[Johnny Brown]

I don't know the specifics here but the I'm sure any savvy estate will be able to justify installing shooting tracks as conservation. As DT's link shows, it's not too hard to show that management for grouse improves numbers of some other birds too, therefore anything that aids shooting grouse is good news surely?

[cofe]

That would be depressing.

[andy_e]

Which species of birds? Certainly not raptors, all I can imagine doing any better is meadow pipits?

[Johnny Brown]

It's not really surprising that aggressively suppressing predators increases numbers of many ground-nesting birds.

Figure 3: Likelihood of the occurrence of breeding birds on moorland managed for grouse moors. Figures above 1.0 indicate higher likelihood of presence

[blackhole]

I'll try to answer the questions about the new tracks and funding.

Cofe (reply 19) posted a link to Moors for the future, about Derwent Motorway, which says "with funding from Natural England's Higher Level Stewardship scheme", this is essentially a government grant. Other examples of this type of funding are the Kinder restoration project - funded by HLS grant and united utilities. (Landowners get ongoing funding from HLS which is part of EU Common Agricultural Policy, in addition there might be grants for specific projects like the 2 above). Anybody has more specific knowledge, be great to hear it, though likely to be a bit anoraky.

The green matted track crosses the cut gate bridleway at 194 976, where a vague track is marked on the latest Harvey map. The photo is looking west, 100 metres downhill from the bridleway. The matted section is over the top of this eroded/rutted track. In the area where it crosses the bridleway, the surfacing is crushed aggregate, presumably because the gradient is around 30%. I do have a photo of this if anyone wants to see it.

Funding for green matted track - I got the info that it is a HLS grant (public money) from an email by a conservation body who have concerns, they'd obviously asked NE about the funding - as a government body NE is publicly accountable and you'd get this info either by a simple email or at last resort by a freedom of information request.

What is it supposed to be conserving - my understanding is that it is there to give access to restore bare peat (as in Kinder etc), but at the top of the track the moor is well vegetated with various grasses.

Hollingdale track - this is privately funded as far as I know but as I said, looks like a new road not a repair to me.

Benefits of grouse shooting on other birds - a massive and controversial area - generally shooters say waders do better eg Golden Plover, as these birds like the burnt areas. Anti shooters say burning is an eco disaster (it is now stopped on kinder and bleaklow) and also point to decimation of raptor populations (birds of prey).Still more info needed from me?  Bob

[cofe]

That's great Bob. I might have to head over Cut Gate soon and have a look.

Interesting about the burning. The landowner was burning up on Ash Cabin Flat near Redmires not so long back.

[a dense loner]

Might have been Pickles sniggling that Cofe?

[Johnny Brown]

I think he stopped all that after his mum caught him with soot on his shoes.

[Jim]

I think it was the stench of diesel that got him caught

[DAVETHOMAS90]

That's a fantastic contribution from blackhole. Very comprehensive.

[slackline]

Clocked this on the way to the Cowper Stone the other day, seems to contrast with the bulldozing on Derwent Edge as it appears to have gone round the in situ rocks....

[Jim]

that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor

[DAVETHOMAS90]

that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor

There you go. Cheaper than a new monitor

Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? Whichever way you look at it, there is just so much of this work going on out there at the moment.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..

.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.

[slackline]

that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor

Looks fine here...



 

P.S. - Thanks Dave.

[Johnny Brown]

Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..

.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.

The Cowperstone is of course on land owned and managed for the public by the national park, with stakeholder consultation and input, and in general excellent staff. So I'd be surprised if they couldn't manage a better job than a shooting estate. It does highlight, though, that even the best done work is still going to be a bit ugly in the short term. I suspect also - and this may be the nub of the issue - that a laid path feels less 'wild' than one created by foot erosion. Both are human activity but it is the intent to change the landscape that I think is the stumbling block. With time this should lessen as the stone wears in and the vegetation recovers back up to the edges - think of the Plantation path for instance - but we do need to step back a bit and decide whether erosion control or a fairly nebulous concept of wildness is more important.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

that reminds me, I must get a bigger monitor

Looks fine here...

etc

 

P.S. - Thanks Dave.

Very good 

Looks fine from here:

[DAVETHOMAS90]

Clearly a completely different approach, but also far more appropriate erosion control? ..

.. As in, although still ugly and unfinished, there are some areas near the Cowperstone where erosion is clearly a problem, and this seems a genuine attempt to remedy it.

The Cowperstone is of course on land owned and managed for the public by the national park, with stakeholder consultation and input, and in general excellent staff. So I'd be surprised if they couldn't manage a better job than a shooting estate. It does highlight, though, that even the best done work is still going to be a bit ugly in the short term. I suspect also - and this may be the nub of the issue - that a laid path feels less 'wild' than one created by foot erosion. Both are human activity but it is the intent to change the landscape that I think is the stumbling block. With time this should lessen as the stone wears in and the vegetation recovers back up to the edges - think of the Plantation path for instance - but we do need to step back a bit and decide whether erosion control or a fairly nebulous concept of wildness is more important.

 

I think you're avoiding the real issue here JB.

This thread isn't about whether or not footpaths are put down, where there are genuine conservation concerns, or even the aesthetics.

It's about whether those questions are bypassed - resulting in further loss and damage - and decisions made under the guise of "conservation", for the benefit of the landowner, using public money too - which ought properly be directed to address areas of real environmental concern.

I feel incredulous about your reference to the "nebulous concept of wildness" 

That's the sort of language used to justify any development - and dismiss the impact.

I'm going to go away and explode quietly somewhere.

[Johnny Brown]

This thread isn't about whether or not footpaths are put down, where there are genuine conservation concerns, or even the aesthetics.

Hmm. It did appear to be about aesthetics at the start. Have you read my other posts? The 'Derwent motorway' is not a shooting track, it is path 'improvements', and if the thread comes to Stanage then 'those questions' most certainly have not been bypassed, nor is it for the benefit of any landowner but us. The discussion on public money, shooting tracks and landowners came later in the thread.

I understand completely the gut reaction, but when you try to articulate this in a consultation meeting (as I have) you best get your thinking straight or you risk looking foolish. I use the phrase 'nebulous concept of wildness' to differentiate between a path eroded by human feet, and a path laid by human hands. You can argue that the first is not development and the second is, but it's a weak line.

Are you saying you don't think there are/were any erosion issues on paths along the Derwent edges? If yes, what should be done? If not, how do you feel about the slabbed section laid in the early noughties? Genuine questions, it is not unlikely I'll get the chance to represent your views at some point...

[DAVETHOMAS90]

 

No I didn't imply it was an issue with aesthetics.

Others, in their response, may have implied that.

I'm not saying it isn't also a consideration, but it does get annoying when people look for something to attack in a thread, possibly to serve their own agendas or position, rather than out of concern for the issues raised.

I won't repeat what I have said and posted earlier. It is quite clear, in what I and others have said.

"it is not unlikely I'll get the chance to represent your views at some point..."

How very patronising. Is that likely, considering how strenuously you seem to want to challenge the concerns raised?

Regarding the slabs previously laid, it is difficult to comment, without seeing what was there first of all, and the changes made.

[Johnny Brown]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here Dave, I'm in agreement with you. Apologies for coming across patronising. I am not looking to attacck anything, I'm trying to present how the professionals involved will view this. Just because it looks a mess and was a surprise doesn't necessarily mean it is being done rashly or without consultation.

Yes it is likely. As a volunteer access rep for the BMC I sit on various committees involved in this stuff to represent climbers and hillwalkers. I'm quite capable of presenting other's views as well as my own. E.g I seem to spend half my time defending bolting that I don't personally agree with. On this happily we are not far apart. It would be useful if you'd clarify your position though, your original post does seem to include aesthetics (I would include a sense of wildness here)? Or just the challenge presented by running the path?

I am surprised you don't remember the slabs being laid - around the millennium I think. Certainly a few years after I moved to Sheffield and you've been here a lot longer than me. It was an expanding quagmire before. I accept the slabs but don't like them. As I've tried to articulate above, the price for controlling erosion is a less wild feel. Stepping back, though, I struggle to articulate or justify why I'd prefer a morass of boot-holed peat. But I would, as a rule.

[a dense loner]

Your original post DT was about aesthetics, if not it was certainly implied, which is why i said it didn't look bad.

[tomtom]

It is all about aesthetics.

Its not a natural landscape as we (humans) chopped down all the trees helping to generate the moorland some 5-8000 years ago (or thereabouts)... so our views on what is natural or not really are down to what we think is natural or not. Wildlife/fauna/bird populations can be decent enough indicators or diversity and habitat but 'what is natural' is nowadays a pretty abstract concept.

Sorry to go all philosophical on y'all - but lets just admit it is largely due to aesthetic reasons and say - so what!

On that basis, white compacted 'roads' accross the moorland look shit to me and seem totally out of place. Its a f*cking scandal if its been paid for with the public ££ IMHO...

[Johnny Brown]

Quite. In the Peak it is all about the sense of wildness.

I can only suspect DT has missed the sarcasm in a couple of my posts.

[DAVETHOMAS90]

JB,

thanks for your well considered reply! 

I used to run the classic Derwent route, finishing with a descent via Whinstone Lee Tor, which was one of the best bits. Quite rocky and technical. Fantastic.

This has been quite badly affected by the new track unfortunately; my reference to the bulldozing was to highlight the flattening of this section, movement and destruction of boulders etc. To me, the impact on the environment seemed grotesque. I appreciate that that may come across as an aesthetic consideration, but I'm worried that it goes  aa long way beyond what was necessary.

It appeared that criteria beyond environmental concerns were the influencing factor here, with a sad and high impact on the area the result. Where will this lead?

What was really discussed prior to the works getting the go ahead, by whom, and to what agenda? There seems to have been a less critical overview, consideration of the bigger picture, and the Peak Park possibly less involved in the planning than they might have been.

Further...

On the board, getting cold.

My project is a path; I'll see if I can bulldoze my way through it.

And glad to have you back on too, Dense.