Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
I have a response from the chair of the Cornish Ancient Sites Protection Network (CASPN) regarding this issue
CASPN: CASPN has visited the site twice in the last week and has confirmed that one stone in particular is loose and now leaning rather badly. As we understand it, English Heritage representatives visited the site yesterday (Tuesday) to assess the situation. We do not yet know the result of their visit, or what steps they intend to take, but their representative has in the past argued that the stones in the circle are in very shallow soil and with a spell of dry weather they do get loose anyway.
AB: If the stones are in very shallow soil I wouldn't have thought allowing the additional risk from cattle was a good idea?
CASPN: Agreed, CASPN made this point when we were originally consulted about the Scheme.
AB: I don't know if you saw this stone in Scotland that fell in January following the severe weather and has had to be excavated and re erected. (I'm not sure who ended up paying for it but I'm sure taxpayers contributed...)
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/tayside/225279-prehistoric-standing-stone-falls-over/
CASPN: Yes I saw it. Same thing happens here too. For example Gun Rith standing stone fell over a few years ago because of weathering, and was re-erected. It's usually English Heritage or Historic Scotland who pays for these things - which as you say is ultimately the taxpayer.
AB: It has been suggested that CASPN is too close to Natural England to be prepared to put pressure on them. What's your response to that?
CASPN: We would refute this unfounded accusation absolutely. We have representatives from a number of bodies - 'official' and 'alternative' on our Management Committee, but Natural England is not one of those. I don't even know who the Natural England officer is in West Penwith.
CASPN is not a pressure organisation - in fact our Constitution prevents us from being so, We are a voluntary Trust, who attempt to look after the sites to the best of our ability. We get out there and get our hands dirty, by organising Clear-ups and monitoring the sites. I've no doubt that Save Penwith Moors would like us to be a pressure group like them, but the simple fact is that we are not, and have a different remit and purpose entirely.
AB: What CASPN's position on the public access to the stones and moor? I am inclined to agree with the suggestion that the cattle's presence is putting people off.
CASPN: We believe that wherever possible people should have complete and open access to ancient sites, especially those on moorland. We do not know whether the cattle's presence puts people off or not. No doubt it does in some cases, but in others it is probably not an issue. This is all heresay. There was some correspondence in our local paper The Cornishman about it, during which some people said it discouraged them, while others said it did not. Personally I do not find it a problem - I like cows! - but I don't believe that cattle and ancient sites go together very well.
Many thanks to Cheryl Straffon, who wants me to point out she is speaking as chair of CASPN and not in a personal capacity.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road