BBC Wildlife Magazine Article.

I'm surprised that no-one on the group has mentioned the following article, which appears across pages 18 and 19 of the current November 2003 BBC Wildlife magazine. Whilst I usually have a lot of respect for the articles in this magazine (part of the reason I subscribe to it) this piece appears inflamatory, biased and ill-informed.

I'm sure that neither the magazine nor the author of the article, James Fair, will mind a wider audience, so I've quoted their words in full below.

"Off-road invasion

Conservation act is enabling 4x4 access to vulnerable wildlife sites.

It was hailed as a genuinely progressive piece of conservation legislation, the first major one for nearly 20 years. But the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000) has revealed an unexpected sting in its tail.

Among the clauses improving the protection for sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs), the CROW Act also had a provision for a definitive map of England's rights of way to be completed by 2026.

No one expected the 'Discovering Lost Ways' project would find quite so many, but what is really alarming conservationists is that many of these lost ways are legally open to motorised transport, and off-roading groups are taking full advantage. Part of the problem stems from rights of way that go back hundreds of years, where a landowner granted a right of way through a newly enclosed field to someone with a horse and cart. Legally, this right now extends to any form of transport.

What's worse, when considering a case, public enquiries cannot consider the conservation value of the land - it could be an SSSI or Special Protection Area (SPA), it makes no difference.

The Government's wildlife adviser English Nature is alarmed. "There is a very serious issue looming here," said a source. "There are many people - most people - involved in countryside management who find it hard to comprehend how a right to use a horse and cart in 1780 extends to a mechanically propelled vehicle."

English Nature is particularly concerned about vehicular rights of way being discovered on virgin moorland in northern England. Important populations of wading birds, such as curlews, lapwings and golden plovers, could all be affected should these newly discovered routes be graded as "open to all traffic".

It's been estimated there may be some 16,000km of unrecorded rights of way, of which 2,700km would be legally open to cars, jeeps and bikes. Discovering Lost Ways project officer Ellie Stevenson confirmed the involvement of 4x4 groups in tracking them down. "Off-roaders and the British Horse Society have been very active in undertaking trawls of the archive evidence," she said. "They have most to gain."

But the battle to preserve the wildlife value of England's byways goes beyond this. Campaigners all over the country are fighting to protect green lanes - tracks bounded on both sides by banks or hedgerows - from off-roaders (see box, left). Many lanes face 'regrading', though in some cases councils are intervening and imposing traffic regulation orders (TROs).

But why all the fuss? Well, green lanes may be far more important as habitats for plants and "THE BATTLE FOR GREEN LANES

  • The Fosse Way in Wiltshire attracts off-roaders, who drive along the banks of the Avon. But damage to the river banks is hitting the endangered white-clawed crayfish, and the activity may also have scared off otters.

  • Three green lanes in Clee Saint Margaret, in Shropshire, are being damaged by 4x4s and trail bikes. The county council is considering putting Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs) in place to prevent motor vehicles using them. Local residents say a badger's sett may have been disturbed by the activity.

*Mastiles Lane, in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, runs through an SSSI. English Nature has fenced off a particularly sensitive area adjacent to the track to keep out off-roaders, and the local authority has just applied a traffic regulation order, banning recreational vehicles from the lane. Campaigners say many more are needed in the park."

The article is accompanied by a photograph by Kippa Matthews showing a blue Range Rover, registration MHN 660?, apparantly about to be winched through a heavily waterlogged section of track. The caption says "Car Trouble. Damage caused by 4x4s to Mastiles Lane in the Yorkshire Dales has prompted a traffic ban, but other wildlife-rich areas are being hit by off-roading."

The article ends with the following statement: "Action The Ramblers Association is compiling an 'At Risk Register' of the most vulnerable green lanes and byways and is campaigning for a change in the law. Contact Donna O'Brien 020 7339 8500;

formatting link
".

If you would rather contact the editor of BBC Wildlife about the quality of the articles carried by the magazine he can be reached at 'The Editor, BBC Wildlife Magazine, Broadcasting House, Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2LR or e-mail snipped-for-privacy@bbc.co.uk .

M
Reply to
McBad
Loading thread data ...

yes i read this today - not very good for us keen offroad guys at all is it. i have written to the mag - see if we get any response at all out of these idiots!

Reply to
daniel

Yeah, but I bet when you signed your names it took up more space that the text of the Letter.

Must be hard,,,,right...who shall I be today.....

Lee D

Reply to
Lee_D

In article , daniel writes

"These idiots" drive Land Rovers too.

It's a reasonable article. I have first hand experience of the problem, close to Bristol.

A retired friend lives in an out-of-the-way cottage on Mendip. Their lane becomes a green lane just beyond the house. They keep sheep, but this last winter were unable to get to them easily because of the deep ruts, in some places 20", carved by off-roaders with suspension lifts.

Like me, they have a normal Landy (2.5 D90), and without lifted suspension it can no longer get along the lane as the axles and sump catch. The council can't afford to do anything about it.

How does this count as sympathetic to the countryside? Nobody wants to stop anyone's enjoyment - in his day, my friend used to trial side-cars, and has probably seen more mud and boulders than many - but the argument is about being responsible. I don't believe any of the 'green laners' have offered to put things back as they were...

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

While I fully agree with your sentiment, these ruts were not caused by off-roaders (in the sense we mean in this group, anyway). Suspension lifts do not lift the axle from the ground (ok, possibly a couple of inches if much larger tyres are used), so that maximum rut depth is around 8 inches, with say a possible extra 2 for those who have gone completely daft on the tyre front. To get 20 inch ruts you need, wait for it!, a tractor!! This nonsense gets spouted at so many green lane closure enquiries and as ever the real culprits go un-accused, which is sadly not too surprising as, almost by definition, they must be local farmers! I'm not having a pop a farmers - they need to get to their land -its the council who are ducking their resposibilities by looking for an easy, unpopular, scape goat rather than undertake their obligations.

Anyone sensible will respect the "Tread Lightly" ethos, and there is a national Green Lanes Day every year where clubs and individuals offer their services to the local council to help put right wrongs. Others help all the time by keeping lanes clear of fallen trees and other obstructions (both natural and man-made). The attitude of local councils to these offers of help varies somewhat, since some see accepting help as acknowleging drivers rights to be there. (Cheshire CC - spit, to be polite). I suspect your friend needs to look closer to home for his culprits. If he wishes, he could contact his local off-raod club (ARC clubs should have a person nominated to deal with his enquiry, and I imagine others do too) and suggest that next March they might like to get together with the council and other interested parties to arrange a work-party to deal with this particular lane.

Richard

Reply to
richard.watson

problem,

lifts.

Forgive me if I find your description and therefore your whole post rather doubtful. Firstly, the sump on a 90 is well up out of the way above the axle. Secondly, any amount of lifted suspension will have no effect on axle ground clearance. Thirdly and linked to the second point is that no Land Rover whether lifted or not will traverse ruts 20" deep, nor will they make them because the axle clearance is considerably less than half wheel height, typically about 9 to 12 inch clearance.

A large farm tractor would not make ruts that deep unless used regularly in the wettest conditions. These would make each wheel rut about 20 inches wide and at a track spacing usually much wider than a Land Rover can manage at about 67" centres or some 17" less to the inside sidewalls. This is just the most awkward for LR because one or other side keeps climbing or slipping into the rut. Been there, done that.

Huw

Reply to
Huw

In article , richard. watson writes

Fair 'nuff. I think they're asymetrical though - one side much deeper than the other (but I suspect he's exaggerating a bit - haven't been up there for a while).

It's a good point too - I'll pass on the info. Another possibility is trials motorbikes - they get lots of thoses too, which might go some way to explaining the asymmetry of the ruts.

[snip]

Will also point these thing out too. You never know you might get a convert!

Regards,

Simonm.

Reply to
SpamTrapSeeSig

"SpamTrapSeeSig" wrote

problem,

lifts.

Have they also got special axles like a Pinzgauer and many farming vehicles, where the centre line of the axial is higher than the centre line of the wheel?

A Land Rover with a normal rigid axial can't make ruts 20" deep. Suspension lifts only raise the body.

So much for 'first hand' experience.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that most damage is done by farm vehicles, as any experienced and regular user of green lanes will know. Also erosion caused by the weather will add to any existing damage.

Councils nowadays have joined central government in producing spin to divert from their own failures. Recently Cambridge C.C. gave the cause of much damage to surfaced roads, as the hot weather. The real cause being years of neglect by their own highways department allowing the highways to gradually deteriorate.

The local authority could apprehend these 4x4 drivers and have them prosecuted. Oh I forgot, speed cameras on safe straight roads brings in more money.

Reg.

Reply to
Reg

Totally agree. We get a lot of blame for this type of crap which is annoying when it's a physical impossibility. It's just handier to blame the

4x4 drivers than to actually work out what's going on.

Has anybody noticed that the left lanes on some pretty big sections of the M25 and M1 have pretty hefty ruts since the summer?

Reply to
David French

to be fair and honest, i think that in some parts of the article they do have a very valid point. many of these lanes haven`t been used for

50-100 years or more and are no longer a lane as such and the ecosystem would be damaged if it was cleared for vehicular access. I think we should be more concerned about the restriction of existing lanes rather than fighting the ramblers association et al by finding new lanes to replace the ones they get the councils to close. It afterall doesn`t give us a very good image if we do insist on rights of way down sensitive lanes that haven`t been used for a very long time. But each new lane found would need careful assessment and approved on a case by case basis. But I also agree that the majority of damage done to lanes is by bikers and tractors. Tractors i can understand - they have a job to do and if the lane is boggy, well thats just unfortunate. My main bugbear is trials bikers. Most are kids (i don`t want to stereotype and there are always exceptions so please don`t shoot me down) around my area and they have absolutely no concept of the damage they are doing. A couple of my ex neighbours sons regularly blast about the local countryside and when I asked them if they check the lanes they use have vehicular access and aren`t just footpaths and that they are suitable to be driven all I got was a blank stare and then they laughed.......

nick c series 2a `67

300 tdi D90 wakefield uk
Reply to
Nick C

I would guess it's a mixture of hot weather and heavy trucks heading to the T5 construction site.

David

Reply to
David French

"Nick C" wrote

This is a reasonable comment, however.....

down grading to say a footpath for the ramblers association is a bad move as farmers can then remove ALL of the vegitation that makes this ecosystem. They can't plough a BOAT. Well they might but it's not legal like a footpath.

Also the motorway verges now are home to much wild life, which was not there before the motorway existed.

It's the same where they complain about the military harming the envoment with their tanks and explosives. I've been on these ranges and there is so much more wild life there, as the public are excluded - which includes the ramblers association. The 4x4s (6x6s etc) are there in large numbers, confirming that us 4x4 folk do not cause the havoc that some would like others to belive.

Farmers do too much damage, even to surfaced roads and more importantly, the verges. The lane where I live (a surfaced single vehicle width) is continually being damaged at the verges by farm vehicles. Next time you pass a farm entrance, notice how the surfaced road surface is damaged at the entrance.

Reg.

Reply to
Reg

"David French" wrote

allowing

I've noticed this for many years and I don't think it's any worse this year than in the past.

The question I ask is: is it overweight trucks or poor road building that causes these ruts? (or tram lines as some call them)

Reg.

Reply to
Reg

While I fully agree with your post, I must point out that ploughing a footpath is very definately illegal, except under some stringent regulations regarding its immediate re-instement.

Richard

Reply to
richard.watson

In message , richard. watson writes

I believe the regulation - and the way it is enforced in this area at least - is that the path should be reinstated as soon as possible after the land has been worked but the cultivation in itself is not illegal (assuming the land over which the route passes is owned by the landowner doing the cultivating!) In a similar way, there is no rule forbidding the grazing of animals (including bulls) where there is a footpath ...

Reply to
AndyG

A local farner just got fined 5000 ukp for ploughing and not re-instating a footpath - which bit he got fined for I dont know, but the effect is the same! Bulls are another thorny area - aparently a sign is not good enough - it seems Ramblers are so determmined (or stupid) to excersise thier rights (i.e. be pig-headed) that everyone else has to re-arrange their lives to suit them so they dont get sued. The world has gone mad!

Richard

Reply to
richard.watson

On or around Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:31:33 +0000, richard.watson enlightened us thusly:

re-instating, I expect. Yer allowed to cultivate, provided you reinstate it, and there's no doubt a "reasonable period" clause somewhere, which may or may not be specific.

as to bulls, i suspect that if you put "Beware of the Bull" at each end, you're covered. except of course they could pull the damn' sign down and then claim there wasn't one.

What amazes me is the fact that these people who are so militant etc.. in re. their own "rights" to wander at will anywhere they please are often the ones complaining when we want to drive on an existing right of way.

Reply to
Austin Shackles

following

It _is_ legal to plough a footpath. There is a statutory right to plough providing the fp is made good and the line marked within 14 days. Later only 24 hours are allowed. (HA 80s 134 as amended by the RoW act 1990)

Reg.

Reply to
Reg

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.