TR Ben nevis

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Peter Drummond in "Scottish Hill & Mountain Names" (an excellent book)
says the meaning is "misted over by time".

As in 'misted over by the time you get to the top'?
--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > After all, an ascent of Snowdon using the railway to the summit
> > station should not be considered a bag.
> >
> Gordon Bennett. FFS, who the h*** cares? Have you stood at
> the top of the thing? Yes. Did you enjoy the experience?
> Yes. Does it matter how you got there? No.

Actually I think it does matter how you got there to some of us.

Yes. It matters to you how *you* get there, just as it
matters to all of us for our various reasons. The point I may
have failed to make is that the world will not end if my mode
of and reason for ascending a hill is different from yours,
any more than I have a right to criticise you for your
approach to such things.

Yes but you've missed my point I think. It also matters to *me* how
*others* have got to the top, not just how I've got to the top.

Hmm?

Quoted message said:

So for example I supported the Cairngorm Campaign against the
building of the funicular railway,

Yes, that's fair enough...

Quoted message said:

and I would object to the
reconstruction of the Snowdon summit station and support the closure of
the railway. I also was not a supporter of the gondola on Aonach Mor
Similarly I support the laws in France that make heli-skiing illegal and
I would wish that Switzerland and Italy adopted similar laws.

Heli-skiing? <Google google google> Oh, I see. I don't know
about making it illegal, because I can't think of any good
reason to; however it does seem like a pretty good way of
helping an avalanche on its way. Then again, I know nothing
of skiing and not much more about helicopters.

Quoted message said:

So in effect I am saying that my appreciation of the mountains is very
much associated with the way that others treat the mountain.

Well yes, those are fair points but they're not really what I
had in mind. Your point is that you don't want unnecessary
interference with the natural scenery and that's fine - in
some circumstances I'd agree with you; however it's not the
same thing as arguing that someone has or has not 'bagged' a
certain hill because he didn't start his climb from the
'right' place.

--
/
Fran O(<|={
\

In message <[email hidden]>, Fran
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Peter Drummond in "Scottish Hill & Mountain Names" (an excellent book)
says the meaning is "misted over by time".

As in 'misted over by the time you get to the top'?

Something like that :-)

Actually I've been lucky with the weather on the Ben and have been on
the summit five times in clear weather.
--
Chris

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>

Fran said:

[email hidden] said...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > After all, an ascent of Snowdon using the railway to the summit
> > > station should not be considered a bag.
> > >
> > Gordon Bennett. FFS, who the h*** cares? Have you stood at
> > the top of the thing? Yes. Did you enjoy the experience?
> > Yes. Does it matter how you got there? No.
>
> Actually I think it does matter how you got there to some of us.
>
Yes. It matters to you how *you* get there, just as it
matters to all of us for our various reasons. The point I may
have failed to make is that the world will not end if my mode
of and reason for ascending a hill is different from yours,
any more than I have a right to criticise you for your
approach to such things.

Yes but you've missed my point I think. It also matters to *me* how
*others* have got to the top, not just how I've got to the top.

Hmm?

Quoted message said:

So for example I supported the Cairngorm Campaign against the
building of the funicular railway,

Yes, that's fair enough...

Quoted message said:

and I would object to the
reconstruction of the Snowdon summit station and support the closure of
the railway. I also was not a supporter of the gondola on Aonach Mor
Similarly I support the laws in France that make heli-skiing illegal and
I would wish that Switzerland and Italy adopted similar laws.

Heli-skiing? <Google google google> Oh, I see. I don't know
about making it illegal, because I can't think of any good
reason to;

Well in France it is illegal, although one dodge is for the helicopters
to drop their clients over the border in Switzerland or Italy and for
them to ski back across the border.

Anyway a major objection to the practice of commercial helicopter
flights like this is the shear noise and frequency of the flights. In
Switzerland it is not uncommon to see flights from valley to summit
every 15 minutes or so throughout the day, each flight dropping off
about 6 skiers on nearby summits.

Quoted message said:

however it does seem like a pretty good way of helping an avalanche
on its way.

Yes it is reasonably common for the skiers to trigger avalanches,
although less likely that the helicopters would.

Quoted message said:

Then again, I know nothing of skiing and not much more about
helicopters.

A few years back there was an application for regular tourist flights
over the Cuillens of Skye

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So in effect I am saying that my appreciation of the mountains is
very much associated with the way that others treat the mountain.

Well yes, those are fair points but they're not really what I
had in mind. Your point is that you don't want unnecessary
interference with the natural scenery and that's fine - in
some circumstances I'd agree with you;

It's not just interference with the scenery, it's the presence of hordes
of tourists that have arrived without the same effort and consequent
appreciation of the process and context of the scenery.

Quoted message said:

however it's not the same thing as arguing that someone has or has
not 'bagged' a certain hill because he didn't start his climb from
the 'right' place.

Well I suppose that my position is that they shouldn't have an option of
starting from the "wrong" place. No Gondola, no railway, no funicular,
no helicopter.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

It's not just interference with the scenery, it's the presence of hordes
of tourists that have arrived without the same effort and consequent
appreciation of the process and context of the scenery.

Can't agree with this! It might cost you some effort in the process of
getting to the top, but for less able and fortunate folk (in the case of
Snowdon) the cost is financial - 40 quid for two people (that's half a
week's pension) and by damn we do appreciate the scenery when there is
scenery to be seen.

Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ? This NG
didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers this .

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actually I've been lucky with the weather on the Ben and have been on
the summit five times in clear weather.

Chris, I was jealous of you and the jobs you have before you mentioned this.
You are just one of life's lucky people ;-)

"> Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ? This NG

Quoted message said:

didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers this .

I wonder if Mike has ever thougght that when 'he' is on a summit with other
walkers, they might just be thinking the same about 'him' Why should 'he'
spoil our lonliness!

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

Agree entirely. Many people seem to think they have the right to be on a
mountain alone. Lets share and all be happy.

--
sandy saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk
email: saunders.sandy at ntlworld.com

'Mountains or Mole Hills ... summiting still
brings the same excitement'

In message <[email hidden]>

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

It's not just interference with the scenery, it's the presence of hordes
of tourists that have arrived without the same effort and consequent
appreciation of the process and context of the scenery.

Can't agree with this! It might cost you some effort in the process of
getting to the top, but for less able and fortunate folk (in the case of
Snowdon) the cost is financial - 40 quid for two people (that's half a
week's pension) and by damn we do appreciate the scenery when there is
scenery to be seen.

In the case of the Snowdon railway, I accept that it has been there for
many years and simply dislike at its presence by some is not an
appropriate reason to close it down, and as you say it does provide a
means for some who might not be able to walk up to get to the summit and
appreciate the scenery. BUT what about when the time comes that major
refurbishment is necessary? What value do you really put on public
subsidy of the rebuilding of the top station?

Huge sums of public subsidy were pumped into the Cairngorm Funicular.
Was that money well spent? Does the pleasure it provides for a few
tourists outweigh the huge environmental impact? Is the small amount of
employment it created justified by the total cost, or could that money
have been put into other more worthwhile projects.

Aonach Mor was a similar question. There was no Gondola and it involved
huge public subsidy to put in a system where no system existed before.

Quoted message said:

Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ?

I'm not and that is an accusation that you have incorrectly
hypothesised. What I am saying is that many of those tourists who travel
to the tops of mountains in railways and gondolas, or who travel in
landrovers up bulldozed mountain trails probably don't think of the
environmental impact that they are sponsoring and endorsing by giving
custom to the service. Thus when we are discussing their appreciation of
the scenery, what I am saying is that for many of them the appreciation
is too superficial for my liking.

Quoted message said:

This NG didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers
this .

Well I didn't take kindly to VH either and I backed that up by making a
considerable donation to the RA legal fighting fund which was
campaigning against the closure of the footpath.

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

I wish that were so, but I fear it is not. Each year we see more and
more erosion of the wilderness areas and encroachment by new roads,
hydroelectric schemes, windfarms, ski-developments. How many of the
wilderness areas that we know today will be around for the next
generation and the generation after that?

It's something that matters very much to me.

Of course some schemes may be necessary, but I'm not convinced that many
which go ahead are justifiable.

So if you want to attack me for my statements, attack me for the real
reasons that underlie my statements.
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message <[email hidden]>

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

It's not just interference with the scenery, it's the presence of hordes
of tourists that have arrived without the same effort and consequent
appreciation of the process and context of the scenery.

Can't agree with this! It might cost you some effort in the process of
getting to the top, but for less able and fortunate folk (in the case of
Snowdon) the cost is financial - 40 quid for two people (that's half a
week's pension) and by damn we do appreciate the scenery when there is
scenery to be seen.

In the case of the Snowdon railway, I accept that it has been there for
many years and simply dislike at its presence by some is not an
appropriate reason to close it down, and as you say it does provide a
means for some who might not be able to walk up to get to the summit and
appreciate the scenery. BUT what about when the time comes that major
refurbishment is necessary? What value do you really put on public
subsidy of the rebuilding of the top station?

Huge sums of public subsidy were pumped into the Cairngorm Funicular.
Was that money well spent? Does the pleasure it provides for a few
tourists outweigh the huge environmental impact? Is the small amount of
employment it created justified by the total cost, or could that money
have been put into other more worthwhile projects.

Aonach Mor was a similar question. There was no Gondola and it involved
huge public subsidy to put in a system where no system existed before.

Quoted message said:

Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ?

I'm not and that is an accusation that you have incorrectly
hypothesised. What I am saying is that many of those tourists who travel
to the tops of mountains in railways and gondolas, or who travel in
landrovers up bulldozed mountain trails probably don't think of the
environmental impact that they are sponsoring and endorsing by giving
custom to the service. Thus when we are discussing their appreciation of
the scenery, what I am saying is that for many of them the appreciation
is too superficial for my liking.

Quoted message said:

This NG didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers
this .

Well I didn't take kindly to VH either and I backed that up by making a
considerable donation to the RA legal fighting fund which was
campaigning against the closure of the footpath.

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

I wish that were so, but I fear it is not. Each year we see more and
more erosion of the wilderness areas and encroachment by new roads,
hydroelectric schemes, windfarms, ski-developments. How many of the
wilderness areas that we know today will be around for the next
generation and the generation after that?

It's something that matters very much to me.

Of course some schemes may be necessary, but I'm not convinced that many
which go ahead are justifiable.

So if you want to attack me for my statements, attack me for the real
reasons that underlie my statements.
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In message <[email hidden]>

sandy saunders said:

"> Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ? This NG

Quoted message said:

didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers this .

See my other post in response to that unwarranted accusation.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if Mike has ever thougght that when 'he' is on a summit with
other walkers, they might just be thinking the same about 'him' Why
should 'he' spoil our lonliness!

Actually the answer to that question is yes I have. It's called empathy.
I've often moved away from the summit of a mountain where I was planning
to stop and rest if someone else had already bagged the spot. I'm as
sympathetic to their right to solitude and appreciation as I hope others
are to mine in such circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

Agree entirely. Many people seem to think they have the right to be on a
mountain alone. Lets share and all be happy.

I agree about the need to share, but given the limited resources of
mountain wildnernesses I don't think that sharing should be at the
superficial level of not caring for the consequences and impact of
our presence now and into the future.

--
M.R. Clark PhD
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705

In message <[email hidden]>

sandy saunders said:

"> Why are you considering tourists like some unwashed mob ? This NG

Quoted message said:

didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers this .

See my other post in response to that unwarranted accusation.

Quoted message said:

I wonder if Mike has ever thougght that when 'he' is on a summit with
other walkers, they might just be thinking the same about 'him' Why
should 'he' spoil our lonliness!

Actually the answer to that question is yes I have. It's called empathy.
I've often moved away from the summit of a mountain where I was planning
to stop and rest if someone else had already bagged the spot. I'm as
sympathetic to their right to solitude and appreciation as I hope others
are to mine in such circumstances.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

Agree entirely. Many people seem to think they have the right to be on a
mountain alone. Lets share and all be happy.

I agree about the need to share, but given the limited resources of
mountain wildnernesses I don't think that sharing should be at the
superficial level of not caring for the consequences and impact of
our presence now and into the future.

--
M.R. Clark PhD
Cambridge University, Department of Pathology
Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QP
Tel +44 (0)1223 333705

"but given the limited resources of mountain wildnernesses"

AT THE WEEKENDS.....

Due to other demands on my time e.g. family committments, virtually all
my walking is outside of 'peak' walking times e.g. weekends. Even then
it seems that most 'walkers'(?) seem to start around 10am & finish at
4pm. Walking outside of these times I've experienced real solitude.
There are a number of popular peaks I've visited e.g. Red Screes, High
Street, Catbells (!), etc in the last few months when I've been the
only human.

In message <[email hidden]>

Quoted post said:

"but given the limited resources of mountain wildnernesses"

AT THE WEEKENDS.....

Due to other demands on my time e.g. family committments, virtually all
my walking is outside of 'peak' walking times e.g. weekends. Even then
it seems that most 'walkers'(?) seem to start around 10am & finish at
4pm. Walking outside of these times I've experienced real solitude.
There are a number of popular peaks I've visited e.g. Red Screes, High
Street, Catbells (!), etc in the last few months when I've been the
only human.

I agree with you about times and days, and indeed I often try to arrange
my walking for the less popular occasions. The last two occasions I've
climbed Snowdon have both been on Christmas Day and I encountered very
few others on those trips and of course the railway was not running.

But again I think you are missing my point. Part of the erosion of
mountain wilderness is not just the numbers of people, but is the fact
that somebody has chosen to build a hydroelectric dam, or to bulldoze a
landrover track into the middle of the region, or they've put in a
funicular railway, or a gondola. That funicular is still there whether I
climb Cairngorm at 7pm on a Wednesday or 10am on a Saturday.

Clearly I appear to be in a minority of people in this newsgroup who
have such feelings for our mountains.

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Clearly I appear to be in a minority of people in this newsgroup who
have such feelings for our mountains.

Or perhaps others with similar feelings are pleased with the case you
are making ;-)

I don't think it selfish or elitist to hope others treat the outdoors
with respect and to oppose the insensitive developments. I have not had
the displeasure of seeing the Cairngorm but think the waste of public
funds is outrageous.

--

Dominic Sexton

In message <[email hidden]>, Rob Devereux
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

"Chris Townsend" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Actually I've been lucky with the weather on the Ben and have been on
the summit five times in clear weather.

Chris, I was jealous of you and the jobs you have before you mentioned this.
You are just one of life's lucky people ;-)

Certainly with the Ben I am. But not with other mountains. I only have
to approach An Teallach for the heavens to open. I've climbed it twice
(the whole ridge), both times in wind and rain, and been there three or
four more times when I didn't bother due to the weather. If I head for
the Fannichs the weather instantly clears up!
--
Chris

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

In message <[email hidden]>

Quoted post said:

"but given the limited resources of mountain wildnernesses"

AT THE WEEKENDS.....

Due to other demands on my time e.g. family committments, virtually all
my walking is outside of 'peak' walking times e.g. weekends. Even then
it seems that most 'walkers'(?) seem to start around 10am & finish at
4pm. Walking outside of these times I've experienced real solitude.
There are a number of popular peaks I've visited e.g. Red Screes, High
Street, Catbells (!), etc in the last few months when I've been the
only human.

I agree with you about times and days, and indeed I often try to arrange
my walking for the less popular occasions. The last two occasions I've
climbed Snowdon have both been on Christmas Day and I encountered very
few others on those trips and of course the railway was not running.

But again I think you are missing my point. Part of the erosion of
mountain wilderness is not just the numbers of people, but is the fact
that somebody has chosen to build a hydroelectric dam, or to bulldoze a
landrover track into the middle of the region, or they've put in a
funicular railway, or a gondola. That funicular is still there whether I
climb Cairngorm at 7pm on a Wednesday or 10am on a Saturday.

Clearly I appear to be in a minority of people in this newsgroup who
have such feelings for our mountains.

Well, I agree with you completely. And you're making a very good case.
--
Chris

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

email hidden said:

"but given the limited resources of mountain wildnernesses"

AT THE WEEKENDS.....

Due to other demands on my time e.g. family committments, virtually all
my walking is outside of 'peak' walking times e.g. weekends. Even then
it seems that most 'walkers'(?) seem to start around 10am & finish at
4pm. Walking outside of these times I've experienced real solitude.
There are a number of popular peaks I've visited e.g. Red Screes, High
Street, Catbells (!), etc in the last few months when I've been the
only human.

Absolutely. Get up early midweek and you can have almost any top to
yourself, if that is what you want. I include Scafell Pike, Helvellyn
etc.
--
R
o
o
n
e
y

"I always knew the entire Green party were nutters" - Ken Livingstone

In message <[email hidden]>

Mike Clark said:

In message <[email hidden]>
"W. D. Grey" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This NG didn't like the phrase when Van Hoogenfarter called walkers
this .

Well I didn't take kindly to VH either and I backed that up by making a
considerable donation to the RA legal fighting fund which was
campaigning against the closure of the footpath.

Just as a matter of interest, I do remember the many postings to this
newsgroup in response to VH and the closure of the paths through his
estate, but how many of those that protested here also took other
actions in support of their protest, such as in supporting the legal
costs of the RA case againt VH?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't be so selfish - there are enough mountains for everyone.

I wish that were so, but I fear it is not. Each year we see more and
more erosion of the wilderness areas and encroachment by new roads,
hydroelectric schemes, windfarms, ski-developments. How many of the
wilderness areas that we know today will be around for the next
generation and the generation after that?

It's something that matters very much to me.

Of course some schemes may be necessary, but I'm not convinced that many
which go ahead are justifiable.

So if you want to attack me for my statements, attack me for the real
reasons that underlie my statements.

Again one of the reasons that attracted me to the title of this thread
was because Jane and I are joint life members of the John Muir Trust,
and a few years ago we also supported the Trust when it was raising
funds for the purchase and sustained management of Ben Nevis.

http://www.jmt.org/cons/nevis/index.html

How many others in this newsgroup are also members or supporters of
organisations such as the JMT or the Cairngorms Campaign, and if not,
why not?

http://www.jmt.org/

http://www.cairngorms.demon.co.uk/

--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

In article <[email hidden]>, Mike
Clark <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

What I am saying is that many of those tourists who travel
to the tops of mountains in railways and gondolas, or who travel in
landrovers up bulldozed mountain trails probably don't think of the
environmental impact that they are sponsoring and endorsing by giving
custom to the service. Thus when we are discussing their appreciation of
the scenery, what I am saying is that for many of them the appreciation
is too superficial for my liking.

As a matter of interest one can ascend Snowdon quite a few ways:

PYG track
Miner's path
The Watkin path
The Rhyd Ddu path
The Rangers path and
The Llanberris path ,and may be more.

The important thing is that apart from engineering feasibility, the
railway is almost "hidden" in-so-far as it can't be seen from the above
paths except the Llanberris path. You can't put anything on a hill
without its being seen or having visual impact on someone, but the
Snowdon Railway besides being very expensive has, all in all, been quite
sensitively sited and provides a considerable (very considerable !)
income for the company, and a damn good day out, or at least a couple of
hours out for tourists some of which are walkers accompanied by
non-walkers who would also enjoy the hill experience.

--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

"Clearly I appear to be in a minority of people in this newsgroup who
have such feelings for our mountains"

Not at all, almost all agree, I guess.

I was just suggesting, perhaps, you're over-egging the severity of the
problem.