails with the biggest features is almost impossible. It took me some time to find the trails when I moved here 4 years ago and even once I had there are some that I just won’t ride yet... but maybe one day. And that’s the point, the lads that build, and ride, and share these trails with the rest of us are riding at this level and dragging the standard up with them - the quality of the trail building, use of local materials only, and management of a difficult space is second to none. The FCs best course of action is plausible deniability - “we don’t sanction the trails” - they are certainly unable to offer any functional alternatives.
The “dig pits” are typically smaller than many of the drain pits next to the aforementioned cycle network route and so far out of the way that they would be impossible to stumble into.
The area of woods that contains most of the trails is working woodland not the ancient woodland that they mention, and was worked only last year. A situation that the trail builders accepted with mostly good grace as the tracks were flattened and then set about rebuilding this year.
I have ridden here quite frequently in the last 4 years and I am nowhere near the standard required to hit the biggest features BUT I will defend the work and passion of these builders and their sensitive approach to the environment they work in. I would go so far as to say they care more for the conservation of these woodlands than the FC ever will.
FC commenting on an 'eyesore'?
Oh the ****ing irony.
Agree on the wildlife trust/complainers.
The thing is, isn't Wharncliffe getting popular enough to do this properly like Chicksands?
I'm happy enough to pay a membership fee to cover the insurance etc.
@ElectricWorry, get that sent in to whoever is liasing with the FC.
FC have been through Bringewood and Bucknell, the mess they leave behind is quite amazing, in particular fireroads that are in many cases impossible to pass for months.
+1 @Electric Worry, that's pretty much my take / experience of riding up there over the last decade or so. Such a friendly community vibe too.
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand the work put into the trails is nothing short of art, both from the vision of the line itself and the quality and detail of the construction. For those who can ride the trails properly (relatively few, I'd imagine) it must be bloody awesome as there are not may locations that have properly progressive high end features.
That said. I first "discovered" Wharncouver about 4 years back. Bits of it were great (some of the best berms I've ever ridden) but bits of it were SOOO far beyond my paygrade (and that's for someone who's far from a numpty rider). I was genuinely surprised the builders had been allowed to get away with it. Surprise, surprise it all got flattened. A year or so later it was largely back and I was chuffed to see that it had been rebuilt on a smaller scale - decent sized features, but you wouldn't die if you came up a bit short. Stuff I could see was within my remit if I pushed myself a bit. Boringly (for me) a month or 2 later it had all gone supersize again, and I've been waiting for the devastation to hit again.
The thing I don't quite get - knowing the FC have an issue with mahoosive do-or-die features, why are the builders continuing to create stuff like that? AND doing it in exactly the same spot as before. They've been told once, I don't understand why they're expecting to get away with it a second time. I do work on the other side of town, but nothing bar routine maintenance gets done without specific consultation with the landmanagers as I can't be arsed doing something only to have it flattened. If you know where to look, it is all visible from the main drag through (which is the Pennine Way IIRC?) and the noise of bikes/whoops/cheers and the firepit all make it more obvious.
The FC are taking the piss with the "ancient woodland/nature reserve" business, but while the law makes a landowner liable for activities happening on their land (not something I necessarily agree with), I can understand why the FC don't want Wharncouver to exist.
It may be a case of getting the trails that the FC are happy with ‘Legalised’ and the ones in the wrong spots or with too big features removed or sanitised. From an H&S point of view some of the exits are directly on to the TPT which can cause issues with other legitimate users. It’s going to take goodwill from FC and from the builders/riders to sort this.
It’s going to take goodwill from FC and from the builders/riders to sort this.
Or if FC continue with their stance, just another place with a battleground over unofficial trails, and no one wins.
I wonder if the FC have been in consultation with the Emergency Services when making their decisions. We have been riding in Wharncliffe on a regular basis for over thirty years and our girls grew up on the trails.
Had a few trips to A and E, as have the girls, from riding there but it now seems to be a very regular occurrence for the Medics to be in attendance, especially on some of the bigger stuff.
Im sure there will be a compromise but it may not be the outcome what we want.
I have no doubt that they could, and will, use that as a justification in the long term, but it's easily countered and dwarfed by the amounts of folk that are ambulanced from their sofas.
The FC have to worry about the safety and enjoyment of all users as well as managing nature and running a profitable tree farm. If a bunch of people decide they’ll do whatever they like then they’ll get the hammer dropped on them, repeatedly until they give up and go somewhere else or work out how to be subtle about it.
I’m always sad to see trails go, but ‘my house, my rules’ isn’t a revolutionary standpoint.
Despite being up in Huddersfield I only ride Wharncliffe maybe once a year. Even the trails I 'know' change significantly each time i go and the features are getting big and pretty gnarly.
I feel a bit for the FC here as they can't win; sanction the trails and grade them and they''ll be accused of santising the fun out of the place. Knock all the trails down to stop all the A&E visits and they're ruining everyone's fun.
I signed the petition and really hope something can be done to save the place and keep biking in the woods. I might go at the weekend to scare the shite out of myself
I think the energy and ability of the builders will eventually break the resolve of the FC. The speed at which the trails reappeared after the last felling in Wharncouver is testimony to their ingenuity.
Seen first hand aftermath of a crash on one of the signed designated trails there. Ambulance and Moutain Rescue extraction at dusk. Having said that, I had a spill in spring on a muddy fire road decent, so easily done. Fortunately I managed to get myself up and out.
The thing is, isn’t Wharncliffe getting popular enough to do this properly like Chicksands
never been but do they have other users in that wood
theres 3 stables that all use wharncliffe pretty heavily for their horse riding etc
This all smacks of asking for forgiveness rather than permission. Just building some massive lines and hoping no one will notice/turn a blind eye is kind of asking for this sort of thing. Especially if it interferes with the land owners business or makes them liable.
nevermind
ps joi if your running a horsey type business and taking paying people for a potter round the woods is that just accepted that thats what you can do or is there some payment goes to fc for use of the land
Believe there’s a permit required and I assume payment for riding.
There use to be a sign up saying you needed a permit to ride a horse, dont know if you have to pay for one.
I think the energy and ability of the builders will eventually break the resolve of the FC. The speed at which the trails reappeared after the last felling in Wharncouver is testimony to their ingenuity.
I have signed the petition and the work the guys put in to those trails is astounding. However, I would probably recommend a bit of caution here. The FC have the heavy machinery to destroy months of work in minutes. It wouldn't take them long to wear down the trailbuilders if they just kept bulldozing everything they didn't like.
In many regards I am an advocate of the grown-up attitude. You ride stuff at your own risk. But it sounds like the FC are onboard with the majority of mountain biking activity at Wharncliffe. Contrast this with local park authorities and landowners around my neck of the woods and you begin to see that things may not be so bad up there.
Highlights of our local experience are:
Removal of anything remotely 'built' that might indicate mountain biking.
Dangling the carrot of access in bad faith whilst attempting to co-opt some riders to act as a pseudo ranger service "don't ride here, guys, we might get access if we prove we can obey the rules for an indeterminate period of time".
Putting up fences across any bit of track that riders are ever seen on - assuming it is practical for them to 'pen' the trail in.
Popping up on any mtb forum that even mentions the places with threats of fines running to £20,000 - obviously whilst still dangling the carrot to keep their un-paid 'mtb police' on the hook.
Selling the woods off in penny packets to private buyers who erect fences.
The FC at Wharncliffe doesn't sound too bad in this context(!)
Iirc a section of wood is for sale
I've never had the pleasure, but this sort of thing happens around here too (Cardiff) - there's loads of NRW land (Welsh version of FC) around, and loads and loads of trails. Most are 'tolerated' and I think most people know the 'rules' - but inevitably someone* will go a bit daft, massive drops that cross walking paths, stupid, massive obstacles with a very high price for failure made out of pallets, stupid, the same only painted bright blue with the name of your mountain bike club stencilled on the side, really stupid. The list goes on, so the NRW have to come along with all their kit and flatten the lot because "we didn't build it and we didn't tell them to ride it" doesn't cut it in court.
Also, are they talking about flattening all of wharncliffe or just wharncouver?
Being fairly well acquainted with some of the main trailbuilders and James who started the petition, there's a fair bit I could add to this debate, but I'll give it a few days before I decide whether to stick my oar in...
Also, are they talking about flattening all of wharncliffe or just wharncouver?
The latter.
Petition was a bit vague and subsequent media coverage more so.
The FC are taking the piss with the “ancient woodland/nature reserve” business,
lol, you don't understand designated sites then! It's very hard to get permission to do anything in a woodland designated under the ancient woodland inventory even though it's not a statutory designation, illegal development is not going to do you any favours especially if you've been warned already.
I think it's a pretty measured response from the FC, in fact I'm surprised they've not taken a harder line. When the first stw mincer sues them when they crash there they'll probably change their mind!
Wharncouver is not in ancient woodland, it's all coniferous.
If they're saying it's ancient woodland it must have something in it, there's a map of all AWI but I don't know where the trails are to check. It means there's been woodland there since mapping began basically, and they probably have an obligation to preserve and restore it to native species. Is it a horrible dark spruce plantation then?
'Ancient woodland' refers to a woodland that has been in existence since 1600.
'Ancient woodland' does not refer to tree specie / type.
Conifer plantations on these sites are known as Plantations on Ancient Woodland sites (PAWS). They have specific management objectives born from things such as Habitat Action Plans, and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard.
PAWS management tends to focus on increasing the proportion of native tree species over time. The ground flora / fauna which is an integral part can then develop. Obviously this doesn't happen when it gets dug up.
If the conifer is Scots Pine (which from memory and the videos most of it is) that is a native species; so could conceivably form part of the native component.
And all that before you get into the fun of land owner permission, access rights, other site users, occupiers liability, planning permission for recreational development, compliance with CDM regulations, HSE notifiable projects, legal liabilities of those building, negligence claims settled at the tax payers expense etc.
Perhaps if those building and who now play the victim card of 'no co-operation or engagement' had engaged and co-operated with the land owner in the first place they wouldn't be in this position.
I think the energy and ability of the builders will eventually break the resolve of the FC
That sounds like a pretty good way of making them totally anti mountain biking to me! At the end of the day it's their land so you need to try and talk to them and sort out where you can build trails and what are acceptable features else they could quite easily just turn round and flatten everything!
Surely it's better to work with them and tone it down a bit and still have some trails rather than nothing?
Don't start me on "It's their land"!
It's Sitka Spruce and I suppose the wrecking crews driving the mechanical harvesters through the forest have a positive impact on the flora and fauna?
But then....
And all that before you get into the fun of land owner permission, access rights, other site users, occupiers liability, planning permission for recreational development, compliance with CDM regulations, HSE notifiable projects, legal liabilities of those building, negligence claims settled at the tax payers expense etc.
And all that before you get into the fun of land owner permission, access rights, other site users, occupiers liability, planning permission for recreational development, compliance with CDM regulations, HSE notifiable projects, legal liabilities of those building, negligence claims settled at the tax payers expense etc.
Which is all lawyer speak with the aim of keeping us out of what they perceive to be their property.
Litigation is the main problem here, so we can thank our fellow bikers who've ridden beyound their abilities then lined the pockets of lawyers by making vast claims against the FC. who insure themselves and are now very jittery about us being there. Go and ride CyB and keep off stuff you haven't got the skills for.
I've just watched some wharncouver videos on youtube and it looks like Scots pine plantation with partially intruded broadleaves to me, not sitka, scots pine is a native species although this is outside the scots pine 'zone'.
cyclelife no offense but if you're involved in the negotiations you should pay heed to sr0093193's post, put your grown up pants on, do some reading about the many official/legislative aspects of this kind of situation and get serious about this if you're hoping to get anywhere.
I have no idea where the trails are but here's an AWI map http://naturalengland-defra.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ancient-woodlands-england/data?geometry=-1.58%2C53.441%2C-1.519%2C53.45
Go and ride CyB and keep off stuff you haven’t got the skills for.
Yep. Or have a look, assess the risk for yourself, and don’t bleat if it goes wrong and you get hurt.
I haven’t got the skills for anything like most of the stuff in wharncliffe, so it’s just not my type of riding.
Now, this is all very well, but there are a couple of things that cut against this ‘grown up’ attitude.
Firstly, what if a rider with all the necessary skills gets it wrong and they cannot get themselves out? If the emergency services are called in, the shit will hit the fan sooner or later.
Secondly, what if a rider with life insurance suffers life-changing injuries and the insurance won’t pay out unless fault is found?
We are too far down the line with stuff like insurance.
I don’t have the answers, but I doubt it is a good idea to piss the FC off in this instance.
I'll leave the negotiating to the more erudite around here.
In the future I'll continue to ride in Wharncliffe wherever and whenever, as thousands have done over the past 30 odd years, with as far as I know, no claims against the FC.
Sounds to me it's not the riding that's the problem but the trail building. I hope that the few don't spoil it for the many. The on line vote will have been a waste of time if the attitudes to the FCs concerns don't change.