 "A fire will only break out if somebody starts it, either through carelessness or a deliberate act of malice"
Well thats not completely true.
|
 |
 The measures have been taken after the warmest August on record
Took their time then...
;o)
|
|
Yeah I did notice that too, maybe its been copied from a previous posting, hee hee, the joys of copy editing.
|
|
 Doh, April, now changed. I saw the signs around Hayfield last night and while I can see the rationale behind it, you could also argue that the sort of people who are daft enough to stub cigarettes out on open moorland are also likely to ignore any restrictions anyway.
How about simply banning smoking and naked flames on the moors?
The bit about people throwing fag butts out of cars was interesting too. It's so windy at the moment that if anything does catch it'll spread really fast.
|
|
 A fire breaking out (whether accidental, deliberate, or spontaneous) will only be spotted if there's someone there to spot it. Ban people from the area, and you won't know there's a fire raging until it spills across a right of way. I've never really understood the purpose of these bans. The last time I strayed through a 'banned' region, it was in the pouring rain, and I think they should have been offering prizes to anyone who could start a fire!
|
|
Thats a good point Jon, I think the people like ourselves who would take note of such a ban on fire or a temporary ban on Open Access areas, would happily take note and be patient. However like you say the people who would be daft enough to start these things wouldn't have the respect to take much notice anyway.
And living in Manchester I lose count of the amount of brainless idiots who disrespectfully throw cig butts out of car windows, I would image theres lots of people do so on the main routes through the Peak aswell, especially in jams.
I think we just have to be realistic about things like moorland fires and put the best measures in to deal with them and try our hardest to prevent as much as possible so signage and education do need to be a big part of prervention.
|
|
 Are there any signs that vehicles will be banned from the area? I've seen more fires started by hot catalytic converters (when the driver pulls his motor onto the dry grass verge to take a piccy/leak/picnic/stroll) than by castaway fagbutts.
Flame war, anyone? :-)
|
|
 I went to walk around combs moss yesterday, only to find signs saying that access to the moors was suspended, although rights of way were still open. Combs moss is a moorland area and was certainly as dry as I've seen it, but so is the heather moorland in the nearby goyt valley, which you can still walk through on the rights of way! Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. As I had absolutely no intention of starting a fire (deliberately or otherwise), I still walked around combs moss and passed others doing the same. Most of the areas at risk are probably quite difficult to access easily and are therefore going to be less attractive to the irresponsible numpty who's more likely to start an accidental blaze.
|
|
 I'd noticed the signs at Long Side, just off the Woodhead Pass when out in the Peak the previous w\end mtn biking.
And only the sunday before that I had been out walking with a few friends nr Dog Hill close to Booth Wood Reservoir & A62/M62, when we had to alter our route due to a large moorland fire that had clealy been set off deliberately. Amazing how fast these things spread when they get going in dry conditions.
|
|
 I think that the authorities are much too quick to close access to the moors. Its like they own them and we are only allowed on sufferance.
I think my animosity is rooted in the draconian Foot and Mouth restrictions that were imposed a few years ago. The moors are mine/ours to walk and if I do so responsibly no 'authority' should seek to impose itself upon my right to roam. So I reckon I will continue to enjoy my walks carrying no flammable materials and responsible for my own safety; thank-you very much!
|
|
Some years ago when I was heading for the Peak District, one of these bans was in place. There was a blaze (excuse the pun) of publicity about it, so I decided to check with the National Park people. I was informed that the 'ban' was really more like 'advice', since they have neither the will nor the manpower to be out on the moors wrestling walkers to the ground and forcing them home!
I don't worry in the slightest about 'sensible' people starting a fire, since it's highly unlikely. However, 'careless' people are another thing entirely, and you can't legislate against stupidity. As for the plain old arsonist... what can you do to stop them? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. If someone wants to have a damn good blaze, they'll just go ahead and start one. In some countries you'd think starting wildfires was a national pastime, especially when you see the equipment they use to do it!
The thing is... if there's no-one on the moors to see a blaze starting... then there's no-one there to report it. By the time it's reported, it's already well out of control. Ban the ban, I say!
|
|
Seems like some people here just want to shoot those trying to protect what we all enjoy. Are you just selfish or ignorant? It's the idiots you need to have a go at who ignore the restyrictions, light fires and ruin it for evrybody else.
Engage brains and think.
|
|
John, do you really honestly believe that if someone stupid enough to want to start a fire on the Peak District saw a sign telling them that the moors were off bounds they would turn back and come back another day?
I think that as some fires can be started accidentally they must take procautions but I think peoples reactions on the thread just come from realism and the anger of there own enjoyment of the moors being taken away because of the stupidity or ignorance of a minority.
|
|
They could always ask the Police air support units to look out for wild campers !!
;)
|
|
My point is simply this...
If there's no-one there to witness the start of a fire (because access is banned), then who's going to report it before it gets out of control???
The most devastating moorland fire I ever saw was quite clearly started deliberately in a place where people had no right to walk. No walkers... no witnesses... no chance to put the fire out once it took hold. It burned out of control for days. If walkers had been allowed there, someone would have seen the assholes who started the fire and it could have been put out before it wiped out everything in its path.
|
|
 Argh aye are we banned? <puts petrol can back in the boot>
|
|
The last time there was a major fire problem in the Peak - 2003 I think - there were rangers with binoculars all over the place. Of course it was a bit late by then, Bleaklow already looked like a volcano had errupted on top of it, but I gather that they're being more proactive now with rangers out on the moors.
I don't think there's anything wrong with people questioning the effectiveness of these measures btw. Just saying that you don't think a suspension of open access is a useful step to take, isn't the same as saying nowt should be done.
I'm not sure of the situation on the legal side btw. I suspect it's changed thanks to the RoW Act. I still think it would make more sense to simply ban smoking on the moors. In 2003, with smoke rolling off the hill, I was still passing people with a fag in their mouth, doh.
|
|
I was biking round Hayfield last night and saw lots of notices. In VERY BIG letters "THESE MOORS ARE CLOSED", in small letters at the bottom "Rights of way are unaffected".
Somewhat misleading in my opinion, and totally ineffective.
Also quite ironic just two weeks after the Kinder Trespass commemoration...
|
|
I'm not sure why a sign saying no smoking is deemed to be more eefective than a temporary ban? It is far eaier to see potential problems with people off rights of way than spotting one amongst a number who is smoking.
There needs to be an apreciation that this is a rare habitat under threat and a minor inconvenince for a temporary period should be accomadated.
As for responsible people there are comments here on ignoring any ban because it is 'his right to roam'.
|
|
Responsible people ask questions, only an idiot would follow unquestioningly.
If as Jon says there are wardens out there combing the hills with binoculars; where were they befre the fires started? Certainly not out there in force preventing fires from starting in the first place. Trouble is it is undoubtedly expensive to do so whereas a sign is cheap and makes it look like they are doing something whereas they are in effect doing nothing. It will probably take someone with an ironic sense of humour to set fire to a sign till they finally get it!
|
|
