Soapbox

So there's a new code aimed at organisers of events like the Three Peaks, but will it have any more impact than the one that was drawn up in 1998?

Do you think that mass-participation charity events of this kind and national parks with their relatively fragile environment are simply incompatible?

I can't see it making any difference until there are penalties imposed on the organisers/charities who flout the code.

IMHO charaties are more interested in how much money they get from the event rather than the impact they have.

I'd like to say a big thank you to Guy for his excellent work on this, and for going above the call of duty (14 bags of human waste! I gag picking up after my dogs).
Naming and shaming would deter a little especially if he can get the names in the press as well.

Once again well done Guy.

The "challenge" is a stupid one, and obviously has a big and damaging impact on the areas and communities (especially Wasdale) it passes through.

On the other hand, you can't ban anyone from a right of way (at any time of night or day). Some Charities won't police the code of conduct, and the National Parks can't afford to.

The most effective action would be to generate negative publicity for the charities who ignore the guidelines and continue to benefit from this disruptive and unimaginative event, and try to shame them into ensuring compliance from their fundraisers. Won't be easy though, especially as the "anti-fundraising/anti-charity" card can be played by anyone in favour of the event.

Can't do any harm this new code can it, fingers crossed and lets hope it works.

I contacted the people responsible two days ago and they still haven't got back to me, I hope that their distribution within their membership is better.

If the organisers couldn't conduct these events sensibly in the first place, what guarentee is there that a voluntary code will make the slightest difference?

I say stop the 3-peak challenge, and if some small charities/NGOs go to the wall as a result then that may be no bad thing.

I will be interested to see how the 2004 diary goes..

personally i feel somewhat uneasy about subidising some gits holiday - i mean contributing to a worthy cause through the altruistic endevours of a selfless and well-rounded member of society.

i've seen the damage these shysters do in the lakes and in nepal, they don't spend any money in the local economy, they leave crap and litter and are arse-clenchingly sanctimoniuos to everyone they meet.

if they actually felt strongly about the place, they'd a) send a cheque to an established charity and b) keep well away!

But what are you going to do?
I mean looking at the papers at the weekend and there is the Whizz kids charity (if I remember correctly) advertising for people to walk to Base Camp to raise funds. Even the YHA does these charity walks.
To stop or cut down this sort of thing, there has to be an alternative.
While the charities can get money from it, they will keep doing it.
Maybe the nepalese and the locals of Wasdale should organise several hundred people to mass trespase through the gardens of the MD's of these charities to enlighten them to the damage they are doing.

yup, and go for a mass crap on the lawn!

14 bags' worth???

a party pack of kebabs and a few pints of the black stuff do it for me - but someone will need to bring the bags...

We could (and I hate myself for suggesting this) collect a load at home before hand ready to just dump (groan) when there.

I think [and maybe I'm being over generous] that most organisers of 3 peaks challenges:
a) dont realise the harm they do
b) wouldnt realise there are any guidelines in place.

I guess it falls to well informed members of the public (ie us) if we see someone promoting a 3 peaks challenge or similar to point out the negative consequences to the organisers, and also refer them to the code of practice. I like to think that at least some might listen? On the other hand I wonder if I'd ever actually get off my arse to undertake the above action.

Another option would be to ban coaches from Borrowdale and wasdale (at least at certain times) This would make it logistically difficult to get the more massive groups up there.

You could also introduce fines for dropping litter (or worse) the revenue generated could pay for the enforcers, and people to clean up (and save the efforts of kind voulunteers). While a part of me hates the thougt of being policed while out on the fells, but if people cant show respect to the environment, why should they be treated like responsible adults.

Ooh, I'm in danger of ranting now after starting off so benificently...

Tim

on that side of things I recently wrote to a charity who was planing to hold their first ever 3 peaks event, and after I had explained to them what their (paid) fundraiser hadn't told them they canceled the event.

Now that would seem to be a good route for others to try?

Its a case of too much of a good thing.I was going to do the Everest bese camp trek(funded by me not some mug who thinks his tenner is going to a charity) but when I found out what a cattle drive it is I chose a different route. The local people have come to depend on the tourists for their income but then it all gets too much, too many tourists, too much damage.

A reasnoble number of poeple doing the Three Peaks will hope fully bring money to the local area. I know they are in too much of a hurry to go shopping, but they might come back and see Wasdale properly when they arnt in such a rush but the shear numbers is just silly. There are lots of other challanges. The Lyke wake Walk, back in the 70s saw parties of up to a thousand and suffered but has now recovered to a little track again and could take some charity walkers in sensible numbers.

We need to get away from these events going through fashions. In a few years time no one will want to do the three peaks and some other event will be over used.

The Charitys need to find a wider variety of events, spread out the people over the country so no one area gets too many people at once.

I also want to see an end to this free holiday, sky dive, bungy jump ect. At the very least make it a legal requirement that it is declared prominently on the sponsership form what percentage of the cash you hand over will go into the Charitys pocket, after the free whatever has been paid for.

If the people participating in these events had to shell out their own cash then maybe something cheaper like a local sponsered walk would be more appealing.I think these freebies that people are getting, at the expense of some kind soul who thinks all the money is going to a good cause,is to balame for the popularity of these events.

Lets have more local events, if these fund raisers are paid then they can start to think of something interesting to do instead of churning out the same stuff.

I agree Julie but the 3 peaks shows no sign of becoming less popular, it has seen a year on year increase for the last decade (except of course F&M year)

But yes, local and low key events should be the best choice to my mind

We have a couple in their 70s about to absail down the side of M&S next week. There are lots of local events that can be challanging and get the publicity needed to raise the money.

We could start a letter writing campain to the charitys, see if we can start to change things.

We did that in the past year last time Guy raised our collective awareness.

We emailed a few each....