Stanage edge remains the heart blood and veins of gritstone landscape to the ambience if climbers and viators alike.
keep the fight going. Spencer Ramsey.

If it wasn't for Stanage Edge, we could never have shot these lovely images. let's fight to save this place: https://vimeo.com/27299184

I'm a climber, and I love Stanage, and I have also done some shooting in the past. Everyone knows how busy Stanage can be on a summer bank holiday weekend, with people crawling all over every inch of rock, and parking on every available centimetre of roadside space. On a day like that, by no stretch of the imagination could Stanage be described as a 'wild area kept free from intrusive developments'!

I'm wondering why there's a statement in the petition saying that Shooting rights should not be exercised? I haven't been able to find a map showing the boundary of North Lees, but if it extends into the vast area of open moorland behind the crag, and provided that suitable signage is available and any shooting activity takes place at least half a mile from the crag, why should climbing and shooting not take place without any conflict? Given the way that climbers monopolise and trash the crag, and given the amazing, unrecognised conservation work undertaken by the shooting community for many years to maintain the moors in the state that we all enjoy today, what gives the BMC the right to say that shooters' activities are unacceptable?

Simple solution: keep Stanage open access but install pay and display car parks where the free parking areas currently are. I'd pay a few extra quid for a day at Stanage. Who wouldn't?

We can see that the National Park Authority has said in it's press release: "The Authority's audit, resources and performance committee voted unanimously (on Sept 20) to keep the 545-hectare estate above Hathersage, and to drive forward a business plan to make it break even financially by September 2014.

The Authority has been reviewing all its properties in the light of Government cuts of more than 30 per cent in its budget between 2011-2015, and has previously leased its Eastern Moors estate to a partnership of the National Trust and RSPB and the Roaches to the Staffordshire Wildlife Trust.

Such a partnership option was considered but discounted in this case". (http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/news/current-news/national-park-authority-to-keep-stanage-and-north-lees-estate).

What does 'make it break-even' mean? And only one year to do so? it's recent Committee report on which the press release is based states: "It is concluded that with a more financially aware approach being taken to the management of the existing assets on the Estate, an additional income of £ 35,000 per annum can be generated by 2014/15. It is considered that this can be achieved without ’compromising’ the objectives of the Estate set out in the North Lees Estate Management Plan. This will bring the Estate into a healthy cost neutral position which will allow some ‘slack’ should the
challenging new financial target for the campsite not be fully achieved in a poor weather year".

So, with a business plan in place, why would one vote for 12 months before considering other options? Either the business plan is not actually robust, or this is a delaying tactic. Also, it is noted that there may be some challenges (eg. the weather) but would one normally rely on an 'average' of one year in a business before making a decision about continuing to trade, or inject further investment? Why only one year? Surely at least three would be appropriate? Note that the report also stated: "In conclusion, by more fully utilising the existing assets on the Estate and the possibility of the changes described in the Part B report, it is considered that the Estate could fully recover all its costs within the next 2 years".

The future of the Estate remains uncertain and short-term thinking and decision making would seem to indicate a very different long-term vision for this important, iconic landscape. The Authority said that 'a partnership was considered but discounted at this stage' - but it seems that this is exactly where it is heading - especially if there's a spot of bad weather in the period of the 1-year business plan.

Is this what we were expecting? What next - 'pay (insert here: a charity, or private company) to view'?