[Closed] I'm a bird-murdering, sheep-worrying, landscape wrecker.

I think you should just print out the post above and glue it to the sign

thepodge+1

Also please contact local National Trust and ask if they're aware of their logo being used in this way.

thepodge+2

Great work schnor..

😆

Not sure why Local farmers should produce a sign in Kilometres is it addressing roadies?

When I was a kid we used to go walking all over this moor and once found an unexploded mortar bomb. One of my mates decided to carry it home and a few weeks later when I went round to see if he was coming out it was proudly displayed on his mantelpiece. 😯

Yes - there is still live army firing in the adjacent fields - if the sheep dont miscarry with all that going on then i struggle to see how the biking will affect them.

In terms of bridleways i guess that you could count the full distance between the farm at Crowthorn over to Robin Hoods Well, plus a few extra bits around Peel Tower. I guess that that would be approx 10 km.

Bit late to this but...

1. I don't see ho riding on footpath disturbs nesting birds, worries sheep or causes localised flooding.

2. I can see how riding across the moors can do those things but the key is to not ride across the moors during nesting season (NT would be well advised to put signs up to warn all visitors of this), avoid sheep (the big white fluffy things are hard to miss) and only stick to proper trails when it's wet and muddy to stop erosion (goes for all users, especially big groups of walkers and horse riders).

3. I think it's time that a lot of footpaths were re-assessed and a lot turned into bridleways. Footpaths and bridleways are now mainly used for leisure, not for people walking to work down to the mines or for crossing the moors on their horse taking an important message for the King or whatever.

4. Put up signs during nesting seasons to warn people. Dogs and kids do waaaaay more harm than someone cycling down a man-made or natural trail.

5. A lot of farmers will move their sheep away from rights of way on the lead up to lambing and not put newborn sheep out in a field with a right of way, if they can avoid it. It would also be advised to put a sign up insisting that all dogs are kept on a lead across any land that they use for livestock and tbh I would put bins out for dog mess if it helps stop people leaving it. Which reminds me, we have some signs about the health risks to livestock of dog poo.

Saw this the other day, made me chuckle:

[img] [/img]

Be better if it said "You could be shot if your dog is found among sheep"

The dog didn't get in the car and drive their itself did it...

Michael's wife woods are now fenced off/out of bounds for forest maintainance, there's only the drainage gully which has been sanitised [ it was shite nayway ]

I also tweeted the NT the picture of the sign today. No reply as yet.

I am guessing that it is not there's, or official. They have opened longshaw in the Peak District to bikes by upgrading FP to permissive bridleways.

Plus my experience of dealing with NT in organising the Edale skyline fell race for several years is overwhelmingly positive in terms of encouraging access.

There's a cheeky section of FP opposite the fox house that leads to longshaw, past a private house. Plenty of people had ridden down it. The guy who lived there was not happy. The new sign on the gate says. 'Pedestrian entrance to longshaw' and gives directions of how cyclist should access longshaw. It worded positively - doesn't say look you fucjers we opened up footpaths for you to ride on and all you miserable bastards can do is ride ILLEAGALY PAST THST POOR MANS HOUSE!!!!

Cut gate, it's obviously been designed to withstand bikes in all weather

I think you're confusing it with a trail centre

i think you're confusing sarcasm with genuine comment 😉

Maybe consult Chris packham, bill oddie or other birdist to have a known take on what bothers ground nesting birds (The NT could pay for this if they're so concerned and get their facts right about what does cause ground nesting issues). The grouse at glentress don't seam to be that bothered about mtb'ists. 😀

I'm fairly sure that research has already been done and the info is readily available - as mentioned a few times earlier in the thread. I think we're also all agreed that the NT had nothing to do with those signs.

Commons are a nightmare to manage as a landowner, and a fair few commoners can be utter nuts. A very poorly put together sign to appease a few vocal people. Technically the footpath and moor access is correct if based on outdated ideas. The sheep one is possible, but a long shot, most stock are off the hill at that time of year around here.

If you can whinge louder than the commoners, the sign will probably disappear. Meets a lot of the design guide, so probably an NT sign.

The whole area is a post industrial revolution scar, ride up Holcombe and gaze at Fletcher Bank Quarry, marvel at Windy Harbours 100's of tons buried rubbish. Peel tower is a man made 'eyesore' that shouldn't be there, Peel Holdings windmills.....

That sign is going to get ripped off.

True.

It's such a beautifully ****ed up landscape round here.

People know when and where to ride.
Or walk, swim, or go for a barbeque.
All 3 at Gaddings dam, if you're from Todmorden.
🙂

Telling the people who helped create that landscape, through hard work: or for pleasure that they are no longer welcome isn't going to happen.

Bollocks to them.
Good work Binners, Harry & co.

i've fired off an email to their enquiry team on their website with the picture and a link to this thread....lets see if they bite.

Commoners have historic rights and a legitimate interest in how the land is managed but they shouldn't be permitted to shout down other legitimate users.

As owners of land historically open to the public the NT has some sort of obligation to consider the views of interested user groups and there should be some sort of forum of interested parties (The Ramblers, RSPB, etc)
One problem is lack of an obvious approachable and definitive body for mountain bikers - at last this is being addressed.

The NT own the land and unless there is a specific byelaw preventing cycling then as the landowners they can choose to permit cycling - the problem is the NT defaults to only allowing the minimum access allowed by (English) law to cyclists - access to bridleways only. The NT needs to reconsider its position and reverse this policy with the general assumption being that cycling should be allowed unless there are specific and genuine conservation or land management issues. Similar for other large owners of open land such as Yorkshire Water.
The recent opening of concessionary routes on the (Sheffield) Eastern Moors and the encouragement of mountain biking by Sheffield Wild Life Trust in Grenowoods are good examples of more enlightened thinking.

I tweeted at the NT Northwest Twitter account and got this reply today:

[i]thanks for this. We’re about to remove these signs and will review with Holcombe Moor Commoners Association.[/i]

Result 🙂

More than I got, I've emailed them twice and received no reply 😥

And I'm a member 🙄

Ace stuff.

Would like to be a fly on the wall in that 'review' 😈

I tweeted at the NT Northwest Twitter account and got this reply today:

thanks for this. We’re about to remove these signs and will review with Holcombe Moor Commoners Association.

Result

Me too!

I had a reply to my tweet...

National Trust

@nationaltrust
Sep 04

@EdaleSkyline thanks for getting in touch. We’re about to remove these signs and will review with Holcombe Moor Commoners Association.

Excellent. Well done folks! 😀

I’ve also just had a message on Twitter that the signs are coming down and the situation will be reviewed with the Commoners. ?

So, if anybody else would like to ask them the same question just to reinforce the point it is @NT_NorthWest .

No pudding for somebody today. 😀

i received the following reply from NT this morning:

Thank you for your email.

I have forwarded your email to the property at Holcombe Moor so that your comments can be read and considered. I am sure you will hear from them shortly.

I hope this has helped and thank you for your support.

Kind regards
Karen Jewell
Supporter Services Centre
National Trust

They've forwarded your email to the bloke who put up the sign? 😯

[img] http://www.electronicspoint.com/attachments/farmerpalmer-jpg.12398/ [/img]

They've forwarded your email to the bloke who put up the sign?

yep...i used my work email address....bollocks!!
if he turns up i'll be waiting for him with these:
[img] [/img]

if he replies then i'll have his details...which is all i need. i track people down for a living so it wont be hard to get all his info from the many databases i have access to. if he gets funny with me...then i'll be having some fun at his expense!

[i]i track people down for a living[/i]

gonzy, earlier

[img] [/img]

^^ busted... 😉

The resemblance is uncanny.

The resemblance is uncanny.

lol!!

New to this thread. Read the first page, and went straight to the last page. Result! The keyboard is indeed mightier than whatever is holding that sign up.

Nice one!

Not reading all that - but, what they are saying is : it's illegal to ride footpaths. Ok, we all know that.. but maybe, just maybe, they are trying to appeal to the nature loving, animal caring, countryside-friendly attributes of MTBers by saying - these are the perfectly reasonable and caring purpose of these rules...

The main access track up Holcombe Hill is a footpath. Given it's used by vehicles to get to the farm at the top, I'm not going to worry too much about supposed damage by my bike.

ransos - Nice one!

Not reading all that - but, what they are saying is : it's illegal to ride footpaths. Ok, we all know that...

[img] [/img]

The main access track up Holcombe Hill is a footpath. Given it's used by vehicles to get to the farm at the top, I'm not going to worry too much about supposed damage by my bike.

Indeed. Heres a picture I took at the tower, just after taking the picture of the new signage. Note the 4x4 tyre tracks heading up the footpath. So its ok for the farmer to drive his Land Rover over the moor, but they want to stop cyclists riding on it?

[img] [/img]

So its ok for the farmer to drive his Land Rover over the moor, but they want to stop cyclists riding on it?

Not sure where you quoted that from and cant be arsed to look through the treads but its NOT illegal to ride footpaths, and cyclists really should know that

[i]has work to do[/i]

but all of the reasons they gave to stop cyclists on footpaths woudl apply to vehicles 'having work to do' will not stop those baby robins dying if you drive past them.

It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.

Technically, that would be a "MAYBE" rather than an "IS" - it is only criminal because the landowner has NOT giver permission, however it remains within the landowners powers to grant authority. A perfect example would be the Forestry Commission, where riding on any FC land is technically illegal under the byelaws, but the FC have given extensive permission to use the land regardless of this.

In the case of common land, the landowner has the authority to give permission to do anything they want on the land, as long as it does not interfere unacceptably with the rights of the commoners, or is restricted by law (eg, erection of fenced enclosures on common land) - given that a great many commons are already subject to S193 of the law of property act (unrestricted access for air and exercise on foot or horseback) or foot access under CROW, the argument that giving permission for bikes would interfere with the rights of commoners (if any exist) is at best spurious.

jimw - It would be best to clarify this statement.
This is true of most footpaths, but where the land owner e.g. the Malvern Conservators has managed to get a specific bylaw in place, then it IS illegal to ride on the footpaths.

Nice clarification but the number of clean footpaths vastly outweighs the number of bylaw restricted footpaths so in general and more times than not, its NOT illegal and the quicker people understand that, the better.

I'm trying to think of an analogy but failing.

#bunchofsnitchers

😆

My understanding: The legality of it isn't really to do with the footpath status. It's to do with the bylaw.

It's only illegal to ride on a footpath if there's a bylaw forbidding it in the same way it's only illegal to walk on an area of land if there's a specific law forbidding it.

The absence of a right of way for cyclists isn't the same as a law forbidding them. There's no specific RoW saying you're allowed to carry your shopping bags on footpaths or walk a dog. That doesn't make it illegal.

FYI the NT does have its own set of byelaws...

The thing is (not that it really really matters, but for the sake of clarity) how is a regular person expected to be aware of such bylaws, even more so with spurious /fake signage, it's a recipe for confusion.

What I cant understand is the inflammatory angle towards cyclists. Such a sign can cause divsions and resentment etc.

I don't find it hard to understand at all.

Have the signs gone now?