Walking and Climbing

They've done this relatively quietly - I came across one of the signs near Mam Tor last night - but areas of the Peak which aren't rights of way are currently closed due to the fire risk.

I can understand the intention, but I do wonder if the sort of people who start moorland fires are going to take any notice at all of a few scattered notices at access points and whether responsible walkers and climbers are being penalised as a result.

Thoughts?

I was up last saturday and it was very dry in parts. But you make a good point, the big fires on bleaklow a few ears ago were started deliberatly I think. If some nutter wants to burn the hills they will.

Same restrictions in the North Yorks Moors btw. It's all very low key though. I suspect they're concerned about a foot and mouth effect.

I bumped into a Peak ranger at the weekend and he was massively concerned, so it seems odd that there's been no real publicity initiative from the Peak Park to point out the risk of fires.

It's on the bbc site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5191722.stm

Istm that it's a balancing act. Whether or not it's reasonable to close those areas must depend upon the level of risk created by the current dry conditions. If there's a significant risk of responsible walkers accidentally causing significant damage then I reckon it's reasonable to close the areas in question. If, on the other hand, there isn't such a risk then I don't believe it's reasonable. I don't know what the level of risk is, because I don't have any of the facts.

I think it's more precautionary than anything else given the money recently spent since the last fire, whether reasonable or not depends on point of view and as you quite rightly say, the facts.

Someone mentioned the last fire was caused by someone other than a walker so whether that type of person would adhere to a ban is questionable really.

You could deploy the argument that more sensible walkers on the fells would increase the chance of spotting fires when they are still small or even fire starters.

The problem is that the Peak Moors are too accessible with Manchester, Derby, Nottingham, Birmingham all within an hours drive.

having just came from work tonight (hyde area) It seems that maybe part of the moors are on fire. As you can see/smell the smoke from the Ashton junction of the M60

There was a huge pall of smoke blowing over the Hyde/Stalybridge area earlier this evening. A big fire raging up around Saddleworth Moor, I guess.

"We want to appeal to people to take extra care not to smoke or light fires in the area, or even throw cigarette butts out of car-windows." (From the BBC)

I have seen this so many times, fag ends flying out of car windows, so ppl dont need to stop and/or leave there cars to start a fire!

I love the peak and living in sheffield its only 20mins drive away, I owe my life to the area as it helped me recover from a breakdown so with that said its a good thing!!

Its a sad fact that no amount of signs will stop arson but perhaps a life sentance would!

Even if they believe the fire risk comes at least in part from walkers, how does it make any sense to close the CROW areas but keep the public rights of way in the same areas open? This strikes me as a ludicrous and ineffective measure. No doubt there'd be an outcry if the paths were subject to a blanket ban (Foot & Mouth style) but surely a walker on a r.o.w. is just as capable of starting a fire (or not) as if they're on CROW land. So unless they close the paths surely they might as well leave CROW land open too?

the moor is alight next to the whitehouse pub at blackstone edge just beneath the res.
It doesnt look a big fire, yet . Presumably this is whats creating the smoke ,anything could have cuased it with the proximity to the road and pub ,from bottles to cig to match who can tell.

Matt,

There's an easy answer to why the RoW aren't closed which is that the law prevents the Highways Authority from doing it.

Working through the RA website there are a very limited number of ways a highways authority can close footpaths.

They could divert the paths but only if the diversion isn't substantially less convenient, I doubt there are many paths across moorland that could be diverted without being very inconvenient.

The can close a path but only if they give 28 days notice in the local press after which there is a public inquiry into every objection.

Which would only leave them one method which is to apply to a magistrate for closure. I can't see any JP staying in his job for long if he agreed to an order closing all the paths in the Peak District.

The FMD closures were done using a ministerial order dating from 1983 issued under The Animal Health Act 1981. I haven't read it but I doubt that the Animal Health Act contains any provision for orders to help prevent fires.

CROW was passed in these days of incredibly complex legislation built with hundreds of clauses in order to get it through so has lots of reasons for arbitrary closures. Whereas RoW laws are a modern embodiment of your ancient rights derived from the common law.

Thanks for that John. It makes it clear why they can't close the R.o.Ws whereas CROW was indeed designed to enable such closures. I just don't see what fire-prevention measure they achieve in any practical sense though by CROW closures when anybody can still access (many of) the same areas via R.o.Ws - in which case the CROW closures are nothing but a pointless penalisation of responsible walkers (or possibly a sop to landowners?)