Forum menu
However this is the wrong case to make his point the one set of values over another case is really clear on this one unlike in some areas
because you say so ? because scientists say so ? because ?
the ahd is strong in this one
*feel free to insult some more.*
again
This is a very special and fragile landscape of international importance
if this is the case then why are thousands of walkers allowed to walk all over it every year?
Me and 10 mates are planning to go next weekend.
What times does the uplift run?
Is 8" enough travel?
What's the best way to cook Capercaillie eggs? Gas or solid fuel?
Thanks!
druidh - Member
> TandemJeremy - Member
> This is a very special and fragile landscape of international importanceAnd yet TJ, I can look to the bookshelf on my left and see at least seven guide-books aimed at walkers, all promoting access to the same paths. Do you have none?
What is a Capercaillie? Is it like a sort of hedgehoggy thing?Is it related to a Haggis?
I don't know about these sort of things, I'm sorry.
Not related at all although Capercaillie breast stuffed with organic wild haggis makes a fab combination
I do understand trailmonkeys point. Its obvious. In some cases he clearly is right.
However he fails to understand why the Ben MacDui plateau is different. Its not just any old SSSI. Its nothing special from a mountainbiking point of view -so in that way its value is low, its very special from a conservationist point of view so in that way its value is high.
Druidh /. pastcaring - thats a whole nother debate I ain't getting into. MY opinion is that in places like this bikes cause disproportionate damage far greater than any walker. No proof, not even any evidence bar my observation. But because I believe bikes cause significant damage thats why I believe that its hard to make a case that riding bikes there is responsible and certainly that publicising it is irresponsible.
Al this is simply my opinion based on what I know and see. Other opinions are available and people such as Druidh whos opinion I respect have one that differs from mine
A rather lovely kind of grouse:
[img] 
[/img]
with a turkey in the backgound 🙂
Really
I mean the ratio of walkers/climber scratching there way around heavily out numbers bicycles.
Lets not mention the amount of poo that is left behind by the red sock brigade.
So what are we saying close the Cairngorms off and just watch videos about them.
Bunch of piss
I fully understand the fragile environment up there I have worked in outdoor education for 10 years but I will continue to ride my bicycle responsibly on the plateau as long as others enjoy the Cairngorms wilderness on foot or any other form of transport ( landrover, stalkers)
Lets not talk about the hundreds of cairns that have been made by walkers wandering off the path and picking up part of the fragile landscape and piling them next to the path on the way to Ben Macdui.
Thanks
Andy
Environmental pressure is the thin edge of the wedge to wind back the right to roam in Scotland.
Its not the responsible people I have issue with - its the thought of people like SimonFBarnes and his bogtrotters that makes me cringe
He believes that bikes cause no erosion, that riding alongside built paths is OK when the armoured path is inconvenient to ride and that he should be able to lead large groups of people anywhere anytime.
too many folk with that attitude and significant damage will be done. Its not the few responsible riders that I worry about - its the risk of attracting large numbers of irresponsible folk.
Edit - and I see "skilful and experienced" riders all the time riding in ways that cause needless erosion - ring round puddles and water bars, skidding to a halt.
Name me another mountain in the uk that has it own dedicated "poo project" because the amount of shit left on the hill?
Sorry to bang on about Jobbies.
Sanny's article didn't smack of being irresponsible more inspirational, get you bicycles out of the sanitised loops tucked away in forests around the UK.
Brought to you by Leffe
thanks Andy
Its not the responsible people I have issue with - its the thought of people like SimonFBarnes and his bogtrotters that makes me cringe
Come on man; how many people blethering on on this thread drive cars, take flights, use plastic baygs, etc etc etc??
Not to mention riding bikes made from materials the extraction/refinement/production of which is environmentally damaging?
NIMBYism.
'Ooh please don't come and damage [i]my[/i] favourite environment even though I contribute to the damage of the environment of other places'.
Pfft...
Me and my stepdad got attacked by an large, enraged, male, nest-guarding Capercaillie up Sutherland way when I was a lad. He had to beat it off with a stick after it went for his eyes, from the vantage point of his shoulders!
Feel free to fry their eggs on a hot griddle.
James-b
Please don't assume that because we enjoyed the descents that we were traveling at warp speed and skidding all the way down the trail. The area is most definitely not a giant trail centre and anyone who treats it as such may be in for a very rude awakening. Phone coverage is virtually non existent and you are a long way from help and civilization if you come a cropper. As with any trip into the mountains, careful planning, knowing you limits and being aware of the hazards you may face are key. Oh and if you manage an average of less than 3 milesan hour, the chances are you aren't riding Steve Peat style on the descents!
It's a [i]boid[/i]? And here's me thinking it was some strange British egg-laying mammal....
I am disappoint. 🙁
[img] 
[/img]
Why can't we have something like that over here?
[i]Racism[/i]. That's why.
Probably.
Surroundedbyzulus - twice in one thread I'm accused of being moronic. Disappointed by that. I mus be losing my touch. Once you've actually read the article, perhaps you may wish to reflect on how you have garnered knowledge of the Cairngorms. You may have one of the many walking and climbing guidebooks that are published for the area or have read about it in a magazine or online. I would suggest that the article is but a drop in the ocean compared to what is already out there in print and online. Perhaps you have walked there with friends who have shared their knowledge of the area. At any point, did you think as a walker about the damage you have helped contribute to? Have you chosen to chastise yourself or the likes of Cameron McNeish and Chris Townsend. Substitute walker for biker in your last post - can you not just as easily ( or perhaps even more so) come to the conclusion that walkers are irresponsible and that there is no place to promote walking in the hills either? I find the notion that walkers are inherently more responsible and have greater mountain craft than bikers to often be at odds with reality. How often do you see folk in trainers and t shirts going up munros, plastic shopping bag in hand. While I may be concerned for their well being, I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't be there. The hills are there for all to enjoy...... responsibly.
If you disagree, that's fine but please try to resist calling me moronic for a third time. Reasoned discourse is great, name calling less so.
Mighty night.
Sanny - brought to you by the number 12 and Bier Halle 2 for 1 pizza .....mmm!
Sanny - brought to you by the number 12 and Bier Halle 2 for 1 pizza
That is a qualitage sign-off.
In fact, it's Elfinapproved. 😀
Perfectly OK to build a car park and railway to the top of said plateau, not to mention a cafe on the very top then.
old_mtber - MemberPerfectly OK to build a car park and railway to the top of said plateau, not to mention a cafe on the very top then.
The railway is not to the top, a lot of folk objected to it, you are not allowed to ride up in the railway and then wonder off onto the plateau
a cracking article and a great response Sanny 😆
doug -
that was on the club email methinks 😆Did Sanny not also write an article a few months ago where he strongly criticised some guy for riding off the path on Ben Lomond?
bring on more summer adventures into our lovely remote hills - yippeee 😀
there's a lot of defense being built around 'well walkers publish guide books so I can publish mountain bike articles..'
great... how mature.. two wrongs don't make a right and all that..
It's a bit like those stories where a houseparty is advertised on facebook and bastards from miles around turn up and wreck the joint.. and consequently I'm also disappointed by some of the reactions to this issue displayed on this thread.. It's nice to imagine that all people that ride bicycles off-road are automatically caring and responsible guardians of the countryside.. but it's hopelessly naive..
I understand that only a very few bastards will make the journey to the plateau.. maybe even none.. and that only a handful of well meaning enthusiasts will rise to the challenge.. out of that handful of enthusiasts I would expect less than half to truly understand the reponsibility..
so why encourage it in the pages of a loved and respected magazine..?
just because we feel that we can really doesn't mean that we should..
And that's why I'm thoroughly disappointed by this.. as a lover of the great outdoors and our wonderful planets stunning hidden secrets.. and nurturing a streak of conservationism fuelled by mountain biking.. I had unwisely assumed that Singletrack and it's contributors would have a more admirable respect for the environment than this..
I understand the arguments and excuses for publishing the article.. but wouldn't it have been far more [i]caring[/i] to just print something else about somewhere else..?
bastards
EDIT: rant over.. great debate.. triumph over adversity hopefully
I do understand trailmonkeys point
Excellent, it's important that people start questioning scientific/academic hegemony in resource management.
However he fails to understand why the Ben MacDui plateau is different..........................its very special from a conservationist point of view
Oh, so you clearly have no idea what i'm trying to say at all do you ?
In an earlier post, you accused me of being hard of thinking. Please allow me to avert the irony in your statement by drawing your attention to a case in point that might allow your own ease of thought.
In Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park, there is a cave that contains ancient paintings produced by aboriginal Australians. Conventional, scientific and archaeolgical interpretation of the site led to access to the paintings being restricted with a viewing platform being installed and contact with the paintings strictly prohibited. This 'important' artefact had been successfully conserved. Only one problem. In conserving it, the scientific/archealogical community had completely negated its meaning to the local community who's practice meant that the paintings should, over time, be reworked - in essence destroying what was there.
The point here is that you can't turn the whole world into a museum into which the inclusion and usage of artefacts is dictated by conservation professionals, because in doing so, all the exhibits become meaningless to those outside of the academic discourse.Furthermore the discourse, overtime, attains a weight of credibility that as we are seeing here, leads people to accept its hegemony without question and adopt the mantra- its important because its important to academic research, not because it fulfills any meaningful role in peoples lives.
It's not as you say a case of one set of values against another. In order to reach that parity, you first have to remove the over bearing influence of the AHD which is so inherent in both consevation mangement and lay conservation that all opposition to it is automatically disregarded, as is so clearly being demonstrated on this thread.
TandemJeremy - Member
I do understand trailmonkeys point. Its obvious. In some cases he clearly is right.However he fails to understand why the Ben MacDui plateau is different. Its not just any old SSSI. Its nothing special from a mountainbiking point of view -so in that way its value is low, its very special from a conservationist point of view so in that way its value is high.
Druidh /. pastcaring - thats a whole nother debate I ain't getting into. MY opinion is that in places like this bikes cause disproportionate damage far greater than any walker. No proof, not even any evidence bar my observation. But because I believe bikes cause significant damage thats why I believe that its hard to make a case that riding bikes there is responsible and certainly that publicising it is irresponsible.
Al this is simply my opinion based on what I know and see. Other opinions are available and people such as Druidh whos opinion I respect have one that differs from mine
You really are a numpty TJ. On the one hand you use scientific discourse to designate the Cairngorm plateau as internationally significant and therefore at risk. On the other hand you try to support your argument for banishing mountain bikers from the mountain with your opinion and observation - the opposite of scientific. You can't privilege science in half your argument and and then use your own belief in the other half. 'Other opinions are available' - yep they are. And you seem to deny both those views based on science and those based on lay opinion, despite mobilising both of those value systems in your argument.
Moreover, you say you've observed mountain bikers causing erosion in sensitive ecological landscapes. My question is what where you doing while observing them? Presumably not riding a bike as you've clearly stated riding a bike in these habitats is highly irresponsible.
You are rather confused in your discourse
trailmonkey - Member
the irony is that i'm the one who is actually bothering to think rather than just blindly accepting the importance [i]of one set of values over another.[/i]
trailmonkey - MemberIt's not as you say a case of one set of values against another.
I do understand your basic point and I agree it has validity. However in the case of the MacDui plateau I think your argument does not hold water. You are being as dogmatic and show the wooly thinking that you accuse others of.
Capt john - whats that sound - the point flying right over your head 🙄
Your point is that Singletrack were irresponsible in publishing a route over the Cairngorm plateau because the article will attract more mountain bikers, and that is bad because mountain bikers will cause more erosion in that landscape than other users. Am i correct in my somethingion?
Where's the confusion ? In quote one, I am stating that you are accepting this as being one set of values against another. In quote two I'm pointing out that such a confrontation can't actually take place because of a blindly accepted discourse blocking any dialogue. Either way, taking snippets from my argument rather than dealing with the point of it is hardly moving things forward.
As for my argument not holding water, you continue to prove its seaworthiness. I don't accuse anyone of wooly thinking and I don't see any in mine and why is asking for the inclusion of differing interpretation dogmatic ? Do you not like freedom of thought ?
trailmonkey - what do you do btw? email in profile.
As one of those who has mentioned that argument, I'll take a stab at answering you.yunki - Member
there's a lot of defense being built around 'well walkers publish guide books so I can publish mountain bike articles..'great... how mature.. two wrongs don't make a right and all that..
I was merely trying to point out the hypocrisy in TJs argument - that he will have, and have used, such guidebooks himself. Now, I know TJ (and you?) would then say that a cyclist causes more damage than a walker - and I would agree with you - but by how much? The equivalent of ten walkers, a hundred walkers, a thousand walkers? So - it's all a matters of scale. If we agreed the latter figure of one thousand walkers, would it be OK to let 999 more people stravaig over the summit and then close it down?
Trailmonkey - the confusion is that I have not said what you claim I do and you are being absolutist in your position. I have clearly acknowledged the validity of positions other than mine including yours
Your point is invalid as regards the plateau simply because what you are argueing agaist "The point here is that you can't turn the whole world into a museum into which the inclusion and usage of artefacts is dictated by conservation professionals, because in doing so, all the exhibits become meaningless to those outside of the academic discourse" simply is not happening in this case.
There is no attempt to ban all access to the area merely to minimise damage and to keep the usuage sustainable.
My aim is to get people to think and to answer the question " what is responsible access in this context"
Druidh - that is a key point and a hard one to answer. I think Hypocrisy is a bit strong tho 🙂
Discouraging bikes on the sensitive areas will reduce the growth in trafic and thus reduce the amount of damage. Every additional person is additional damage.
So it attempting to balance rights and responsibilities discouraging but not banning additional traffic may be the responsible route to take
AS I have repeatedly said I believe that there is room for differing interpretations of what is reasonable in this context
Buzz light
yes I have been on the Cairnagorm plateau several times, in near whiteout, desert like summer conditions and average type days; have walked on Cairngorm / Ben Macdui / Braeriach/ Carn Ban Mor / Ben Avon so am aware of the area and environment; just wish I had more time and knew it better because it is an exceptional place, inspirational in its scale and ability for flora and fauna to survive in such hostile conditions
sanny [b]
glad to read your reply, issue is though although you may have ridden responsibly, urged responsibility there may be teh brigade who read the article, completely disregard your advice and just go and ride wildly across an area that cannot sustain such abuse; and see above yes I do know the area, and I do come from south of teh border and I do love and respect all that the Scottish mountains offer. It is just a case of right activity in right place, and isn`t Wolftrax Laggan just such a great trail centre too 🙂
tj, you really do not understand the point of my argument. Let me use this quote.
My aim is to get people to think and to answer the question " what is responsible access in this context"
In asking whether the area should be used for MTB or not you base the whole question on that of responsibility. I ask, responsible for what ? What is the inherent responsibility that we must adhere to here ? Conservation ? Your point condenses down to an argument about responsible/irresponsible conservation and this fails to ask the most pertinent question
Why should conservation be the over riding factor that determines the area's usage ?
Why should that thought dominate all others such as the right to enjoy the area as people decide for themselves ? The answer is simple, because of the AHD to which everybody blindly subscribes because it has been given an assumed, inherent righteousness.
Trailmonkey - I do understand your agrguement. sorry . Its you who fail to understand the basic situation
Why should conservation be the over riding factor that determines the area's usage ?
It isn't. Thats the point that you fail to understand.
But you want it to be and assume that there is an inherent righteousness in that point of view. Otherwise what responsibility are you asking people to uphold ?
TJ - As I don't think it's useful to sidetrack the wider issues here into a 'lets all ridicule TJ' thread, I just want to try and reiterate a couple of points made by others above – some of which you may get, so apologies in advance if this is at all patronising.
OK. It is important to recognise that all spaces and places are contested terrain. It's very easy to illustrate this in regard to the Cairngorms through setting up apparently incommensurable relations between differing sets of values - such as cultural heritage versus natural heritage and so on. It is absolutely necessary to question why one set of practices or knowledges is privileged over others. What Trailmonkey and others are questioning is the apparent [I]a priori [/i] value placed on 'natural' value of the Cairngorms over any other possible source of value. [u]Why this matters in regard to your own argument[/u] is that (ironically) in your own appeals to the 'natural' value of the plateau, you explicitly show your own understanding of 'the natural' to be culturally and socially constructed.
PS. Trailmonkey- I'd also be interested to know what you do...
[edit - cross posting while typing reply - please continue 😉 ]
How on earth do you get that? I have never said it,
Do you really not understand the basic concepts of being responsible for you actions and their effects, for compromise between differing points of view and priorities?
🙄
More cross posting.
bajsyckel
I understand that and agree with it.
What Trailmonkey and others are questioning is the apparent a priori value placed on 'natural' value of the Cairngorms over any other possible source of value.
And in this they are simply wrong and show a basic lack of understanding of the various competing and often mutually exclusive pressures on this bit of land. Economic development is given a value far higher than that of conservation or there would be no funicular.
How on earth do you get that? I have never said it,
What ???
Your whole argument throughtout the thread has been based on a pro conservation argument, for example -
Discouraging bikes on the sensitive areas will reduce the growth in trafic and thus reduce the amount of damage. Every additional person is additional damage.
And of course I understand the concept of responsibility, but again I ask you what is the supposedly inherent responsibility that we must adhere to here ?
And in this they are simply wrong and show a basic lack of understanding of the various competing and often mutually exclusive pressures on this bit of land. Economic development is given a value far higher than that of conservation or there would be no funicular.
It is the values that you are ascribing to the area that I have challenged.
bajsyckel - i am an undergraduate OU student reading, amongst other things, critical heritage studies.
Yes trailmonkey - that is correct - I have never said that conservation should be the [b]overriding [/b]consideration. It is one consideration amongst many
I have never ascribed any values
You have a very blinkered view of this debate as two polar opposites. In reality this is far more complex with a balancing of many different viewpoints, values, rights and responsibilities many of which are mutually exclusive
Please - open your mind and your eyes and try to understand that this is far more complex than your simplistic analysis.
How is it different to riding in the fragile and unique environment of (say) Moab. Yes, I know it's sandstone but a lot of the terrain out there is full of microbial soil which takes hundreds of years to get back to its former state if damaged. There are waymarked trails for walkers, bikers, horses, even bloody great Hummvees, and so long as everyone sticks to the paths, everything is generally fine.
The responsible users of the area like the guys running guided walks, rides, drives are at great pains to protect the area so if they see someone walking/riding/driving like a **** they'll tell them and it's pretty much self-policing.
The Cairngorms are remote enough that probably not even 1% of the readers of a specialist publication are immediately going to jump in the cars, boot it up the M6, continue north for another 3hrs and go and do a ride round there. It'll be something that people might do once in their lifetime if they're on holiday in the area and, thanks to the article, they'll be aware of how precious the place is and treat it with the respect that it deserves. There are already man-made paths (and a funicular railway) up there so what is maybe a few tens more MTBers per [b]year[/b] who have gone there as a direct result of Sanny's route guide?
In fact, it's not even a Route Guide, there's no map, no "turn left here, take this trail", no downloadable GPX, it's just an article of where some people went riding. It therefore means that anyone reading it has to put in the legwork to make it a route which, by it's very nature, means the people who DO do it will have had to plan the route themselves and will be aware of the remoteness and fragility of the place - it cuts out the slackers who just follow the GPS everywhere.
Tosh. Absolute nonsense and you're not going to wriggle off the hook that easily. Every single post that you have made so far up until the one on this page (that mentions other contested usages) has been in defence of conservation of the area and advocates 'responsible' usage. I'd cut and paste them all if you like but there's little point, everyone can just scroll back and read them but I would doubt very much that anyone besides you and I is remotely interested.
As for simplistic analysis and polemics, I can rest easy that my viewpoint is based upon extensive study and balanced thought rather than reactionary musings and the help of Wiki.
Over and out.
Surely a few, low pressure, wide, reasonably ridden MTB tyres rolling through a man made path (caused by walking, mostly), is not going to impact any of the off-path SSSI?
I assume that all methods of access (walking and cycling) cause erosion of the path of some type? So this becomes an issue of how much erosion of the path is caused, and how it can be sustainable?
Surely all types of access (walking, bikes, horses) cause erosion of all paths? Taken to the logical extreme, no one would be allowed anywhere of off paved roads because of this.
So then, 'responsible access' (by foot, tyre, or hoof) is making sure your access is low impact, not no impact?
For example, if there were steep parts of the path that would be damaged excessively by riding them, the responsible thing is to walk them. It is a balance, not an absolute, isn't it?