Talking Point

Big Issues – Big Debates
A Report of the MCofS 2004 Annual Gathering

By Kevin Howett

In the last issue of Scottish Mountaineer we focused on two of the biggest issues concerning mountaineering and hill walking currently being discussed – Ben Nevis way marking cairns and wind farm impact on Landscape. The Annual Gathering offered an opportunity for members to debate the issues in more detail. The following report is a brief indication of the views of the members who attended the debates and a follow-up on some of the developments since:

Nevis Way Markers Debate

The debate was part of an ‘opinion’ gathering process agreed by the members of the Nevis Partnership and its Mountain Management Sub Group, to assist the identification of a ‘final’ solution to a long running controversy. It involved two members of the MCofS, close friends, working colleagues (Mountain Instruction) and climbing partners, Nick Halls and Alan Kimber, who hold opposing views on the matter.

An initial show of hands showed 47% favoured no way marking at all and 53% favoured some form of way marking. Roger Wild (Mountain Safety Adviser) updated the accident statistics to cover the past 20yrs (1982-2001). This shows that of a total of 619 incidents there were 63 attributed to navigation. Of these 23 were serious (major injury or fatality). This represents an average of 1.15 serious incidents per year. Of the non-serious incidents, 31 were uninjured, 6 were hypothermia, 15 mentioned poor equipment. 45 of the 63 navigation incidents were in winter conditions (71%). 19 of the 23 serious navigation incidents were in winter (83%).

Alan Kimber (Speaking in Favour of Way Markers)

Alan asserted that Ben Nevis is a dangerous mountain and that numerous people get lost on the descent, stray onto steep terrain that they are ill equipped to negotiate and are injured or become fatalities. Many are foreign visitors (English and Spanish) who visit Fort William in order to ascend Ben Nevis [110,000 per annum], it being a very important ‘attraction’ to the local economy.

He mentioned how the existing cairns, some dating back to the end of the 19th Century, were placed for the same good reasons of tourist safety as today; that the various abseil posts and markers had been placed by the rescue team as a reaction to accidents and must subsequently have saved mountaineers lives. He felt that these actions from knowledgeable local mountaineers should be respected. He feels that there is a duty on the Nevis Partnership to way mark the tourist route to prevent people getting lost and that by opposing way marking the MCofS and The Partnership would become responsible for any future accidents.

Alan also argued that ad hoc cairns are misleading and dangerous and should be removed and a line of closely spaced cairns be built so that it is very hard to loose ones way. He also accepted that certain other items are now redundant such as the Carn Dearg and Coire Lies shelters.

Nick Halls (Speaking Against Way Markers)

Nick felt strongly that it is very important to begin to take action to restore the wilderness quality of the wild places in Scotland including Ben Nevis, and that it is not a sufficient justification to degrade a very special piece of countryside because it is a popular but dangerous visitor attraction.

He felt that the statistics show a very low incident rate in relation to the number of people making the ascent, and many of these were either uninjured or relatively slightly injured. The number of fatalities involving people described as walkers, is very low, and about half of these were recorded as being ill equipped rather than having navigational problems.

It is his opinion that way marking assists people to find their way in moderate conditions but does not protect them from any other hazard and that by following cairns they would be mistaken in the assumption they would be safe, and this ‘enticement’ exposes them to avoidable risk.

Nick recognised that people experience difficulty finding their way in descent, both walkers and mountaineers [an individual may be one or the other on different occasions]. However for the vast majority of people all this amounts to is some sort of story of confusion or slight epic from which they extricate themselves, and the of the few involved in MR incidents the vast majority escape uninjured. He felt that such experiences are integral to the learning process to be a safer walker or mountaineer and that if the risks of an ascent are evaluated on the basis of subjectively perceived ‘near misses’ and lucky escapes, then Ben Nevis would have to be declared off limits for every body! He felt that mountaineers had also accepted the risk inherent in their participation.

He noted that most fatalities have occurred in winter implying that the weather conditions, and the effect they have on peoples judgment, combined with exhaustion and hypothermia are implicated in most fatalities and it is more experienced walkers and mountaineers who are affected not tourists.

Nick felt there were only two rational options in the debate - bearing in mind the ownership of the summit plateau and those who helped to buy it. One has to be a restoration of the wilderness condition, the other leaving the mountain as it is because this is how it has evolved, and its current state is historical fact. He asserted that it is made dangerous by the man made features currently on the plateau - and restoration to an un way marked plateau would be safer as it would discourage rather than encourage ascents in adverse weather.

Comments from the Floor

The debate opened to the floor and various points were raised and are summarised here (in no particular order):

It was suggested that the name of the route on maps as a ‘Tourist Path’ gives the wrong impression and should be changed. The use of extensive path constructions on other popular mountains across the world (e.g. Mount Kinabulu, Borneo) showed that railings etc have a place on popular mountains to help safety. However, it was noted that in other places like Spain they have taken a ‘restorative’ approach at some popular walking areas, by removing all way marks and informing visitors at the base that they need to have navigational expertise. This approach was suggested for Ben Nevis. It was suggested that information at the start of the track could include real-time temperature and wind speed and even digicam visuals.

It was noted that much of the extraneous junk on the plateau has been placed to assist mountaineers, not those ascending the path and very few mountaineers are involved in incidents; and those who do get into trouble seem to suffer more serious injury due to making ascents in winter and in adverse weather. It was suggested that to protect them it would be better that they are encouraged to learn when to turn back before exposing themselves to the hazard of traversing the plateau in poor visibility which they may not be competently able to do. The education of mountaineers was suggested as the best safety aid, not built structures. It was wryly observed that west coast mountaineers must be softies requiring way marks, whilst Cairngorm mountaineers who have a more difficult prospect coming back from a trip to loch A’an do not require them, indeed past marker poles were taken down, as were refuges, both of which appeared to exacerbate navigational difficulties rather then help.

It was also noted that the No4 flag was very useful for a descent off the summit and should stay, but others noted that this was really only of any help for a very small number of people descending to the CIC hut and that in blizzard conditions it is probably better not to descend into the coire as it may be avalanche prone, a better descent being down to the halfway lochan. One person commented that placing cairns to assist a very small number of lazy or incompetent mountaineers to find the way down after an ascent of the north face trivialises the sport, and denies the true quality of the experience for others. Almost everyone agreed the Shelters (apart from the summit) are not used and could be removed.

There was a suggestion that the removal of way markers would leave those who removed them liable after an accident. But it was noted that the new access legislation incorporates the principle of ‘Volenti non Fit Injuria’ which relinquishes the liability of landowners and managers for the actions of people taking access. It was pointed out that if way marking was put in place as a result of pressure to protect the public on a popular but hazardous walk, and if the way marking failed to ensure their safety, then there may be grounds for a claim of negligence against those who placed them.

There was a concern that it also risks setting a precedent that any place where a large number of people exercise their rights of access, however hazardous, has to be made safe, when in practice because of the variable nature of mountain hazards this is impossible. Possible other examples were cited as Ben Lawers, Ben Lomond and The Cobbler – all of which are popular with tourists as well as walkers. It also sets a precedent that any popular visitor attraction, even one attractive because of its magnificent scenery and wild grandeur, can no longer be sustained as wilderness whatever the land management objectives of the landowner.

Conclusion

After the debate there was another show of hands which showed 59% now agreed to no way marking (refer the table). There was no evidence from the members attending the debate that MCofS should review its long held and very firm policy on way marking, or suspend it on the basis that the Ben Nevis Plateau is a special case and popular visitor attraction. The majority seemed to hold the view that the wilderness quality of an ascent of Ben Nevis should be enhanced, because it is a ‘special place’.

Ben debate show of hands

Vote before debate

(a) Nothing at all. 16 people.
(remove all cairns; remove Number 4 Flag; remove Abseil Posts)

(b) Status Quo. 2 people.
(leave things as they are)

(c) MCofS Holding Position as per Scottish Mountaineer. 5 people.
(100 metre cairns; remove Number 4 Flag; remove Abseil Posts)

(d) MCofS Holding Position with some changes. 9 people.
(might be 200 metre cairns; keep Number 4 Flag and / or Abseil Posts)

(e) Comprehensive waymarking. 2 people.
(e.g. cairns every 50 metres; keep Number 4 Flag and / or Abseil Posts)

(a) Nothing at all 47%
(b; c; d; e) Some form of waymarking 53%

Vote after debate
This was condensed into two choices:

(a) Nothing at all. 20 people.
(remove all cairns; remove Number 4 Flag; remove Abseil Posts)

(d) MCofS Holding Position with some changes. 14 people.
(might be 200 metre cairns; keep Number 4 Flag and / or Abseil Posts)

(a) Nothing at all 59%

(d) MCofS Holding Position with some changes 41%

TOTAL PARTICIPATING: 34

Ben Nevis Shelters Removed

The John Muir Trust, owner of the summit of Ben Nevis, in association with The Nevis Partnership is alerting the public to the removal of two artificial shelters. The first, from the summit of Carn Dearg approximately one mile to the northwest of the main summit of Ben Nevis (Grid reference: NN 158718,) and the second in Coire Leis at the head of the Alt a’Mhuilinn (Grid Reference NN 174 714). Both shelters are marked on all Harvey Maps as well as the Ordnance Survey map 41.

The reasons for removal include the fact that the shelters are often buried in snow and frequently difficult to locate (valuable time and energy may be spent looking for them when it would be better to descend to safety);there are no recorded mountain rescues involving the shelters in the last ten years; the shelters are not crucial navigational markers.

As part of the overall process of managing the Ben Nevis area, the decision to remove the Carn Dearg shelter was reached following careful consideration of all the safety issues by the Nevis Partnership.The Partnership’s ‘Mountain Management Group’, (comprising representatives from the Northern Constabulary, Highland Council Ranger Service, Lochaber Mountain Rescue Team, Lochaber Mountain Access Group, Mountaineering Council of Scotland and the John Muir Trust) unanimously agreed that the shelters should be removed.

NOTE: The Ben Nevis summit shelter, situated on the ruined weather observatory, will remain and there are no plans for its removal.