UKC

This fascinating, lyrical biography of an unsung heroine of countryside conservation hits the shelves at a time when monumental national decisions on land use and planning are once again high on the agenda. As we stride into the future, there are lessons we should preserve from the past, says Dan Bailey. Ethel Haythornthwaite would surely have agreed. 

Read more

Thanks Dan - great review of what sounds like a very interesting book. I’d never heard of Ethel; looking forward to changing that now.

I have a copy of 'Protecting the beautiful frame' , published in 2001, in which Ethel features heavily. Well worth a read. I must complement it with this latest book. 

john Gresty

Maybe not quite on topic, but isn't that a great photo, Nick Brown's "The enlightening view from Higgar Tor"

I would like to read this book, an interesting topic and though I've never read anything by Helen I'm aware of her great reputation as a writer and poet.

However, is there any mention of contemporary renewable energy developments in Helen's book, or is that shoe horned in by the reviewer? I can't imagine a good biographer would do that.

Hi Mike,

It's a great book, you should definitely give it a go.

I think 'shoehorned' sounds negative, maybe that's your impression.

No, there's little mention of the wider contemporary world in Ethel. But I was very struck by the historical parallels. We're in a time it seems of immense change in planning policy (in England at least - Wales and Scotland already have more development-oriented regimes). This may alter how the countryside looks and feels in a more radical way than at any time since Ethel and her generation helped establish NPs and planning as we know it. Hers and ours are arguably inflection points. 

We have a choice as we go forward, in terms of how and where we build. The key message I took from the book is that, as we address climate change (and we must), we ought to do so in a nuanced and holistic way, taking into account humans in the landscape as well as the other huge concerns. I fear the things Ethel and others fought hard for over decades, the landscape/cultural/outdoor heritage that we all now benefit from, are in danger of getting shouted down or simply bulldozed. That would be to everyone's long term detriment. 

As I said in the review, the publication of Ethel is really timely. I think it brings something very humane and considered to a conversation that's too often seen in black and white terms.

I will, thanks to UKH for bringing it to my attention.

I wouldn't have used that phrase had it not followed last weeks opinion piece... it was the combination of the two that did irritate me more than it should (I'll admit that).

The book has obviously resonated strongly with you regarding renewables in the Highlands. It's your review, of course you are entitled to say so, but I think it is laboured and the other thread (or another?) would have been an appropriate place to make clear your involvement in the issue.

We need to be honest about the impact climate change and ongoing dependence on fossils fuels with have on future generations...... those other concerns are indeed 'huge'. I do feel it's far too late for nuance, we need to be clear about what we are prepared to do, or not do, including in our own lifestyles.

Personally, I can't equate wind turbines and pylons in rural areas to urbanisation of those areas. Much of the outdoors I enjoy is within view of pylons and roads and the odd cement factory. It's still great to be away from the real urbanisation I've always lived in. Having said that I do think it's important to have some push back to these development, some checks and balances, but it will be about how those changes occur rather than if.

Edit: Not my dislike Dan, I appreciate your response on this and the other thread.

Thanks for the review, Dan. Coincidentally I've just got back from a visit with friends who live in the Peak and are 'Ethel' bagging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ethels so we did a few.

I'll let them know about the book!

Thanks for that, I thought I knew the history of nature conservation in the UK fairly well but must admit I've either never heard of, or have completely forgotten, Ethel Haythornthwaite and her role.

In your review you wrote

"Ethel's generation of environmentalists spoke a great deal in terms of aesthetics; ours is a more nuanced ecological conception in which beauty doesn't always get a prime mention"

which raises the issue of protecting nature (or biodiversity in today's terminology) versus protecting landscapes. In the past, & I suspect today, its often different groups argueing for each although they are clearly closely related and not all earlier environmentalists based their arguements on beauty or access to the countryside. The 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act which allowed for the creation of National Parks (although only in England & Wales) also created the former Nature Conservancy who were responsible for the first series of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) - the pressure for this came from scientists, in particular  a committee of the British Ecological Society led by Arthur Tansley (also arguably the first to use the term 'ecosystem'). To some extent this was self interest as they wanted to preserve areas for scientific study but I suspect that for most this was a minor argument.

in other words, not in my background, or playground.  Where?

Where we live we've got a number of windfarms in our back yard, we're already a huge net energy exporter, and we have loads more on the cards. Most of us in this part of the NE highlands are happy to accommodate development, but willingness to host very much depends on where and how they are sited, how big they are, and the overall cumulative impact.

These things can be done well, but only if communities and interest groups are involved from the outset, big business is not allowed a free rein, and the planning system is suitably robust (that is debatable, here).

Similar conversations are going to start happening all over England now the planning regime is changing south of the border. As far as I'm concerned this is a good thing, it's really about time England started generating more of its own wind power. But it is not going to be without tradeoffs and sacrifices. The extent to which these are a result of diktat or collaboration is going to be key to how smoothly it all goes, I would say.    

You have complained on the Scottish PSH thread that a book review on UKC/UKH seems to be heavily skewed towards the reviewers own concerns on renewable energy - I assume you mean this one.  It seems more appropriate to reply to it here rather than on the other thread.

A review is an opinion piece. Of course the reviewer's own concerns are relevant, and it helps rather than hinders the reader when they are made clear. Often I prefer to read a review which disagrees with the book's author, or subject, rather than one which is gushingly favourable. 

It seems reasonable to me that the reviewer should consider the subject's approach to conservation, which had a strong aesthetic element, in a modern context. You obviously disagree - fair enough, that is the nature of opinion. However I have difficulty with this statement of yours on the other thread:

You appear to want to see only opinion pieces which which you agree.  This is a complex subject and there are no easy answers. This is a discussion forum, and it allows alternative opinions to be posted in response. There is your "broader discussion with the users".

As I've said I understand why Dan would mention it.... but I do think he over eggs the pudding to the point where it detracts from the subject material. 

Dan acknowledges that we must do something about climate change, but there doesn't seem to be much passion there. His passion seems to be for maintaining the Highland landscape in its current state. There will be people, including mountaineers, who have that the other way round.... especially when you consider the effect climate change will have on mountain landscapes globally. I think it is overly presumptive to assume what historical figures would have thought of todays issues.... it's an impossible exercise, people are products of the era they live in.

Absolutely not. Within a week we had an opinion piece which I don't think was well argued (I'll reply on the other thread), and without the balance we have rightly had before..... then we had a book review which as I say was heavily skewed to the same issue from the same point of view. I did not seem at all balanced, I admit it I got more irritated than I should, partly down to the lack of discussion but it seems that was more to do with Dan and Jane being on holiday, fair enough.

You can't expect balance from an opinion piece. By definition, an opinion is a position the author has arrived at, hopefully by weighing up the evidence. By all means disagree with that position, and challenge the facts if you think they've been misrepresented, misinterpreted, or are plain wrong. An "opinion" which sits on the fence is no opinion at all.

You seem to be irritated that two quite separate articles have been published which both contain opinions on the same topic which you disagree with. That's understandable, but I suspect that's coincidence rather than editorial policy. Even the BBC only attempts to achieve a broad balance over time and doesn't try to see all views expressed in a single programme. If you want to see an alternative point of view you could always submit an article yourself.

A counter argument can be provide, for example

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/grouse_moors_-_benign_tradi...

I've already admitted I got more irritated than I should. I've questioned editorial policy and got a reasonable and civil response from someone just back off there hols, I've got no beef!