[Closed] Save the Cairngorms from Singletrack

"Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis? "

Don't do as they do, do as they say!

I'll be on the plateau this summer sometime. Maybe walking, maybe biking. I'll report back here on the number of walkers V the number of bikers up there.

I didn't see the article. I'd be interested in how many other bikers/walkers were seen during the ride.

druidh - Member
Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis?

Ah, but they're eco-saints with guided tours. All that's missing is the exclusive access... 🙂

Only been dipping into this thread, but again, if we are riding responsibly and on paths already eroded by 1000's of walkers, what is the problem, as we are creating no more erosion than a walker with poles IMO. (Note, riding responsibly means no skidding or sliding, and having consideration for other users of the path)

I should also say that I have done a number of rides on to the plateau, plus a number of other Munros, and have only ever had one walker give us a disapproving look. Pretty much all the others were very positive and stopped for a chat. So where is this big anti brigade?

Playing Devil's advocate there Druidh. With regards to Glenmore, the way that they don't at all suggest any respect for the enviroment you are on,or have local knowledge of which tracks are being overused and should be avoided is a scandal,but then Druidh,as a compleatist you will be well aware of that. I remember you saying there had been a big gap between you starting and finishing your Munros, how much more worn/busier were the paths of any you re-visited?
Naturally all mountain bikers will take the same care as full time guides,some of the switchbacks on the paths are a bit tight,maybe be easier to cut straight across.
Just out of interest if you are on the plateau coming down say Ben Mcdui,I take it you will stop every time you come across a person walking up the path,or because you have earned your downhill they should get out of your way? If you follow the rules of the hill,give to people still climbing,then you will either have no choice but to leave the path,causing further damage,or stop every few yards.
I don't for a minute think that on the back of an article in STW the car park is going to sprout a showrooms worth of Skoda estates and the plateau is going to be awash with Ti 456's. But we are the minority, not the walkers, all it will take for a lot of bridge building to be undone is one accident or example of what a walker views as poor riding. Who has the biggest lobby us or walkers? The Loch Lomond camping ban is an example of how fluid our "Right to Roam" actually is.

I think this debate is useful. Hopefully people will think about their actions and the consequences of them,

Its clear there is no consensus on this issue, no obvious right answer.

My view is that to avoid this one small area - the high plateau - would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR. I certainly am very dubious about publicising the route. We can see from the thread that as well as those like the author who understand the issues there are others ( take a bow SFB) who clearly have no understanding of what responsible access is.

I fear for it becoming a "must do" and getting unsustainable levels of traffic. I would prefer we keep the bikes to the ski side of the massif and on carn ban mor

An interesting debate.

Sorry for not reading this whole thread but although the Cairngorms may be special exactly the same could apply to any upland area of the UK. Most are SSI's and most are really sensitive to foot fall with problems of erosion, pollution, over grazing. They also have really short growing seasons and take a long time to recover.

So in short should we be riding/Walking on any upland landscapes?

Kinder Scout for example is a right mess, with the peat badly eroded, I am not sure if it is from Walkers or over grazing (Not bikers anyway) but the birthplace of the UK's right to roam is not really a good advert for open access.

Does the average person in the street see both parties as causing equal harm?

now you betray a naive belief that we live in a democracy ?

there are others ( take a bow SFB) who clearly have no understanding of what responsible access is.

no, rather I deny that it is a meaningful concept

GEDA - Member
...Kinder Scout for example is a right mess, with the peat badly eroded, I am not sure if it is from Walkers or over grazing (Not bikers anyway) but the birthplace of the UK's right to roam is not really a good advert for open access.

But isn't that because there is actually no real right to roam in England and so the multitudes get concentrated on those corners where there is free access?

I've really enjoyed this so far. As I mentioned earlier, I was up on the plateau collecting baseline data for a longterm environmental impact assessment of the (at the time) newly proposed railway. It was at that time that I got a feel for how wonderful an environment it is. Do you know that the heather travels in waves up there as the growth is dictated by windburn, or that there are huge rocks slowly surfing down the slopes? How cool is that?

For me, it's not a place I would choose to ride my bike. I think Andy@inner probably reflects my views the closest. There are many trails much more local to me that depending on conditions I won't ride either because of the impact I would have on them. At the moment, a prime example would be Dumyat. It'll be a soggy mess now, and my tyres would cut it to pieces. However, that's my personal choice governed by my values and my appreciation of the landscapes that I ride on. I'm fully aware that these will differ from everyone else. Everyone's values differ.

For me, what's heartening to see from this excellent debate is the amount of awareness that folk have. When I first read Sanny's article, I did see and take note of his warnings about the environmental and ecological nature of the area and I was glad to see these. However, within a day of reading his article, one of my riding partners was talking about organising a group ride based on this article. This was when I started to cringe, as I've seen first hand the impact that a big group ride can have on a hillside, especially if ridden in less than ideal conditions.

I've no problem with folk riding where they want, and based on the majority of replies to this thread I'm a bit more reassured that folk who do chose to ride in such a sensitive area do so with an awareness of their impact.

Just as an aside though, if you think about the number of walkers up there, and then think of the visual / political impact that just a few 'out of place' tyre tracks might have, it certainly makes me pause for thought.

Beagy, unashamed tree hugger

[i]My view is that to avoid this one small area - the high plateau - would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR.[/i]

Good PR or ammunition for the mythical anti brigade? Not riding there because it is "sensitive" legitimises the viewpoint that bikes are somehow more harmful than walking.

Unless you mean promote the idea of all mountain users avoiding the area, which brings us back to my point that if the plateau is that sensitive then a way of limiting all users to a sustainable level is needed.

[i]Just as an aside though, if you think about the number of walkers up there, and then think of the visual / political impact that just a few 'out of place' tyre tracks might have, it certainly makes me pause for thought.[/i]

At the hypocrisy of walkers using an eroded path ignoring their own impact? Me too.

Dave - Moderator

"My view is that to avoid this one small area - the high plateau - would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR."

Good PR or ammunition for the mythical anti brigade? Not riding there because it is "sensitive" legitimises the viewpoint that bikes are somehow more harmful than walking.

I believe that if and when pressure comes to restrict bikes to say ( for the sake of debate) Rothimurcus then we would be able to say - look - we can be trusted to be responsible - we keep off MacDui ona voluntary basis.

However your sceario is possible as well.

The appears to be no clear cut answers just opinions and quite a range of them.

Duckman

Interested to know a bit more about the debate you overheard at Glenmore and what was said? I suspect it would reflect the discussions we are having on here. One quick point, I didn’t do the ride and write about it to promote the access debate. I did it because it is a lovely hard ride in wonderful surroundings. As for the bird reserve comment, I’d be more concerned about the number of dogs off leash running free that we saw when we were on the mountain back in August. We’ve had issues down here at a bird reserve near Glasgow with thoughtless dog walkers letting their dogs off leash and chasing ground nesting birds. Responsible access that isn’t! I’m fairly sure the free wandering herd of reindeer and the roaming herds of red deer that can be regularly seen on the pleateau do nothing to help the cause of the ground nesting birds either nor the fragile plant life.

Druidh, epicyclo and irc

In a couple of short sentences, you’ve managed to capture the very essence of the discussion.

As mountain bikers, we’re the relatively new kids on the block. We don’t have the history of illegal trespass in order to secure rights of access. We don’t have biking resorts built on environmentally sensitive mountains in the 60s. We don’t have outward bound centres using the same mountains as their base for operations all year round. We don’t press for funiculars to be plonked on the self same mountains or cafes at the top to cater for us. We didn’t create the trails though we will happily use them.

Why is it ok for the likes of Glenmore Lodge to offer outdoor courses on the mountain, advertise it on their website, make regular appearances on radio and television in connection with the area but not ok for mountain bikers to ride there? Similarly, why do we accept that the likes of Trail, TGO and other publications of the walking and climbing fraternity can publish route guides, articles and guide books for the area for a far larger constituent user group but that we as mountain bikers shouldn’t? Is it because we perceive them as being a big group with a louder voice than us? It is perhaps ironic but what first turned me on to the area was a pull out supplement that came with The Great Outdoors magazine as it was then advertising Glenmore Lodge and the area in general. It was the spark that lit the fire of a lifelong passion for the area.

I wonder whether we are our own worst enemies here, blithely accepting and even promoting the notion that walkers, climber and skiers are the defacto guardians of all that is good about the plateau by virtue of having been users for a longer period of time while mountain bikers are the bad boys and girls of the user groups and can’t be trusted to behave responsibly. Sorry but I just don’t buy that argument nor the notion that you can only be responsible if you are a local. Geographic proximity does not imbue knowledge and respect. Look at the scar of a trail that was Ben Lomond’s main path before action was taken to remedy it a good number of years ago now. It wasn’t irresponsible bikers but walker causing the damage. The same can be said of virtually any mountain in Scotland. Schehalion, Conic Hill and Ben Nevis spring immediately to mind. What then gives them the moral high ground to judge what is right and wrong? It would be interesting to garner the views of walkers and other user groups to see if the prejudice we fear may lead to loss of access is real or imagined. We’ve done a great job of beating ourselves up over this issue. I wonder whether there are similar debates on walking forums or does the thought never enter their heads?

If we are going to get into an us v them debate (something I am loathe to do as being as much a walker as a mountain biker, I don’t consider it a healthy thing to do – we are all mountain users and can all appreciate and enjoy them responsibly), perhaps we should reflect on which user group is more likely to stray from the paths? The loose sandy soil and the jumble of boulders on the plateau that the paths go through would make for a joyless affair on the bike were you to go off piste for want of a better phrase. Who is it you are more likely to see wandering off in all directions and not sticking to the paths? I would suggest that is easier to construct an argument that says walking should be the first group of users to be banned. However, I don’t believe this nor would I wish to exclude another user group in order to preserve the mountains for my use alone.

In terms of relative numbers of users when we were up there, at a conservative estimate, we must have passed between 200 and 250 walkers on the day we headed over from Cairngorm. Ironically, it was something of a challenge to get photos that didn’t have walkers in the background. I also lost count of the number of walkers I saw off path whether to take a leak, take a picture, add to a cairn or eat their pieces away from other people. Perhaps I should have said something to them. Perhaps in future I will.

Great debate. Really enjoying reading all the views and arguments being put across.

Cheers

Sanny

PS Just read the bit about the Loch Lomond camping ban. As a regular user of the trails there, the ban makes sense. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve ridden on the trails and come across stacks of litter, bushes and small tress hacked into to make fires, uncontrolled fires by the shoreline, pished campers and the odd bit of man poo by or even on the trail. I’m assuming it’s man poo given that there was toilet paper beside it. Yeuch! The situation is indeed a fluid one but there is a clear body of evidence from user groups including the police, local residents, walkers, bikers etc that a significant element of the users are abusing the lochside. If we contrast that with bikers on the plateau, I very much doubt that they will be the irresponsible numpties from the city in their souped up Corsas who has no regard for their surroundings nor the impact they make. Is the worry that our very presence there so offends and that one or several walkers may take umbrage at us being there that we shouldn’t be there at all? If there is one thing this thread makes clear, it is that we are all acutely aware of our environment and our potential impact on it.

PPS TJ

As for traffic becoming unsustainable, at what point is that reached? We are surely already past that point if we are saying that a self selecting and I suspect very small number of bikers are going to tip the trails over the edge with irreparable damage compared to the thousands of existing walkers and climbers who already use the area? Responsible access surely has to be for all or no one at all?

Good thread 🙂

One of the issues with Trailmonkey et al's approach to heritage, value, ownership etc is the risk that it becomes mired in relativism. Theories developed in colonial contexts naturally pick up on the imposition of control and rights, without understanding (cf Uluru). Are these theories applicable in this context? The risk with these ideas is you simply state who's views aren't valid, or try to point out how shakey their foundations are.

The fact remains that part of TJ's (and many people's) identity is bound up in the authorized heritage discourse. Our understanding of who we are and our relationship with landscapes and places is a product of these histories. For TJ (only as an example) the conservation of an environment like this is fundamentally important... as important to his identity as the aboriginal people's relationship with bits of Uluru is to theirs.

You can use a criticism of AHD to understand that, but that doesn't negate their identities and "rights" over that landscape. You run the risk of simply replacing a AHD derived hegemony with a relativist construct where academics tell people that what they believe isn't valid. A critique of AHD is only useful if it allows you to be more inclusive of people's viewpoints.

People "believe" in science, they "believe" in conservation. That makes these things as real and valid as other view points. It easy to criticise them because they are the establishment view, but it's important to understand that they are still valid.

And back to the article... personally I think it's important that mountain bikers ride responsibly, are seen to ride responsibly, and writing about them riding responsibly demonstrates that to a wider audience than would actually see them on the hill. Mountain bikers need to seen and heard or we will be left out of the debates on these issues. My identity is drawn from many things, being a mountain biker is one of them and it colours all my views on access, heritage and conservation. It's important.

Sorry I lost [s]interest[/s]track somewhere after the overpopulation by deer argument.

I think I have a resolution - Wolves and Lynxes 😆
They should be allowed to keep the population of deer, ramblers, mountain climbers, mtb'ers and skiers to a minimum.
Only the fit will survive.

can they be unkillable wolf soldiers ?

jonathan - Member
...For TJ (only as an example) the conservation of an environment like this is fundamentally important... as important to his identity as the aboriginal people's relationship with bits of Uluru is to theirs.

Highland Scots are the aboriginal people here, and as one I don't mind southerners and the like walking/riding on our mountains.

The Loch Lomond issue could have been handled simply by having an alcohol ban. That would have kept the neds away. It is a dangerous precedent, and one of the reasons I'll oppose any restrictions no matter how worthy.

I love it.

To paraphrase this thread:

"Walkers, climbers and skiers go up there and damage stuff so we can too!"

How is that an argument? (Clue: it isn't...)

Agreed. A good thread that covers a lot of issues around the sensitivity of the Cairngorm plateau and what constitutes responsible access. Far more coverage than in the original actual article, which despite allocating several column inches to the [i]Tesco's Finest range of bike snacks[/i], relegates these issues to a footnote tacked onto the end of the article like an afterthought 😉

Brown

That's not the argument. It's one of why are other users capable of reasonable access but bikers aren't. If they do damage, why is there no push to restrict their access. Fundamentally, the issue is whether it is reasonable for us to ride on an existing network of trails that we also walk on.

That's not the argument. It's one of why are other users capable of reasonable access but bikers aren't. If they do damage, why is there no push to restrict their access. Fundamentally, the issue is whether it is reasonable for us to ride on an existing network of trails that we also walk on.

I know it's not the argument. That was my point. But it is the pathetic 'argument' that gets wheeled out again and again (and has been several times on this thread) as to why it's ok to ride in delicate areas. It is used to justify riding in these places, rather than look at the issue of whether it's reasonable or not - which is the debate you are trying to have. Just because someone else does something wrong doesn't make it ok for you to as well. Just because a walking guide is published doesn't mean it should have been. And it doesn't mean it's ok to write a biking guide.

NB - I'm not trying to attack your article, just the unthoughtout arguments made here. I have written mountain bike route guides, so I am in a similar position to you.

Before I get to the points raised by Sanny.

now you betray a naive belief that we live in a democracy ?

Not for a moment Simon,thanks for backing up my point.

Sanny, there was a bit of chat opened by a group of staff because I was wearing a Cove t-shirt on the Saturday.The general thrust was that a) it was bad enough with the amount of traffic it already got.(they also suggested they have been avoiding the really sensitive parts of the plateau)
b) That it would catch people out, as I am sure you are aware the weather gets really filthy,really quickly, up there.
Now I have to declare an interest,I did my ML through the lodge.They use it,BUT when we did the ML we were even putting back the rocks we had used to stop out tents blowing away during the summer gales exactly where we got them.They also avoid new paths and push responsible access very strongly.I also feel that peoples right to earn a living outweighs our recreational rights of access. I did my presentation on historical land use ( I hate tundra plants.) So if bikes had to be banned so the guides could still take people up there and earn a living,then fair enough.I agree with you on this;

Is the worry that our very presence there so offends and that one or several walkers may take umbrage at us being there that we shouldn’t be there at all? If there is one thing this thread makes clear, it is that we are all acutely aware of our environment and our potential impact on it.

How is that an argument? (Clue: it isn't...)

you must be new to this [b]Brown[/b]. What people say during a discussion is their argument ("No it isn't!", "Yes it is" etc) unless it's completely irrelevant like "My hovercraft is full of eels", and whether you agree with it or not does not undermine the fact.

In this case, being entitled to cause as much erosion as other users seems quite democratic even if some might consider it weak.

Thanks for that [b]Simon[/b]. Helpful as ever.

I'm gonna be driving a 4x4 over there next week, anyone want some samples of this "rare mud" five quid a jam jar? (and yes they are recycled jam jars)

Helpful as ever.

you don't know the half of it. Really.

I'm gonna be driving a 4x4 over there next week, anyone want some samples of this "rare mud" five quid a jam jar? (and yes they are recycled jam jars)

yep used loads of toilet bleach

duckman - Member
Playing Devil's advocate there Druidh. With regards to Glenmore, the way that they don't at all suggest any respect for the enviroment you are on,or have local knowledge of which tracks are being overused and should be avoided is a scandal,but then Druidh,as a compleatist you will be well aware of that. I remember you saying there had been a big gap between you starting and finishing your Munros, how much more worn/busier were the paths of any you re-visited?

duckman - Member
The general thrust was that a) it was bad enough with the amount of traffic it already got.(they also suggested they have been avoiding the really sensitive parts of the plateau)

b) That it would catch people out, as I am sure you are aware the weather gets really filthy,really quickly, up there.

Now I have to declare an interest,I did my ML through the lodge.They use it,BUT when we did the ML we were even putting back the rocks we had used to stop out tents blowing away during the summer gales exactly where we got them.

I also feel that peoples right to earn a living outweighs our recreational rights of access.

I also feel that peoples right to earn a living outweighs our recreational rights of access.

I wonder, if this were to be attempted, how many people might reasonably be excluded to enable one job ? 10 ? 1000? 1000000 ?

Please don't spoil this thread by responding to Simon in the way your gut wants to. I,ve already described this thread as one of the most reasoned and civilised debates on an important issue in the history of our forum. No really!

🙂

by responding to Simon in the way your gut wants to

yeah, try thinking with your head, you might get better results 🙂

Had a bad day Druidh? As you are well aware,the walkers are the biggest users and creators of erosion,they are also the biggest group contributing to the economy of eg; the Cairngorms.So who would be first banned to minimise impact on the plateau,us or them? I disagree with your suggestion about the moving faster argument. Moving faster is all very good if you can a,nav when the weather really closes in.b,are well enough equipped.One of the above posters mentioned about a group ride,will everybody in that group have extra layers,shelter between them,suitable footwear( I could list more)Also,come on; Bikes will cut corners and widen paths more than walkers currently are.
When did you do your winter ML? When I did my winter skills course at Glenmore last winter,we were not allowed on the plateau.
Finally comparing a guide with duct tape holding his breeks together taking small numbers of people onto the plateau is not really the same as a landowner with an estate. Would you not agree,and I am interested to hear what you think, that our responsible behaviour since the RtR has softened the stance of owners? Everybody I know who uses the hills has a bit of sense when the shooting is on.My DoE walks go down glen Tilt in August,I have had nothing but help from the factors.Of course,stalking is not really an issue on most Munros,is it? And certainly not on the top of the plateau where they are culled to keep numbers down to allow the plants a fighting chance.

Really? That was an argument favoured by the landowners when the LR(S)A was going through Holyrood. I take it you;d also back access restrictions during the deer culling and grouse shooting seasons?

In the spirit of this debate,rather than reply in kind..No I disagree with any restriction to access,to anywhere within the remit of the act,for any type of self powered user.

As far as I'm concerned access rights are one of the core freedoms in Scotland, and need to be fought to the last ditch. No exclusions, no thin end of the wedges.

If we get one area closed off, then others would follow really quickly.

The big landowners* would be rubbing their hands if they were reading this. All they would need is some environmental excuse, and bang, Scotland is closed just like England.

We've already fought this battle over proposals to reintroduce wolves and bears. Huge fences were going to enclose their areas.

The answer is education, not exclusion. Punishment for the offenders not the rest of us. If the government wants to protect an area, then it has to provide the resources to do so.

Another answer is to educate the public about the difference between downhill racing and mtb in general.

*Scotland is mainly big landowners to an obscene extent.

No one so far has mentioned, apart from beagleboy alluding to it, that possibly one of the larger forces of erosion on Gorm plateau is the wind itself moving around the gravel! Possibly / probably natural erosion across the whole plateau will cause considerably more longterm landscape change than walking / MTBing / ice climbing; however latter will cause localised scarring --ie path formation. Watergullies will form / change lanscapes, eg look at the Feshie river braiding at top end of teh valley, a great geological feature but if it were due to actions of man would be seen as unforgiveable erosion. Same can be seen in Lake district, contrast water course damage from flash floods with some of paths damage seen.
I`m not condoning this path erosion but asking whether we value the landscape / environment for its own sake or for the pleasure (for want of better word) it brings us? so that we can accept natural erosion as being OK, but man created being unacceptable?

For some reason last night I started another thread. Hopefully it'll die. What I was trying to say there and thought was a seperate point was this:

I get annoyed at early comments on this thread suggesting that because walkers and climbers already erode/promote an area, it's fine for bikers to ride there/publish routes in an area. (Yunki, Druidh and Sanny all make this point.)

Two wrongs don't make a right etc. Just because other groups use/erode an area doesn't mean we can, or more importantly, should. If others don't take responsibility for their actions, that doesn't mean we shouldn't. Maybe riders (magazines?) should stop being jealous that other people use an area, accept that it's delicate and promote avoiding it. (This isn't specific to the Cairngorms).

The side issue is that a lot of bikers show little respecct for or understanding of the countryside (find my other thread for reasons why). It's a small minority, but, compared with other groups, [b]our erosion/litter etc is very obvious[/b]. We are, as has been pointed out, the new kids on the block and there are a lot of people who don't want us around. Do we need to be squeaky clean?

Maybe we should avoid some places. Maybe we shouldn't ride much in the wet.

Access is a constant issue and often pops up in magazines. I've never seen an article on responsible access.

Brown - Member
...Access is a constant issue and often pops up in magazines. I've never seen an article on responsible access.

If trail repairs are being done, it's usually local mtbers who are doing it.

Our biggest danger to the environment here is not access, but the proliferation of all those heavily subsidised altars to the green gods - the windmills.

Mark is right; this has been a civilised and thoughtful debate on a subject I've never really though about, probably due to geographical issues rather than anything else.

The strength of this topic is based upon the lack of mudslinging and insults. However, a little humour is always appreciated...

"My hovercraft is full of eels"

Mr Barnes; as ever, I salute you 😀

In terms of relative numbers of users when we were up there, at a conservative estimate, we must have passed between 200 and 250 walkers on the day we headed over from Cairngorm. Ironically, it was something of a challenge to get photos that didn’t have walkers in the background. I also lost count of the number of walkers I saw off path whether to take a leak, take a picture, add to a cairn or eat their pieces away from other people. Perhaps I should have said something to them. Perhaps in future I will.

I know this has been covered already but one of the problems is the obvious nature of tyre tracks which will undoubtedly be cited at any opportunity should access/environmental issues be raised. We as 'mountainbikers' would would then be forced to 'prove' that we were not the cause or major contributor to any damage, which would be next to impossible.

epicyclo makes a good point about the windmills which puts things into perspective (and you could include cafes and other structures in this) that when you compare the damage they cause in their construction, there is nothing a relatively tiny bunch of mtb'ers could do to compare, even if they ragged their bikes round the mountains every day for the rest of their lives

Woody - Member
...I know this has been covered already but one of the problems is the obvious nature of tyre tracks which will undoubtedly be cited at any opportunity should access/environmental issues be raised.

It's a good reason to be riding a fat bike. Low pressure, wide tyres make far less impact on a trail than footprints.

It's a good reason to be riding a fat bike.

I think I pretty much agree with Brown's sentiments here.

I'm happy for folk to ride wherever they want, as long as our riding has minimal impact on those trails. We are very much the minority outdoor sport here and one tyre track (yes, I'm having a go at the monocyclists now 😉 ), can stand out a mile. A big group ride, or a large increase in rider traffic can cause carnage to a trail, with a huge visual impact that [i]could[/i] influence folks opinion of our hobby / sport. I've seen this, and I have to my shame, contributed to this by riding a chicken route down a local feature which is now a 12in wide, 20ft long gouge in the landscape after just a few years. 😳

I personally think we've all got to be aware of our impact on the trails as we ride them. Just as I grumble at the 'mess' a horsey makes to 'my' trail. We've got to be aware of how others will view tyre tracks on 'their' trails. We stand out from the norm, so we've always got to be on our best behaviour is what I think I'm trying to say.

I think my only real concern about riding up on the plateau is, as I stated at the very beginning, my fear of big group rides going up there. As long as you head up there, well aware that the environment is so slow to recover from any disturbance, that one instance of bad braking could leave a longterm visual impact and have a major influence on future runoff / erosion events. If riders keep this in mind, and keep in mind that we're all ambassadors for our minority sport, then we'll all be practising responsible access.

In my opinion....

I think...

Beagy 😛

it's fine for bikers to ride there/publish routes in an area. (Yunki, Druidh and Sanny all make this point.)

[b]hey hey hey Brown[/b].. I really hope that you've just misread and didn't come to that conclusion from my posts on this thread otherwise I have grossly misrepresented myself..

I started out by stating that I think it's atrocious that these people are stamping their feet and demanding the right to publish this route..

I have no objection to conservation minded people riding sensitively in fragile environments.. but I think to decide that you want to publish the details of your ride in a popular magazine probably [i]is[/i] the work of a bimbo.. (thanks for the inspiration in the tags there..) I relented ever so slightly when I realised that the debate that article had triggered may have some worth as a tool for encouraging conservation issues..

But then Sanny admitted that raising awareness of conservation had not been his intention and that he had published the route pretty much just for a bit of glory.. so I stand by my view that it's not really Sanny's fault.. he is truly just a bimbo..

what annoys me about this thread is the bloody mindedness of folk that are refusing to see [b]your[/b] point Brown..

don't tar me with the same brush as them please.. this thread has given me enough indigestion as it is..

Hey Yunki - I meant to say that you'd (and druid and Sanny) already said what I was re-iterating! I think I over edited myself. Sorry for any misunderstanding there guys!

Can someone post some pictures of the area, just a few of the general surroundings, and a few of the paths themselves please. Don't post any pictures of the rad-gnarr bits as that'll probably excite a few people one way or another.

Cheers

http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/22/92/229232_0e5da20f.jp g" target="_blank">http://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/22/92/229232_0e5da20f.jp g"/> &imgrefurl= http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/229232&usg=__86EJYY7yJKJXNff2hB-CYNjDLb8=&h=480&w=640&sz=102&hl=en&start=140&zoom=1&tbnid=c76PuBI1notxuM:&tbnh=145&tbnw=194&ei=Jo2ATbDBGYuA5AbCppHuBw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dben%2Bmacdui%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D823%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=234&oei=II2ATavjKo62hAfrhO2rBw&page=8&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:21,s:140&tx=50&ty=99

Can someone link this for me please?