South-West England Stone Henge: Access question

[sturisoma]

you could try Avebury stones they are free, touchable and just as impressive imo.

yep

 

[Mark twiglet]

I've touched and hugged the stones before on solstice! Been 5 out of the last 7 years! I love the music /drums and jugglers there! It's brilliant and FREE!

 

[Mark twiglet]

View attachment 35109

This is at kennet long barrows

View attachment 35110

And this was taken In Avebury at 1am in the cold

 

[Harriers9]

Walk through the visitor centre. Go out through the gate by the road.

Walk about 1/4 mile up the road then take a left across the fields through all the barrows etc that they don't tell you about. After about a mile you'll see the stones across a small valley. Walk over to the fence that surrounds the stones and take pictures.

No one will stop you.

These are untouched examples:

And this is a titivated one (no crit please. It was just an exercise)

 

[Mark twiglet]

Walk through the visitor centre. Go out through the gate by the road.

Walk about 1/4 mile up the road then take a left across the fields through all the barrows etc that they don't tell you about. After about a mile you'll see the stones across a small valley. Walk over to the fence that surrounds the stones and take pictures.

No one will stop you.

These are untouched examples:

And this is a titivated one (no crit please. It was just an exercise)

Where's that ????

 

[Harriers9]

The road that the visitor buses use. You are not obliged to use them and can walk there if you want.

If you walk you'll see the public footpath signed. Just follow that and it goes straight to the stones.

 

[Mark twiglet]

Ah yeah I know where you mean

 

[swanseamale47]

No, honestly, I read that thanks. I'm amazed you're asking that's all.

Simple really, leave stones free and unrestricted at all times and watch them slowly ruined willfully and accidentally or charge a fee and restrict access and preserve them for generations?

Yet other free access stone circles don't seem to suffer any big problems. If they want to stop damage a simple ranger or warden at the site would do the job, you don't need miles of fencing and a £40 charge for that. And worse whats to stop the vandals paying the £40 and then damaging the stones.......

 

[Rich_Ellis]

Yet other free access stone circles don't seem to suffer any big problems. If they want to stop damage a simple ranger or warden at the site would do the job, you don't need miles of fencing and a £40 charge for that. And worse whats to stop the vandals paying the £40 and then damaging the stones.......

I wonder why didnt they think of that? Odd huh? And so simple too...!

 

[big soft moose]

Ok, again...

Firstly, I've not challenged the 'look with your eyes, not your hands' side of things, only the fee - you've seemed to have added that part to justify your pro ticket price stance. I've asked you to explain how charging a family £40 to SEE the stones "puts yobs off damaging them" during the solstices... HOW??? If there is a no-touch policy, what difference does the entrance fee price make? - By your logic a £40 family ticket should have the same yob-repelling effect as a £20 family ticket, a donation or a bucket of unicorn horns... it doesn't matter if it's still a 'no touch' policy... yobs will still have access to the Stones at the solstices anyway!
As for your comments about beer and cigarettes, I don't see the point of the comparison? - A child cannot buy beer or 'fags' but they're being charged £8.70. I would imagine most of us here on this site are reasonably well-off in order to be spending money on expensive cameras and lenses, but I know there are families out there who would struggle to find £40. Or are these yob families? So what happens here then... do poor people not get to see the Stones and miss out?

Stone Henge is owned by the state - there is no reason why 'protection' shouldn't be arranged and paid for like anything else state-owned. Personally I think a 5000 year old part of human history should be free for all to see - it can still be protected, it can still be maintained and you can still have your little rope around them; but by having a £40 ticket price - regardless of whether we think it's a deal or not - WILL be too much for some families and kids will be missing out. That isn't right in my book.

a few points

a) there isnt free access to the stones for yobs at any time, even during the Soltice celebrations, its very carefully managed
b) managing the stones and the visitor centre costs money - EH need to raise that money somehow entrance for non members (and membership fees for members) is one such route, anyone who thinks managing a site like that is easy has never done it
c) Where else can you take a family for £40 - a lot of attractions are a lot more.
d) with the possible exception of Avebury most other stone circles don't get the same visitor pressure (Avebury is NT and while the stone circle is techically free non members have to pay for parking (parking in the village is both limited and discouraged) so you are looking at £7 for parking, plus if you want to go in the museum a family ticket is £12.35 )

 

[Sam B]

a few points

a) there isnt free access to the stones for yobs at any time, even during the Soltice celebrations, its very carefully managed
b) managing the stones and the visitor centre costs money - EH need to raise that money somehow entrance for non members (and membership fees for members) is one such route, anyone who thinks managing a site like that is easy has never done it
c) Where else can you take a family for £40 - a lot of attractions are a lot more.
d) with the possible exception of Avebury most other stone circles don't get the same visitor pressure (Avebury is NT and while the stone circle is techically free non members have to pay for parking (parking in the village is both limited and discouraged) so you are looking at £7 for parking, plus if you want to go in the museum a family ticket is £12.35 )

Hi,

To answer your points in the same alphabetical type way:

a) In the Youtube videos I've watched, there appears to be swarms of people right up against the stones under the cover of dark/noise and - according to another member of the forum - this is where they're 'damaged' and 'graffitied'. That said, if the stones are as carefully managed as you say (By the looks of it they appear to be security guards who manage the Stones... I would imagine the police presence is only to prevent a breach of the peace and/or deter drug use?), then I'm sure a solitary, near-to-retirement silver-fox of security guard would suffice on any one of the other 363 days of the year.

b) The Stones are state owned; I (we) pay for the upkeep of everything else state owned with our taxes. Why not Stone Henge? I didn't ask for a visitors centre. I didn't ask for a shop in which to buy overpriced keyrings and t-shirts and I didn't ask for rows and rows of fencing - They seem to be adding stuff to justify the ticket price when, in reality, I think some shiny penny came up with the idea of charging people - largely tourists - to look at part of OUR landscape. Furthermore, It's funny how much larger sites, grounds and visitor centres exist which are completely free from any charge; they're obviously a lot less popular than Stone Henge but they seem to stay afloat?

c) This is irrelevant. I explained in detail what my issues were with regard to charging people to LOOK at 5000 year old lumps of human history.

d) Again, I can't see how this is relevant? - You're trying to link the free-to-access Avebury Stones to Stone Henge by saying one may find it easier to park in the Pay & Display car park than in the village (therefore £7) and, once they've finished hugging rocks and taking pictures, they *might* fancy a trip to the museum and therefore ramp their bill up to a total of £19.35... of course this is still half the price of Stone Henge, but said £19.35 is 'optional' - they don't have to spend a penny if they can't afford/don't want to. Obviously you can't do that with Stone Henge as they've made sure that if you want to see them, you have to pay 'the man'.

I understand the ancient and not-so-busy road has since been dug up under request of English Heritage? - I'm guessing the footpath has gone too? It's a shame (for some) as it looked like one could get some fairly decent reasonably-unobstructed views of the Stones from there. Apparently it was to 'reclaim the landscape' (although I read that they believe this pathway would have existed before the stones) but I'm wondering whether it was because people weren't paying for the photons their eyes were receiving.



Regards, Sam

 

[big soft moose]

Hi,

To answer your points in the same alphabetical type way:

a) In the Youtube videos I've watched, there appears to be swarms of people right up against the stones under the cover of dark/noise and - according to another member of the forum - this is where they're 'damaged' and 'graffitied'. That said, if the stones are as carefully managed as you say (By the looks of it they appear to be security guards who manage the Stones... I would imagine the police presence is only to prevent a breach of the peace and/or deter drug use?), then I'm sure a solitary, near-to-retirement silver-fox of security guard would suffice on any one of the other 363 days of the year.

b) The Stones are state owned; I (we) pay for the upkeep of everything else state owned with our taxes. Why not Stone Henge? I didn't ask for a visitors centre. I didn't ask for a shop in which to buy overpriced keyrings and t-shirts and I didn't ask for rows and rows of fencing - They seem to be adding stuff to justify the ticket price when, in reality, I think some shiny penny came up with the idea of charging people - largely tourists - to look at part of OUR landscape. Furthermore, It's funny how much larger sites, grounds and visitor centres exist which are completely free from any charge; they're obviously a lot less popular than Stone Henge but they seem to stay afloat?

c) This is irrelevant. I explained in detail what my issues were with regard to charging people to LOOK at 5000 year old lumps of human history.

d) Again, I can't see how this is relevant? - You're trying to link the free-to-access Avebury Stones to Stone Henge by saying one may find it easier to park in the Pay & Display car park than in the village (therefore £7) and, once they've finished hugging rocks and taking pictures, they *might* fancy a trip to the museum and therefore ramp their bill up to a total of £19.35... of course this is still half the price of Stone Henge, but said £19.35 is 'optional' - they don't have to spend a penny if they can't afford/don't want to. Obviously you can't do that with Stone Henge as they've made sure that if you want to see them, you have to pay 'the man'.

I understand the ancient and not-so-busy road has since been dug up under request of English Heritage? - I'm guessing the footpath has gone too? It's a shame (for some) as it looked like one could get some fairly decent reasonably-unobstructed views of the Stones from there. Apparently it was to 'reclaim the landscape' (although I read that they believe this pathway would have existed before the stones) but I'm wondering whether it was because people weren't paying for the photons their eyes were receiving.



Regards, Sam

a) soltice is a big pain in the arse for all concerned - and you do get 'invasions' (theres a big tension between druids who claim religious rights to exclusive access, and new age types who claim they should be allowed unfettered access too) - there will be a huge staff presence and police presence both to try and prevent damage and to try and prevent punch ups. It is whhere damage is most likely, but to say access is unfettered is incorrect

b) EH is now a charitable trust - you can thank the coalition for that piece of inspired policy - it is not state funded , even when it was a QUANGO state funding was a joke (the wider landscape arround the stones is owned by the NT and also not state funded (btw the road that has been dug under was an A road , and did not predate the stones)

c) you arent being charged to look ( Ive seen them 100s of times without paying - generally from the A303) - you are being charged to visit - also you were arguing that poor people were being excluded because they couldnt afford the £40 ticket, so my point that many other family days out also cost that much is highly relevant. Management of this site costs thouands every year (mostly due to visitor pressure) - given that the govt have cut the funding from public coffers how exactly are they supposed to fund this other than by charging

d) Avebury and other stone circles - the key point here is the comparrison of visitor numbers - Avebury, Castle Rigg, Brodgah etc get only a fraction of the numbers who visit Stone Henge , which is why management of them is able to be a lot lower key and thus cost less meaning that access is cheap or free - if say Avebury got 1.3M visitors per year (rather than the circa 350,000 they currently get ) they would have to vastly expand their visitor infrastructure and would thus have to charge more in order to pay for this

 

[Sam B]

a) soltice is a big pain in the arse for all concerned - and you do get 'invasions' (theres a big tension between druids who claim religious rights to exclusive access, and new age types who claim they should be allowed unfettered access too) - there will be a huge staff presence and police presence both to try and prevent damage and to try and prevent punch ups. It is whhere damage is most likely, but to say access is unfettered is incorrect

b) EH is now a charitable trust - you can thank the coalition for that piece of inspired policy - it is not state funded , even when it was a QUANGO state funding was a joke (the wider landscape arround the stones is owned by the NT and also not state funded (btw the road that has been dug under was an A road , and did not predate the stones)

c) you arent being charged to look ( Ive seen them 100s of times without paying - generally from the A303) - you are being charged to visit - also you were arguing that poor people were being excluded because they couldnt afford the £40 ticket, so my point that many other family days out also cost that much is highly relevant. Management of this site costs thouands every year (mostly due to visitor pressure) - given that the govt have cut the funding from public coffers how exactly are they supposed to fund this other than by charging

d) Avebury and other stone circles - the key point here is the comparrison of visitor numbers - Avebury, Castle Rigg, Brodgah etc get only a fraction of the numbers who visit Stone Henge , which is why management of them is able to be a lot lower key and thus cost less meaning that access is cheap or free - if say Avebury got 1.3M visitors per year (rather than the circa 350,000 they currently get ) they would have to vastly expand their visitor infrastructure and would thus have to charge more in order to pay for this

Again, to reply in a similar format...

a) As I said, all the Youtube videos I've watched show people of all faiths enjoying themselves in and amongst the Stones; banging drums and shaking their dirty unwashed dreadlocks about the place. Each to their own but in my opinion I see nothing wrong with that. Similarly, I have no issue with those who profess to be Druids and, in my opinion, they should be allowed complete and unrestricted access if that's some kind of place of worship to them - I'm sure Druids and the New Age 'types' have a greater respect for the site than most regular people anyway. Although it pains me to cite a tabloid, According to The Mirror, there were only 25 arrests made (mostly for drugs) out of an attendance of 37,000 people at S.S. last year - I'd say that's a pretty well-behaved crowd although I'm sure the NIMBY crowd would disagree.

I haven't heard of any Druid vs. New Age 'tension' - The only problem I've heard of is of Druids having an issue with EH displaying exhumed human remains and/or (urns of?) human ashes from in and around the site in their Visitors Centre - From what I understand, the Druids are all for archeologists digging, recording, studying and taking photographs of human remains, but once they're done the Druids feel they should be reburied. I'm not a Druid but that seems a reasonable enough request to me.

From one of the videos I've seen there are rows upon rows of burger vans and hotdog stands at the Summer Solstice - all vending polystyrene cups, paper napkins and aluminium cans... I would imagine that makes up a good 90% of the litter left on the site. I'm guessing those catering are being charged for their pitch? Where does the money go to?

b) Regardless of by whom or how English Heritage are funded, the Stones are owned by the State. My point is that the Stones should be managed and protected - if deemed necessary - by the State and funded in the same way as any other state property.

Yes, I'm aware the road dug up was an A road but it wasn't as busy as the A road on the opposite side and it also seemed to have a nice footpath running alongside it. The London Road in Coventry is an A-road although once upon a time it was a dust track... it's status as an A-road means nothing with regards to its age. From what I have read (and from what I remember seeing on that BBC (?) documentary), those studying Stonehenge believe the road by the Headstone (is that what it's called?) likely predates the construction of the Stones... I'm not a history buff but that makes sense to me; foot traffic to the site before and since its construction would have carved the most natural path to and from. Either way, EH has managed to get it dug up... I'm guessing public access to that side of the Stones has gone along with the pavement?

c) Okay, so to see the stones from anywhere other than a speeding vehicle. From my understanding, there is no footpath, no where to pull up and your view is somewhat obstructed by fences, the lay of the land and the Visitors Centre? The busy A303 doesn't seem a great place to take your kids and explain to them what they're looking at.
'Visit'... 'look' - Whatever you like to call it... you're being charged to 'visit' the stones then in order to look at them and, in many of our cases, take decent photographs of them. In my opinion, it's wrong to be charging people a non-negotiable fee to look at the stones.... and I say 'look' as I feel that's a more accurate description of what you're able to do once you've opened your wallet.

So yes, comparing a look-but-not-touch visit to a 5000yr piece of our shared history to another £40 'day out' is irrelevant.... Alton Towers? The Sea Life Centre? Go Ape? Even Avebury Stones, in their essence, are free to access.

Maybe if English Heritage didn't spend 27m on a visitor's centre' (Very, very poor reviews on this all over the internet I hasten to add) then the site wouldn't cost so much to 'manage'. In today's money, that could pay for an SIA accredited skull-crushing security guard to stand there 24/7 for the next 1588 years. Your argument seems to be chicken/egg with how much the site costs to manage... ditch the visitor's centre (which appears to be an epic fail) and rows upon rows of fencing and see their overheads drop. Scared that they will get damaged? Hire a security guard. Why would the Government, or Government-backed body want to manage and pay for something when there is a private company willing to do it for them? If Stonehenge is such a pain for E.H. to 'keep' - give it back.

d) If that was your key point then yes, I'm aware that Stonehenge has more visitors than Avebury. However, you mentioned how much it would cost a family if they were to park their car in the P&D and visit the nearby museum... how is any of that relevant to what we're talking about? I'm sure if some bright spark came up with the idea of blowing 27m on a Avebury Stones visitors centre their 'management costs' would go up too.

So, can you tell me where all the money from the approximate 1 million paying tourists who visit Stonehenge each year, the mark up from all the overpriced tat their gift shop sells, the car park charges, the cut from the refreshment vendors and all the charity money goes to each year? - It certainly isn't on maintaining 5000yr old lumps of rock... so what is it then? The feeding of their white elephant?

Sam

 

[Sam B]

I've touched and hugged the stones before on solstice! Been 5 out of the last 7 years! I love the music /drums and jugglers there! It's brilliant and FREE!

I'm planning to go there this June for my first ever Solstice. It sounds a great atmosphere and has been on my bucket list for a while

 

[big soft moose]

I really cant be arsed with rebutting every point - but suffice to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about - for example the visitor centre (which was mostly paid for by grant money was put in as a response to the visitor numbers , not because its the cause of them. )

If you ditch the fencing, paths etc the costs of management go up not down - also if you think a security guard can stop damage by thousands of visitors per day then you are living in a dream world most of the damage caused by that level of visitation is inadvertent, its not vandals hacking off lumps of stone (although i'm sure that would happen occasionally), its the simple wear and tear of 1.3M people per year climbing on them and eroding the ground (and thus the archeaology ) arround them ... this is why people are kept out of the circle and on paths in less archeologically sensitive areas

and the money from the 1.3M visitors (which doesnt equate to 1.3MX40 because many visitors are members) goes on maintaining the site, the paths, the fences, the arceheological research, staff salaries etc - the only way to not have those costs would be to just close it to the public entirely , and you'd still have to find the money to pay for the archaeology etc

 

[Sam B]

I really cant be arsed with rebutting every point - but suffice to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about - for example the visitor centre (which was mostly paid for by grant money was put in as a response to the visitor numbers , not because its the cause of them. )

I very much doubt you could if you tried; you've attempted so far and failed.

'...put in as a response' or put at their request? - I ask because every review I've read has been negative and/or has stated it was no where near worth the admission cost.

If you ditch the fencing, paths etc the costs of management go up not down - also if you think a security guard can stop damage by thousands of visitors per day then you are living in a dream world most of the damage caused by that level of visitation is inadvertent, its not vandals hacking off lumps of stone (although i'm sure that would happen occasionally), its the simple wear and tear of 1.3M people per year climbing on them and eroding the ground (and thus the archeaology ) arround them ... this is why people are kept out of the circle and on paths in less archeologically sensitive areas

I'm afraid you're the one living in a dream world as a static guard is sufficient enough to stop people hacking lumps of rock of and graffitiing. Besides which, why would members of the public be touching the stones anyway? - Throughout this discussion I said you can keep your little rope fence around the stones, you just need to charge a family £40 to go up to it. Furthermore, may I remind you that the Stones have been exposed in situ to wind, rain, snow and ice for 5000 years... I'm sure the odd hippy hugging one wouldn't do any damage. At no point did I advocate people climbing over them anyway... I'm sure a security guard and a little rope fence will keep the tourists at bay.

the money from the 1.3M visitors (which doesnt equate to 1.3MX40 because many visitors are members) goes on maintaining the site, the paths, the fences, the arceheological research, staff salaries etc - the only way to not have those costs would be to just close it to the public entirely , and you'd still have to find the money to pay for the archaeology etc

1. Where did I say it would equate to 1.3m x 40?

2. Unless they're employing cowboys or have staff members who eat gravel, then I fail to see how touch-ups to the paths cost any where close to the figures we're talking about.

3. Again, you're justifying the cost by their unnecessary overhead costs... hire a security guard or two and ditch the sweeper-uppers, gift shop workers, ushers, H&S officer, first aider, handymen and anyone associated with the visitor's centre, turnstyles or ticket office.

4. Archeological research is most always funded by universities. Look it up.

 

[big soft moose]

I'm afraid you're the one living in a dream world as a static guard is sufficient enough to stop people hacking lumps of rock of and graffitiing. Besides which, why would members of the public be touching the stones anyway? - Throughout this discussion I said you can keep your little rope fence around the stones, you just need to charge a family £40 to go up to it. Furthermore, may I remind you that the Stones have been exposed in situ to wind, rain, snow and ice for 5000 years... I'm sure the odd hippy hugging one wouldn't do any damage. At no point did I advocate people climbing over them anyway... I'm sure a security guard and a little rope fence will keep the tourists at bay.
.

This demonstrates what i was talking about - you have no idea what the issues are is managing a site like this ( I'm a ranger team leader with the National Trust , so I do - opinions expressed are my own yadda yadda )

The basic issue isnt people hacking off lumps of rock or writing 'boz woz here' on them - the issue is the sheer traffic of 1.3M people per year walking arround the stones and climbing on them - causing errosion both of the stone itself and more pertinently of the ground arround them which will cause untold damage to the under ground archealogy associated with the site.

The "they've stood there for 5000 years" argument is invalid as at no time in those 5000 years were they subject to this level of visitor pressure (also by the turn of the 19thto 20th century the stones were an unstable and unsafe ruin)

EH sum up the issues here https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/education/conservation-research.pdf

Also in sheer practical terms you arent talking about 1 security guard anyway - if you did go down the stewarding route you'd be looking at a team of people (1 guy can't possibly control 5000 plus people on a busy day - while he's talking to visitor 1 what are all the rest doing... no offence, but only someone who's never tried to control a crowd of visitors would think something so naive ) which then raises the question of how you fund those employees salaries if you arent charging for admission

And if you remove all the visitor infrastructure for cost reasons, where do the 1.3 million visitors park , where do they go to the toilet , what happens to the litter they bring with them (and don't say 'they take it home, because they won't) and so forth. If you remove the signage and paths from the car park to the stones how do you stop them wandering all over the wider landscape causing further erosion vs archaelogy problems.

And on the point of costs for path maintenance, how much do you think it costs to maintain a hard surface path in a condition thats suitable for high level visitation ? - I can tell you now that its not just a case of throwing down some gravel and hoping for the best

 

[Steve]

I can recall going to Stonehenge in the early 1980s or maybe late 1970s being able to go right up to the stones and touching them.

Its a shame they have to be behind ropes...but as usual its the minority ruining if for the majority.

I doubt EH would go to such lengths in preventing access if they didn't believe there was a real danger or issue to maintaining these so that they can still be enjoyed in 5000 years time. And I bet they wish they could keep people away on the solstice too if they could.

Another way to get free and unfettered access to Stonehenge is to become the President of the USA, but might be easier to pay the £40. http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/sep/05/barack-obama-stonehenge-meets-british-family-twitter

 

[big soft moose]

According to that link i posted above access to the stones was first restricted in 1978 - at that point the centre of the circle was grassed (it was previously gravel) and the surfaced path provided to limit erosion

 

[Nod]

I vaguely remember getting a clip round the ear'ole in the late '60s for climbing onto (or trying to!) one of the fallen stones. Lots of other people were already doing it so I thought it was OK. I was only 5 or 6 at the time so didn't know any better.

 

[LC2]

@Sam B, When I was a kid I went to Stonehenge and scrambled over them (like @Nod I probably shouldn't but didn't know and everyone was doing it).This was well before the battle of the beanfield, so the stones probably had a curator there, but nothing like the security it has now, but also, nothing like the exposure / popularity.

You know what, they had been vandalised, I seem to recall spray paint, and Wayne 4 Tracy types of "inscription" on the stones, so if this is what is needed to preserve them for future generations, then is it really so bad?

Your point "Regardless of by whom or how English Heritage are funded, the Stones are owned by the State. My point is that the Stones should be managed and protected - if deemed necessary - by the State and funded in the same way as any other state property." actually supports charging for access. You can't access the majority of NT / EH sites without paying. Try rocking up to "say" Corfe Castle and demanding free access because you're a 'tax payer' and see how far that gets you.

Oh, and they've not been "safe" for the past 5000 years. There are thought to be 67 missing stones, which I expect make up (parts of) quite a few of the older buildings in the area.

If £37.70 (10% of the price of your D5300) for access to the site is too steep for you (or you're too tight!!!), then photography may not be the hobby for you. Cue the posts of "Why is [insert pro quality lens of choice] so expensive, it should come free with my expensive camera"

 

[Sam B]

@Sam B, When I was a kid I went to Stonehenge and scrambled over them (like @Nod I probably shouldn't but didn't know and everyone was doing it).This was well before the battle of the beanfield, so the stones probably had a curator there, but nothing like the security it has now, but also, nothing like the exposure / popularity.

You know what, they had been vandalised, I seem to recall spray paint, and Wayne 4 Tracy types of "inscription" on the stones, so if this is what is needed to preserve them for future generations, then is it really so bad?

Your point "Regardless of by whom or how English Heritage are funded, the Stones are owned by the State. My point is that the Stones should be managed and protected - if deemed necessary - by the State and funded in the same way as any other state property." actually supports charging for access. You can't access the majority of NT / EH sites without paying. Try rocking up to "say" Corfe Castle and demanding free access because you're a 'tax payer' and see how far that gets you.

Oh, and they've not been "safe" for the past 5000 years. There are thought to be 67 missing stones, which I expect make up (parts of) quite a few of the older buildings in the area.

If £37.70 (10% of the price of your D5300) for access to the site is too steep for you (or you're too tight!!!), then photography may not be the hobby for you. Cue the posts of "Why is [insert pro quality lens of choice] so expensive, it should come free with my expensive camera"

Firstly, you used quotation marks for 'safe' - where did I say the stones had been 'safe' for the last 5000 years? - I was referring to their exposure to the elements. I believe the Victorian 'keepers' of the Stones actually encouraged people to chisel off buts as souvenirs.

Secondly, go back and read through my posts - you'll see that at no point am I having a moan about spending money myself!! My point was there WILL be families out there who are priced-out of seeing the Stones. That's wrong. Your example of camera prices is meaningless.

Lastly, have a little rope fence and a security guard or two... I very much doubt you'll see vandalism or damage.They can ask for donations, they can keep their charity money and they - if they must - can continue to sell tourist merchandise... they don't need to have £1.7mil visitors centre (which has very poor reviews) or to be pricing poor families out of their heritage by charging £40/family to prevent people climbing all over the Stones.

 

[Sam B]

This demonstrates what i was talking about - you have no idea what the issues are is managing a site like this ( I'm a ranger team leader with the National Trust , so I do - opinions expressed are my own yadda yadda )

A 'Ranger Team Leader'? - wow, that sounds impressive! - To be honest, I was getting the impression that you were either a precious over-protective local or someone on the EH (or NT in your case) payroll. Maybe both. Either way, that doesn't mean I am clueless or that your argument carries more weight; particularly as I've noticed you tend to ignore parts of my posts and/or simply repeat something.

The basic issue isnt people hacking off lumps of rock or writing 'boz woz here' on them - the issue is the sheer traffic of 1.3M people per year walking arround the stones and climbing on them - causing errosion both of the stone itself and more pertinently of the ground arround them which will cause untold damage to the under ground archealogy associated with the site.

Have a read back through my posts... you can keep your little rope fence and have a security guard or two. You keep mentioning about people climbing on the stones... why?

"they've stood there for 5000 years" argument is invalid as at no time in those 5000 years were they subject to this level of visitor pressure (also by the turn of the 19thto 20th century the stones were an unstable and unsafe ruin)

Nope, it was in regard to their exposure to the elements; you can keep people at a safe distance with a fence and a guard to stop people climbing on them. [/QUOTE]

in sheer practical terms you arent talking about 1 security guard anyway - if you did go down the stewarding route you'd be looking at a team of people (1 guy can't possibly control 5000 plus people on a busy day - while he's talking to visitor 1 what are all the rest doing... no offence, but only someone who's never tried to control a crowd of visitors would think something so naive ) which then raises the question of how you fund those employees salaries if you arent charging for admission

1 Guard, 10 guards. Whatever. I can't see said guards being tricked or rushed by hundreds on militant hippies.

Bold: You have no idea!

Guards can be state funded, charity (of which EH gets a lot), LA funded or from the proceeds of donations or a heavily-reduced ticket price. Easy.

if you remove all the visitor infrastructure for cost reasons, where do the 1.3 million visitors park , where do they go to the toilet , what happens to the litter they bring with them (and don't say 'they take it home, because they won't) and so forth. If you remove the signage and paths from the car park to the stones how do you stop them wandering all over the wider landscape causing further erosion vs archaelogy problems.

1.3 million people don't all visit the place at the same time but parking can be P&D... self-funding. Shuttle bus. Rickshaws. Who cares? - people will find a way.

Toilets... there's not a legal requirement for toilets everywhere. I went to Rollright Stones the other week and there were no toilets there... so what? - Or does that not count as I wasn't an individual from a 1.3m visitor group each year?... Do people only need the toilet at Stonehenge? - I'm sure people will cope.

As for the litter, who says they won't take it back? - I'm not talking Solstices here. Mount Snowdon has 360k people who summit it a year without a litter-picker in sight! But again, maybe EH can pay litter-pickers through their other sources of income; they are also a profit-making company after all.

on the point of costs for path maintenance, how much do you think it costs to maintain a hard surface path in a condition thats suitable for high level visitation ? - I can tell you now that its not just a case of throwing down some gravel and hoping for the best

You tell me but I don't think you know yourself - I certainly don't think it's anywhere near their annual turnover and charitable income from the site. I didn't say anything about 'hoping for the best' - you can maintain paths without it costing the earth.

 

[big soft moose]

1 Guard, 10 guards. Whatever. I can't see said guards being tricked or rushed by hundreds on militant hippies.

so say 10 guards on minimum wage - thats £140k per year plus on costs - where does that money come from ?

State funder - erm, nope - havent you heard of austerity
Charity - yeah lots of charities giving £140k per year for regular costs (actually no - name one)
LA - see state funded

Toilets... there's not a legal requirement for toilets everywhere. I went to Rollright Stones the other week and there were no toilets there... so what? - Or does that not count as I wasn't an individual from a 1.3m visitor group each year?... Do people only need the toilet at Stonehenge? - I'm sure people will cope.

when theres only a few people they probably p*** in the bushes or on the stones - 1.3M people doing that will cause a health hazard

As for the litter, who says they won't take it back? - I'm not talking Solstices here. Mount Snowdon has 360k people who summit it a year without a litter-picker in sight! But again, maybe EH can pay litter-pickers through their other sources of income; they are also a profit-making company after all.

I'm speaking from experience- also have you seen the ammount of crap on the snowdon summit. Also EH arent a profit making company - its a charity these days (and not state funded either)

From the snowdon society site " the volumes of litter can be massive with over thirty bin bags being filled on a walk down the Llanberis path"

http://www.snowdonia-society.org.uk/news.php?n_id=443

You tell me but I don't think you know yourself - I certainly don't think it's anywhere near their annual turnover and charitable income from the site. I didn't say anything about 'hoping for the best' - you can maintain paths without it costing the earth.

Depends how its constructed - a Km of 60mm thick bound bitumen over 150mm Granular type 1 costs about £35k to build and circa £1k pa to maintain , a softer surface like 20mm to dust over 40mm over hard core laid with a vibrating roller costs about 8k per km to build intially but will require regular maintenance costing between 2-4k per year depending on how much rain you have ( in 2012 I spent 14k maitaining a 1.5km disabled access path that kept getting washed out by flash floods)

Its not close to their anual income from the site now - but under your management regime there wouldnt be any income from the site

Anyway i'm tired of the pointless argument now - you are entitled to your opinion of course , but as far as i can tell its not based on any tangible experience in countryside or heritage management, so excuse me if i don't give it much credence