Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersThat's a different class of thing entirely. I object to *man-made*
structures which are placed there intentionally. Footpaths (not the
deliberate paved type) and suchlike fall under the category of
*erosion* which is a natural process. Sure it's ugly, but it's
natural and it's an unintended side effect of walking. We're not
adding something that wasn't there already, or deliberately
remodelling it.
Paul, you've obviously never walked on the Ridgeway where human
"erosion" has caused hug great ruts in the landscape.
I have walked some bits actually.
Post by Rob DevereuxAdmittedly
most is motorbikes and 4x4s but it is still human effect and
unsightly.
I never said it wasn't and I didn't say I liked it. I just said it was a
different class of thing entirely. Erosion isn't something designed, built
and put there intentionally by man, so I don't class it as "man-made".
"Man-caused" might be a better description. Or maybe "animal-caused". I'm
sure there are places where animals cause a lot of ugly erosion too, wild
animals at that.
Right now there's a scar on the side of Kilvey Hill, visible from far away.
Looks like a landslip, where the soil has been torn away and rocks and soil
have come tumbling down. It looks ugly, but as far as I can tell it's
completely natural in origin.
It's strange how we humans decide what we consider ugly and what we don't.
It's clearly not the same thing as deciding what's natural and what isn't.
Nature can be ugly too. At one time, mountain ranges were considered
horrible places to be avoided. Now they're considered the pinnacle of beauty
and are often used in car advertisments to show how clean and eco-friendly
new cars are. Humans are so whimsical in their views, so hypocritical and so
easily manipulated. So prone to succumb to notions of what's fashionable and
what's not (being green and fearing global warming doom are currently highly
popular notions).
Bottom line is that nature is what it is, however we perceive and interpret
it. And erosion is natural, always has been, no matter how ugly it is. Most
of our "beautiful wilderness" has been created through erosion of one type
or another.
Post by Rob DevereuxYes, but you could argue that a new drystone wall is unsightly but
after many years of it being there, it is accepted as part of the
landscape.
Accepted maybe, but that doesn't make it natural. It still makes the
landscape less wild. Although weathering does tend to add a layer of
"wildness" over things.
Post by Rob DevereuxSame with cairns. From what i could see of the monument
that Nick referred to, it was in natural stone and likewise would
become part of the landscape in several years. It is nothing
different to the Dartmoor mine workings being the very things that
mad the current South of Dartmoor look the way it does - it is all human
erosion but is now acceptable because it is
weathered and older.
No, those things aren't erosion, they're man-made. Designed and put there on
purpose. I'm not saying they aren't interesting in their own way, but
they're not natural and they aren't part of a truly wild landscape. Sure the
south of Dartmoor looks the way it does because of them, but it would look
more natural if they weren't there.
I'm not saying we should go tearing down our history, but do we have to keep
adding more when it's not really needed? You seem to be saying that new
stuff is okay because it will be old one day. So one day the wilderness will
be full of "old stuff", but then there won't be any wilderness left, just a
graveyard of human history.
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersAll love to use? Can I be excluded from that please? I prefer to
walk on trackless ground where possible. Obviously when it isn't
possible it makes more sense to follow the paths, but I actually
prefer walking where there are no paths, with the obvious exception
of certain types of terrain like bogs, tussock grass, heather etc.
Exactly my point. Who would rather walk through a large area of
Heather if there is a nice track to follow. Nothing wrong in
admitting that life can be easier following a path.
Given the choice between a path and horrible ground yes, but that's not the
same thing as saying that I love to walk on paths. It's just a case of the
lesser of two evils. Given the choice between a path and wild ground that
isn't horrible, I'll choose the latter anyday. I don't love paths. I love
wild ground that isn't too difficult to walk on, and even some that is (like
rocky terrain).
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersRelish? Now you're going too far! I actually relish trackless ground,
provided it isn't too difficult to walk over.
..but that is the point. If the weather is crap and the light is too
and the navigation is difficult,
When is the navigation difficult? Ever heard of GPS? There's no such thing
as difficult navigation anymore.
Post by Rob Devereuxwho would much rather walk across
trackless ground having to check the map and compass every five
minutes than walk on a nice path
Since I don't bother with map and compass anymore, me! I have no problem
walking over trackless ground, no matter how bad the light and weather.
Post by Rob Devereuxthat we know leads where we need to
go.
Ah, but how do you know that the path leads where you want to go? Are you
sure it's the right path on the map? Have you got it confused with another
one? Do you know where the right turnings are? Wasn't it the case that the
couple who recently got lost in the Beacons did so because they were
following a path, but they missed the turning? Had they been navigating by
GPS that would have happened. Even less likely if they weren't even
following a path but simply heading to the next waypoint.
Post by Rob DevereuxI am not advocating not using the first, I am just saying that
we all have a propensity to the first.
No, not *ALL* of us. Most probably, but not all.
Having said that, if I'm heading in a certain direction and there's a path
heading the same way, it would be silly not to use it, but I won't go out of
my way to use a path, unless the terrain is rough.
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersIf it's there, you might as well use it. But I wouldn't advocate
putting fences there just to help with navigation.
Me neither, but I equally wouldnt go and knock it down because it is there.
I agree. I just don't like the incessant trend of adding more stuff,
thinking that "oh a little bit more won't hurt". Eventually it does, and
then it's too late.
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersI'm not *that* bothered either. I accept that our "wilderness" isn't
that wild and I make the most of it as it is. But I see it gradually
becoming less and less wild with more signposts, more man-made paths
and so on. It's the thin end of the wedge. Where will it end? Will
we eventually end up with fences along cliff edges to stop us
falling off? Shelters in case it rains? Toilets to prevent us
despoiling nature? It's a gradual process that is gradually making
our wilderness less and less wild until one day it'll literally be
like going for a walk in a park.
But we already have a lot of that anyway. If you visit Devon, 90% of
the cliffpath has fences stopping you going to the Cliff edge and
they are wont to put shelters up to help people out of the weather
And that's exactly my point. It's not true widerness anymore, is it? If they
keep doing it, eventually we won't have any left!
Post by Rob Devereux(at
the end of the day, isnt that what a bothy is or a mountain refuge in
another country and no-one would object to those)
No, but that's how it all starts, isn't it? The slow and gradual
encroachment of humanity into the wilderness. First it's a bothy, then
there's signposted paths, then there's picnic spots, then benches, then
expensive car parks, then information centres, then camp sites, then they're
paving the paths because of all the erosion, and so on...
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersObviously we can't protect everything, but in such a populated
country we have an ever diminishing amount of wild land. Wouldn't it
make sense to protect the wildest bits?
Well I guess that is what the National parks are for but
Are they?
Post by Rob Devereuxunfortunately they also come with the £4 for car parking and
"managed" wilderness which is to a degree what we are all objecting
to.
Exactly. I don't know what the goal of national parks are in principle, but
in practice it seems to be not to protect these places but to exploit the
tourist potential to the fullest.
Post by Rob DevereuxI feel that the wilderness will more and more become the areas
where there arent regular human population like the North West
Highlands and areas of Wales. People leave them because there is no
work and also in the former case after the clearances. The
wilderness comes because the humans are no longer there and that
leaves it for those who are still interested to visit.
Quite. Meanwhile we happily de-wilderness the other places that actually are
still quite wild, but we don't really care because we want to make as much
money out of them as possible.
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersThe problem is that once people see them they think "Oh that's a good
idea, I'd like to have a memorial here when I die", and you'll end
up with thousands of the damn things all over the place. Human
beings are like that, they have a tendency to copy ideas that they
like.
I take that point but is that any different to the attitude "Let's do
that three peaks thing that everyone else is doing" or "Oh look, that
mountain looks interesting why dont I go up there too".
Yes it is different. If you do the three peaks or climb a mountain, after
you've done it, you go home. The problem with leaving plaques and stuff
behind is that you're intentionally putting something permanent into the
wilderness.
Speaking for myself, I tend to avoid what everyone else is doing. I have no
intention of doing the three peaks, and if I see lots of other people
climbing a mountain, I'll climb the one on the other side of the valley to
avoid them.
Post by Rob DevereuxI find that
generally speaking the presence of other humans is often far more
disruptive to my enjoyment of a mountain than any innocuous plaque or
monument.
I agree. But people are temporary. If I want to climb Snowdon I'll do it at
4am, or midweek in bad weather out of season. Timing is the key.
Post by Rob Devereux...and to return to the origianl monument, it doesnt seem too
obtrusive and out of keeping with the landscape and yes I take the
point that you dont want the equivalent of a cemetery on the top of
the mountain but I still maintain that this will only tend to happen
on popular mountains that are already ruined by human activity and
rubbish anyway e.g. Snowdon, Ben Nevis etc
But we don't have that many mountains here in Wales. I wouldn't describe Fan
y Big as a popular summit, but that's where they've put it. So why not put
another, and another?
Every little hurts, to paraphrase Tesco.
Post by Rob DevereuxPost by Paul SaundersNip it in the bud now, before it becomes too widespread. Like wind farms.
...but is it really that bad?
Not yet! And that's the point! "War is a game of inches."
...and on the subject of wind farms,
Post by Rob Devereuxthey aren't pretty but how many people faced with the prospect of no
electricity or a wind farm would still complain/
That's not the choice! FFS, build another nuclear power station! This green
madness has spread to the point that ordinary people can't think rationally
about these things anymore.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk/weblog/
