Yeah, I know, I know, and I aplogise if it seemed like bashing. I guess it's because I'm a bit of a traditionalist. I wasn't thrilled at the major revision back in, I think, the eighties, either, but that was by the OS (though what difference that makes, I'm not sure, just how I feel). It seems a bit like tampering with the great man's work, but he may well have applauded it - who knows?
I suppose, for me, the more revisions we have, the further removed we are from what Munro left us, and I, for one, have much to thank him for. I have completed the Munros and, whilst not being hell-bent on this (greatly enjoying trips to other, lower hills), my efforts to climb them, mostly in winter, drove me on in sometimes pretty hard conditions to achieve my aims, and in places I may not have ventured otherwise. It's a nice thing to look back on.
Just thinking about how I feel, I wonder if it may be because, in my subconscious, any reduction in status belittles my achievement, and any promotion to Munro status of a hill I have yet to climb threatens it, i.e. I'll have to climb another hill to say 'I've done them all'? Does anyone else feel that way, I wonder?
I feel that if mr. Munro was still here to ask he might well agree that if a mountain was proved to be less than 3000 foot it did not belong in his list. I also feel that if he had been asked about the others in his list that have been demoted he would say. "If it is called my list, then it is my list, so leave it alone". I intend to climb all the original munros as well as the modern additions. I am finding it hard to get a list of all the original Munros missing from the modern list. Can anybody point me in the right direction?
As far as the possibly demoted munro goes i have already climbed it.The Fisherfield Corbetts, that We did not have time for, are a must for going back.
I suppose, for me, the more revisions we have, the further removed we are from what Munro left us, and I, for one, have much to thank him for.
I can see what you mean.
Although you could argue that Munro was aiming to be as accurate as possible with the limited quality mapping available in the day. Had he had accurate GPS available to measure whether a peak was one side or another of 3,000 - you get the feeling that he probably would have used it.
You could also say that, by measuring the borderline cases now - there will be created a static list of Munros - barring any major geological event! Although there is always the thorny question of what constitutes an independent peak.
An interesting matter. It's caused me to think hard about how I feel about the whole thing. I suppose it's a completed task for me and I don't want it messed with! And in Munro-bagging mode (which I was, at times), if I had bashed on to get the extra hill at the end of a day, I would perhaps feel now that it was not quite so necessary/justified if said hill was found to be a few inches short of 3000 ft.
I wonder, too, how a demoted Munro sits in a person's mind if they have made the effort to climb it? That which sparked off this post (thanks Kate!) has seen me atop its summit on perhaps three occasons. The last was in Feb 2008 and my elder son joined us, escaping from his final year at Edinburgh Uni. The weather was awful, we climbed the hill from Shenavall and were forced to virtually crawl on its summit, so strong was the gale. We made it back to the bothy having abandoned the idea of 'doing' the four, and only one of us crossed the river dry-footed. It was rising visibly, the whole glen becoming an extension of the loch over the next day. It was my son's only Munro of the his short time with us (An Teallach was abandoned the day before due to verglas), so I suppose that makes its demotion an even more regretable thing. I've not told him yet!
There are dull Munros that don't merit re-ascent. My views on this have changed (I compleated in 2008). I used to think that the list perhaps 'spread the load', leading people to head up dull plods (think Drumochter and the Monadh Liath) rather than making re-ascents of more interesting hills. I was wrong.
It now seems clear to me that lists, guide books and waymarked trails encourage folk to do something they wouldn't otherwise have the gumption to do. A particular bane of mine is the Cape Wrath Trail, a so-called long distance path that has no cultural or historical significance (it wasn't a drovers, corpse, destitution or Wade road, for example); is not 'official' (thus receives no funds to redress the damage done by over-use, like the PW); but is seeing a big increase in footfall. The CWT is essentially a random construct devised by guide book writers to make money from people too lazy or clueless to devise their own (perhaps more interesting) route.
Over the last few months I've popped up a few Munros again en route to other things, via alternate routes, i.e. not the usual suspect that leads from the nearest car park. I've been shocked by the erosion I've encountered once I hit these trade routes, particularly on Beinn Alligin and Ladhar Bheinn - deep, loose trenches rivalling the stuff in the Lakes.
I don't have any solutions, other than turning such tracks into metalled, wheelchair friendly motorways a la 'the Friends of the Fells', which is no solution at all. This is one reason I no longer criticise offroad motorists, even though I loath them. Walkers are doing much more damage, even when you discount the driving miles notched up getting to the car parks where they start their walks.
There are dull Munros that don't merit re-ascent. My views on this have changed (I compleated in 2008). I used to think that the list perhaps 'spread the load', leading people to head up dull plods (think Drumochter and the Monadh Liath) rather than making re-ascents of more interesting hills. I was wrong.
It can be conditions that lead to being bored on the hills, it can be the company, but most often it's the head that you're residing in that's the problem.
Drumochter can be a veritable winter playground.
Almost all the hill areas that I hear are "boring" are absolutely crawling with wildlife all year round - somehow I seem to manage to survive the sheer ennui.
It's all relative, of course, but there are other places I'd rather spend good winter conditions. Here's one already mentioned in this thread:
I sometimes speculate that maybe others are more easily pleased or have lower expectations, but one should try to avoid that kind of judgemental thinking.
I sometimes speculate that maybe others are more easily pleased or have lower expectations, but one should try to avoid that kind of judgemental thinking.
Plainly you are a coinnoisseur. Nae luck.
I find being easy to please means I'm pleased more often. The only disadvantage is that I can't claim to be as refined as some.
I haven't set foot on a Munro for nigh on 4 years and don't intend to any time soon. Corbetts suit me better.
As`for erosion, I've just seen a photo of my brother on some lakeland hill, Scarfell I think (Mornin' Slioch), trudging up a "path" as wide as a 3 lane motorway.
I'm easily pleased by quiet, interesting and perhaps small hills, rather than busier, featureless lumps that happen to top the 3000ft contour. There doesn't seem much point heading for the latter, listening to the drone of traffic on the A9, when you can spend time in the former. Admittedly, that's probably indicative of some deep character flaw on my part.
Lists and guide books, by definition, send you to the same places as the others using those lists and guide books. It's best to try and stay away from all that nonsense.
Lists and guide books, by definition, send you to the same places as the others using those lists and guide books. It's best to try and stay away from all that nonsense.
Guide books are good for putting under shoogly table legs
As for lists - there's hardly a hill in Scotland that isn't on some list or other. Like Kev I'm finding the sub-3000 hills a lot more rewarding, but I still go back up the odd munro.
If you're avoiding all listed hills it sounds as though all of the munros are off your menu, not just your "boring" ones.
It seems a bit like tampering with the great man's work, but he may well have applauded it - who knows?
I've just read their survey report, via Grough - and it appears that Beinn a'Chlaidheimh was a Corbett until 1974 anyway - and not in Munro's original list.
The 916m spot height was added by the OS in the 1990s.
So simply back to the status quo.
Although if someone feels particularly that this should be a Munro, then as the shortfall below 3,000ft is only 44cm - walkers could perhaps carry a few kg of soil and turf up with them each time - a la "Englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain". I'm sure it wouldn't take too long...
It can be conditions that lead to being bored on the hills, it can be the company, but most often it's the head that you're residing in that's the problem.
Plainly you are a coinnoisseur. Nae luck.
