The 3 Peaks - good or bad?

[MariaD]

(I was reminded of this by a mention of the 3 peaks in another thread. I know that people on this forum have done the 3 peaks & this isn't intended as criticism of them or their choices, but I thought it would be good to have a discussion of the environmental issues relating to these sorts of events.)

Over the years, the 3 peaks event (and others like it, but particularly the 3 peaks) has come in for large amounts of criticism from MR teams, mountaineering clubs, locals & conservationists for a variety of reasons (see links below).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/21/conservation.scotland
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2033394.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,2251177,00.html
http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/news/3peaks.html
http://www.mountain-adventures.co.uk/documents/EnvironmentalImpact_000.pdf

With this in mind, I was wondering what everyone thought of events like this:

Do you think numbers should be restricted?
Should charities be banned from holding such events if they do not follow the code of practice (as many don't)?
Should the event be allowed to take place at all?Personally, I disagree with events like the 3 peaks, although I respect people's right to do it if they choose. In comparison to other mountain events (e.g. the OMM, fell races etc.) it is often badly organised and many of the charities involved seem to take no responsibility for environmental concerns. I've been for a walk over Scafell Pike at the end of a June weekend and it's not pretty!

[Special_K]

I haven't done the 'BIG' Three Peaks but have taken part in the Yorkshire 3 Peaks. Whilst I am all for taking part in events to raise money and profile for the charities in question I think there should be some kind of measure in place.

Again I'm not sure how it works with other countires and events but I guess the same question posed by Maria could be extended to any sort of challenge like the three peaks - such as climbing Kili etc.

I think there will be no right answer as people have and are entitled to their own opinion. Mine is that I don't think you would be able to limit the number of places (as a whole. As a charity it may be feasable) available on these sorts of events as people can and will climb or walk on any day they choose be that as part of a charity or group organised event or be it on their own.

I think if things like that were restricted people would say stuff it and still go out there anyway. I'm assuming that even though many people sign agreements stating that the charity event orgainsers will not be held accountable should anything go wrong that these charities have some sort of insurance/risk assessment process/advise from suitable qualified personell to fall back on. If not this should be seen as some sort of norm for that sort of event.

I guess it's differentiating between what is recognised as an 'offical' event and has the support stucture there to assist and what is deemed as a day out for the many many more people who just enjoy the hills.

Haven't touched on the environmental factors and some other stuff yet as just being pulled into a meeting at work. Will post more later........

[MariaD]

I was talking about the 'big' 3 peaks, rather than the Yorkshire one. I agree that those criticisms can be levelled at other events, but I do think there is a distinction between well-run events where the organisers take the environment seriously and ones that are badly run.

The Yorkshire 3 peaks is, I think, an example of a well-run event (I assume you're talking about the race?). Numbers are limited, the event is marshalled by volunteers, which reduces the strain on MR & I've certainly never heard the kind of criticisms levelled at that as there are for the 'big' 3 peaks (although I'm happy to be corrected if somebody else has).

I think that for a well run event you need:

Limited numbers
A system of self-marshalling, to avoid unnecessary MR callouts
The organisers to take the environment seriously & do everything possible to reduce litter, excrement etc. on the fells
To take the needs of locals into account
The participants to be aware of their impact & committed to avoiding excessive damageThere are many events which do this, but most of the charity 3 peaks events do not. When you walk over a hill the day after a fell race there is no evidence that a race took place. Even if you walk a route during a fell race, the only indicator is the odd muddy person sprinting past with a race number on - no crowds & no litter. Fell race organisers go out of their way to provide appropriate facilities for the number of people who attend, and they are able to do so because numbers are limited.

I have no objection to an individual or small group deciding to climb the 3 peaks (I've done them all individually, after all). It's when several thousand people all do it over the course of 4 or 5 weekends that the problems start to happen.

Why not do the hills on different days by more unusual routes, or do a different set of peaks over a longer time period to spread the damage?

Or why not have a system whereby charities must apply for a permit to hold such an event. If each charity was given a strict participant limit; each weekend had a strict limit on the number of permits available; and the penalty for breaking the code of conduct was to be banned from getting a permit next year, I'm sure the situation would improve.

You could never apply such a system to individuals, but because the impact of charity events is so much greater they should take more responsibility.

[David]

Just to throw the view from someone who has done the event into the argument -

One of those articles says:
"Is it not therefore a little ironic that Three Peaks Challenge fundraising events cause a major drain on one charity, the Wasdale Mountain Rescue Team?"
- well, isn't it "ironic" then that the charity my team will be raising money for is the Wasdale mountain rescue team itself. In fact, they're willing to send 2 members to drive us round the peaks for a weekend, so having charities doing it can't be completely against their principles! (I'm sure it is the reporter rather than the team that has made it sound like it is).

Also, walking off paths, leaving excrement in the hills - we never did anything like that! To me that's just irresponsible activity. It isn't intrinsic to the event. People doing that should be fined in my view, rather than stopping them and responsible people climbing the hills. The fee could go towards undoing the damage they have caused.

And to counter the points about erosion and spoiling natural beauty - remember that the highest mountain in the UK (eg Ben Nevis) has practically got a road up the front of it and a house on top. Actually, snowdon has a cafe on top, so I don't think it's just erosion that has spoilt it's natural beauty!

It's my view that the world is simply just overpopulated. All the nice places where you could go and have land on your own are take up now. I'd like a nice bit of forest to live in, but most of the forest here has turned into suburbs. It's the same sort of thing for recreation in my view. It's really sad, but all non privately owned natural landscape is going to be changed by people, simply because there are so many of us. If you want to go somewhere unspoilt, then somewhere as 'special' as the highest mountain somewhere isn't going to be a good choice. If you really want to go somewhere unspoilt, go to the desert, to mountains in India or somewhere else no one wants to go. After all, that's about the only place you could build a house (or do a lot of other things) and not expect to get interfered with.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be responsible - in fact the opposite; the government should penalise people who aren't. I just don't think you can consider any part (publicly owned) of the country as independent from human influence. There are just too many people, you have to accept that a lot of places are going to be 'spoilt' (especially if your idea of 'spoiling' something is making it easier to be used by the majority of people).

I'm not saying I like the way it is, but I don't think we can do much about it, except make sure people act in a responsible way. Well - there's my opinion - feel free to get enraged!

[MariaD]

walking off paths, leaving excrement in the hills - we never did anything like that! To me that's just irresponsible activity. It isn't intrinsic to the event. People doing that should be fined in my view, rather than stopping them and responsible people climbing the hills. The fee could go towards undoing the damage they have caused.

I agree - that's why I think there should be more regulation of events like this. As things stand, not all groups are as responsible as you & it's no exaggeration to say that some don't seem to take any responsibility for the environment at all.

I'm not under any illusion that our mountains are entirely unspoilt. There are very few areas of this country that are free from human influence (although they do exist - you're wrong that there is nowhere in the UK where you won't see other people!) - what I'm arguing for is better organisation. I, and most other people, have no objection to well-run events like the examples given previously.

I don't believe that accessibility = "spoilt", but I do believe that mountains of litter and excrement is both detrimental to our countryside and entirely avoidable. The fact that Ben Nevis has an observatory on top doesn't justify the kind of pollution that some charity groups cause (part of which is due to the sheer number of participants - not a factor at other times of year).

Do you think that the permit scheme I described would help things?

[ishepster]

Permits would certainly keep nos down and could maybe raise a bit of money towards MR and organising the event better.

They could also organise a Smaller Three Peaks clean up challenge a week after the big one.

[MariaD]

They could also organise a Smaller Three Peaks clean up challenge a week after the big one.

I like that idea! Maybe 'Rob the Rubbish' could lead it?

[ishepster]

I don't spend massive amounts of time on the hills, very little in fact, but when I do I am always picking up other peoples rubbish. I dread to think what kind of mess a big challenge could leave behind.