The news from the North Lakes Forests
in Cumbria is disturbing as it seems to be following a growing and worrying trend
which is also affecting Scottish forests with access for motor rallying use
being denied. Many reasons are being cited for this from harvesting to damage
caused by rally cars, wildlife protection and nesting birds, beaver
introduction and deer management, various fauna and plantlife disturbance and
of course the oft claimed carbon reduction schemes and excuses.Whereas in the past, car clubs dealt with local forest area managers
(and built up good relationships), much of that decision making is now being controlled
centrally, and if the ‘high heid yin’ says ‘naw’ then we’re scuppered.
However, one can understand the antagonism to rallying. Road
(and ditch!) damage is costly to repair and if rallying is such a minority
sport then criticism and complaints are more easily refuted. Not only that,
when rallying comes to the local woodland, local folks and visitors are denied
access to certain roads.
However, the forestry companies are partly to blame for the
road damage. According to an experienced FC engineer current roads are not built
to the same standard as they were 40 years ago. Neither are they maintained to the
same standard, or as often as needed. Of course this is partly due to the fact
that other timber extraction methods are now being used so roads don’t need to
be built to such high standards. In some cases, roads aren’t needed at all as
timber is being dragged out on cable crane systems.
Cost saving is another reason and coupled with advances in rally
car improved traction, grip and tyre technology roads are being damaged rather
more severely especially in braking areas, acceleration zones and sharp
corners. So if a forestry area doesn’t want its roads chewed up, simple, ban
the cars and create an excuse.
For instance one Local Forestry Manager has been heard
saying that he would like to ban all rallying from March to October to protect
the raptors – and we’re not talking Jurassic Park here, just eagles, hawks,
owls and suchlike, i.e. birds which like to kill and feed on other wildlife in
the forests. And this is yet another example of what rallying is up against. As
the fifth largest landowner in the UK the Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds carries a lot of clout with politicians at both local and national level.
As such, the bird-watching community is a very powerful lobbying force able to generate
a lot of public support for their activities and interests.
There are of course many other vested interests including walkers,
dog walkers, hikers, cyclists, anglers, wildlife and bird watchers, naturalists
and botanists, all keen to pursue their own interests, and of course general tourists.
This is what we are up against, but it should be pointed out
to the Forestry companies that they are merely the managers of a publicly owned
resource. They are responsible to the tax payer – that’s us! And since their
remit is to allow public access to all – that also includes us. Rallying should
not be edged out of the forest simply to appease the majority. There has to be
room to accommodate all sporting pursuits and general interests.
And who should be pointing this out to Forestry management and
the Government? The sport’s governing body? Once upon a time the Royal Automobile
Club Motor Sports Association regarded themselves purely as governors and regulators,
not promotors and publicists and the sport has suffered from its low public profile
ever since.
Admittedly the new-look MotorSport UK is making change, but
not enough and not soon enough, although dealing with the Civil Service and
politicians does take time, determination and perseverance. The trouble is
forest rallying is running out of time, in fact some pundits reckon we’ll all
be out of the forests by 2030.
We need to ‘tell’ rather than ‘request’ the forestry
companies to permit access for rallying and that’s down to car club folk and competitors
badgering their club committees to persuade the regional associations to encourage
MS UK to pursue the fight at Forestry HO, Sports Council and Government level.
These people have to be reminded that the forests are a ‘public’
resource and all members of the public should be treated equally.
To deny vehicle access for rallying is quite wrong. The Forestry
management companies already have to provide vehicular access for their own
staff, contractors, farmers and agricultural equipment, Water Board and power
company employees and equipment, medical and rescue services, and in some cases
Royal Mail, parcel delivery firms and other contractors.
For our part we would need to look at the sport of rallying
itself to do its bit. Already rallies are being asked to engage in
carbon-offsetting schemes, but do we also need to look at power outputs, lower octane
fuels, 4WD versus 2WD, less aggressive tyres? That might also lead to reduced
costs for competitive equipment as well as reduced damage to roads.
Not popular perhaps, but what’s the alternative? Closed
public roads? That opens up a whole other can of worms and associated costs – and
it is most certainly not a cheaper form of rallying.
Anyone got a PlayStation I could have?