Group on Reeks? Must apply giving details of insurance...

...new requirement for outings on the Reeks, where 10 or more involved a form must be completed and details of insurance provided.

https://www.macgillycuddyreekskerry.com/events

I've circulated this elsewhere and a few have pointed out the "how will they police it?" question. My guess is that they won't, if they think it's being flaunted they will simply further curtail access. When dogs worried sheep a few years ago, they didn't go find the dog or dog owner, they banned all dogs. I would know/know of some of the landowners, they aren't naïve.

Anyway, a worrying development, perhaps prompted by the infamous incident in February when 40 set off late in the day in snow with 1 guide...

Alun

10 friends going for a walk together is now an event, is it? Are they serious?

Alun

Alun wrote: »

10 friends going for a walk together is now an event, is it? Are they serious?

I presume they'd say it doesn't matter if it's called an event, an outing or just a walk, once 10 or more are on their land, their permission is needed in advance.

It's unfortunate, but I guess when people push the envelope, as clearly happened last February, there will often be a reaction. The relationship between the landowners and those of us who use the uplands is a delicate one where we rely entirely on their goodwill.

Alun

Deleted User wrote: »

It's unfortunate, but I guess when people push the envelope, as clearly happened last February, there will often be a reaction.

But that, admittedly rather foolish, expedition had no impact on the landowners and didn't open them up to legal action. No amount of public liability insurance would have had any effect on the outcome that day.

EDIT: Have just read that the "Mountain Access Scheme" that this is all the result of was supposed to indemnify landowners anyway, so the request for a copy of a groups public liability insurance is even less valid.

Alun

Alun wrote: »

But that, admittedly rather foolish, expedition had no impact on the landowners and didn't open them up to legal action.

It might yet do. The people involved have up to 2 years to commence a claim. Now, hard to see how a claim against the landowners might succeed, and presume they're all covered by insurance anyway. I think the main thing that day did is that it opened eyes to just how stupid/foolhardy people can be, so the new requirements might even be coming from insurers.

Alun

Come on, I know you're a solicitor and all, but a group of idiots like that trying to claim it was somehow the landowners' fault? Pull the other one.

Anyway, as I added later, the MAS is apparently supposed to indemnify landowners against claims, presumably including baseless ones such as that.

Alun

Anyway it's a ridiculous and poorly thought out scheme. 9 people can go up together, whether part of a club, a guided group or just a random group of friends or facebook / meetup group and not have to fill in their silly form, but 10 do?

What are they actually going to do? Have a group of heavies at each of the car parks counting people in and using physical force to prevent them from going up the mountain?

I've never heard of such nonsense in my life.

From the MacGillycuddy Reeks Forum on Facebook...

Hello everyone,

Recently we, the MacGillycuddy Reeks Forum decided to contact all hill walking clubs to request that they would complete an organised group form prior to heading to the Reeks.

This information is requested for the following reasons:
1. To minimise the erosion on the mountain,
2. To avoid congestion at the access points at peak times,
3. To work with the landowners who own the land as not to disrupt their farming activities.

A second SEPERATE request is also being made:
That a copy of insurance be provided for organised groups of 10 or more.
This is to cover the walkers themselves , the landowners and is considered fair and reasonable.

We are not trying to restrict numbers, merely manage the large numbers accessing this Special Area of Conservation.

This request has been in place for the past three years for commercial guides and works well without conflict or any issues arising.

Responsible access is our priority and we are confident that those of you who genuinely care for these mountains will support this simple request.

Many thanks.

Incidentally, Mountaineering Ireland's own site refers to groups of 10 - see the heading Environmental Considerations for Walkers. So I guess, in fairness to the landowners, if walkers have an issue the farmers can say it came from hillwalkers own representative body...

https://www.mountaineering.ie/accessandenvironment/goodpracticeguide/

BarryD2

It'll be interesting to see if/how this develops - 'thin end of the wedge' is the phrase that comes to mind. I can't really think of anywhere else in the country where such a scheme exists. If this is the fruits of Comhairle na Tuaithe, I don't think the public will be too impressed!

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if/how this develops - 'thin end of the wedge' is the phrase that comes to mind. I can't really think of anywhere else in the country where such a scheme exists. If this is the fruits of Comhairle na Tuaithe, I don't think the public will be too impressed!

That's the worry alright, would have thought that if there are similar groups representing the owners of the Galty range, Wicklow and Connemara, they may well look at this. It's getting coverage here now...

https://www.radiokerry.ie/forum-insists-not-restricting-access-macgillycuddys-reeks/

Alun

Deleted User wrote: »

That's the worry alright, would have thought that if there are similar groups representing the owners of the Galty range, Wicklow and Connemara, they may well look at this. It's getting coverage here now...

https://www.radiokerry.ie/forum-insists-not-restricting-access-macgillycuddys-reeks/

They've already been visiting Wicklow to "exchange ideas" it seems ...


https://www.facebook.com/pg/wicklowuplandscouncil/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1115453221943876&__tn__=-UC-R

blackvalley

So nine hikers followed by a couple of meters by nine more all who happen to know each other should be ok .?

Alun

blackvalley wrote: »

So nine hikers followed by a couple of meters by nine more all who happen to know each other should be ok .?

Exactly. It's completely unenforceable.

There's no clear statement on what exactly they plan on doing with everybody's personal data they want to collect either. GDPR anyone?

blackvalley

blackvalley wrote: »

So nine hikers followed by a couple of meters by nine more all who happen to know each other should be ok .?

I presume that sort of stuff will see them restrict access further, maybe ensure every person who heads out is covered by MI type insurance. As for enforceability, a gate with a lock and fences at Strickeen, Breanlee and Lislebane forcing everyone to go through Cronin's Yard, where some assessment can be made about groups, insurance etc. and that would be that for most.

It's their land, we access it on their terms. I don't like the proposal, but I think groups who think taking the pi55 is big or clever will only increase tension, and the landowners won't be the ones who suffer, it'll be all of us who want to access the amenity. In recent days the Examiner carried an article about damage to upland areas caused by the increase in numbers, the article had the input of the Reeks Access Forum.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

I presume that sort of stuff will see them restrict access further, maybe ensure every person who heads out is covered by MI type insurance. As for enforceability, a gate with a lock and fences at Strickeen, Breanlee and Lislebane forcing everyone to go through Cronin's Yard, where some assessment can be made about groups, insurance etc. and that would be that for most.

But there's multiple ways onto most uplands, it's not practical to restrict access. The benefits to the local community with recognised starting points like above is that people are channeled there, provisions can be made for them. Take them away or restrict and you're inviting people to park here & there, blocking lanes and entrances and all the other things that really affect local residents.

This is a poorly thought out proposal overall, I'd suspect too much input from people who have little or no involvement in outdoor activities and/or too much input from legal & insurance advisers etc.

Of course, we have sympathy for local residents and hill farmers in particular. I suspect there's better ways of dealing with the issue though, for example in 'honeypot' areas like Snowdonia & Lake District, there are arrangements both to manage the public and compensate hill farmers.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

I'd suspect too much input from people who have little or no involvement in outdoor activities and/or too much input from legal & insurance advisers etc.

Of course, we have sympathy for local residents and hill farmers in particular. I suspect there's better ways of dealing with the issue though, for example in 'honeypot' areas like Snowdonia & Lake District, there are arrangements both to manage the public and compensate hill farmers.

The proposal seems to mirror the recommendations of Mountaineering Ireland, the representative body for those involved in outdoor activities, and a contributor to the Reeks Access Forum.

The law about access to land in England and Wales is different. Here, there is no right to roam and nothing like the network of public routes like they have across the water.

I agree it may be difficult to police, but that implies groups will be willing to trespass and run the wrath of farmers. I doubt they would. Those who abandon their cars may well find that the farmers and local residents are all very close, and a car can easily be dragged or pushed out of the way. They won't drum their fingers to wait for someone who has gone off trespassing on their land. All it takes would be a few flare ups, a bus of walkers hemmed in on a Sunday evening while they want to get home for work the following day etc., and it wouldn't happen again.

Again, I don't like the proposal but the idea of breaking up groups into 9+9+9, or just trespassing and leaving cars abandoned where they will affect locals...all of that ups the ante in a battle where there can only be one winner, the person whose consent we need to access their land.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

The proposal seems to mirror the recommendations of Mountaineering Ireland, the representative body for those involved in outdoor activities, and a contributor to the Reeks Access Forum.

As far as I know, the proposal is more an initiative of the landowners in the above forum. There are other upland forums around the country, the Wicklow Uplands Council being notable and this broadly succeeds by agreement between all 'stakeholders'. I'd be thinking there's a lesson in that

Clearly something needs to be done in 'honeypot' areas that have natural attractions and draw larger numbers of the public. But there are solutions and solutions.

BarryD2

BarryD2 wrote: »

As far as I know, the proposal is more an initiative of the landowners in the above forum...

MI's Good Practice Guide refers to groups of less than 10 ideally, and in any event less than 15, under its environmental considerations.

The Reeks Access Forum, of which MI is a member, has repeatedly stated that this is an environmental issue. So in fairness to them, they could simply point out that if those who use the outdoors object, their beef should be with the representative body that came up with that figure.

https://www.mountaineering.ie/accessandenvironment/goodpracticeguide/

Alun

MI represent their members, nobody else, they can't claim to speak for every recreational outdoor user in Ireland by any stretch.

And even then, not every member necessarily agrees with, or is bound by any recommendations or guidelines they publish. Guidelines are just that, guidelines.

Alun

Alun wrote: »

MI represent their members, nobody else, they can't claim to speak for every recreational outdoor user in Ireland by any stretch.

And even then, not every member necessarily agrees with, or is bound by any recommendations or guidelines they publish. Guidelines are just that, guidelines.

Oh I appreciate that.

It's just that we can't really say it comes from people with no experience of outdoor activities or 10 is some ridiculous arbitrary number plucked out of thin air by the farmers, when it comes from the national organisation of climbers and hillwalkers and they contribute to the forum that devised the requirement.

Alun

Well, I've seen no justification, or any scientific evidence that supports this magic figure of 10 either, and I seriously doubt if any of their membership did either, so "plucked from thin air" seems like a suitable description to me whatever the source was. There's a grand total of one person within MI responsible for environmental and conservation aspects and I suspect it came from them personally.

Look, I can see some merit to restricting large groups in sensitive areas like this, but I'm thinking of large organized events with several hundred participants like the Art O'Neill or Maamturks Challenge, things like that. But in reality whether it's 2 groups of 5 or one group of 10 walking together, it isn't going to make a jot of difference to anything.

Esel

Alun wrote: »

... But in reality whether it's 2 groups of 5 or one group of 10 walking together, it isn't going to make a jot of difference to anything.

How about 5 groups of 10 or 1 group of 50?

Alun

Alun wrote: »

Well, I've seen no justification, or any scientific evidence that supports this magic figure of 10 either, and I seriously doubt if any of their membership did either, so "plucked from thin air" seems like a suitable description to me whatever the source was. There's a grand total of one person within MI responsible for environmental and conservation aspects and I suspect it came from them personally.

But it's simply wrong to suggest the farmers themselves produced some arbitrary figure when they can say the national body that represents climbers and hillwalkers in the country recommend that very figure. It wasn't the landowners or some group with no idea about outdoor activity, it's Mountaineering Ireland. People don't have to belong to that organisation or agree with that figure, but it's perfectly reasonable that the landowners might rely on them, they can hardly be expected to ascertain the views of dissenters and non members.

Alun

Esel wrote: »

How about 5 groups of 10 or 1 group of 50?

1 group of 50 is impractical for many other reasons unconnected with conservation.

BarryD2

Deleted User wrote: »

MI's Good Practice Guide refers to groups of less than 10 ideally, and in any event less than 15, under its environmental considerations.

Yes, but................ to best of my knowledge MI is not proposing a scheme of group registration and production of certs of insurance. That's what would be at the nub of peoples reservations about this proposed scheme. It's just not done anywhere else.

BarryD2

This was covered again on the RTE radio news recently. Odd sort of interview as it mostly featured tourists visiting Kate Kearney's over Christmas. Rather than getting the views of Irish walking clubs and groups and so on. I suppose that would have entailed a bit of work & research for the journalist..

hmmm

I read that apparently this new "Reeks District" https://reeksdistrict.com/activities/outdoor-activities/boots/carrauntoohil/ is the big thing in Kerry at the minute, where they are trying to sell the area in and surrounding the mountains to tourists. While at the same time, another group in the area is saying they want to reduce erosion by managing numbers.

Right.

Spanish Eyes

The Reeks and places like it are National Treasures. Should be CPO'd for the public good or a National Park or something.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

I read that apparently this new "Reeks District" https://reeksdistrict.com/activities/outdoor-activities/boots/carrauntoohil/ is the big thing in Kerry at the minute, where they are trying to sell the area in and surrounding the mountains to tourists. While at the same time, another group in the area is saying they want to reduce erosion by managing numbers.

Right.

"Another group in the area"...for clarification, that's the people who own the Reeks. Along with reps from local groups, guides and sports bodies, the local authority etc.

The Reeks District is simply a marketing group for the entire area, not just the range, and they do not own the land. These seem to be popular now. You have Ireland's Ancient East telling everyone to come to everywhere east of the Shannon. But again, in upland areas, they don't purport to ignore the landowners.

unkel

Who are the people who own the Reeks? Is land ownership stored in a database somewhere that the public can access (on line)?

unkel

unkel wrote: »

Who are the people who own the Reeks? Is land ownership stored in a database somewhere that the public can access (on line)?

The area around Carrauntoohil summit is owned by various farmers and afaik also owned in commonage between some of them, including the Doona family in Glencar, a couple of Sheehans, an O'Shea and an Dwyer man, and to the north and around to Beenkeeragh, a large position by the Hotel Europe (which was something to the Liebherrs).

The rest of the Reeks, and the Hags Glen, are owned by various other families around Beaufort and Glencar. Pretty sure they are listed in Jim Ryan's book on the Reeks, and afaik they include the Cronins of the famous café and changing rooms, and possibly the Moriartys from the Gap of Dunloe.

The Reeks Access Forum is them, plus representatives of other groups with a stake in the area.

You can access the land ownership info here...

https://www.prai.ie/

The background to the Forum is here...

https://www.macgillycuddyreekskerry.com/background