Hi All.
I have received 22 emails on this subject since it was raised on 2nd June based on this figure alone there seems to be no strong feeling for a change.
Of the 22 emails 12 were in favour of the Status Quo and 10 were in favour of a change to P100. However some of these emails were follow ups from the same individuals.
There were 8 individuals in favour of the status quo and only 5 for a change to P100.
Several good arguments have been put forward both for and against a change. Most people are aware of them but for clarity I will repeat the main points below.
1 A change to P100 would increase the number and variety of hills.
I agree that this is the case but question why we need more hills when no activator has completed those we have at the moment.
2 A change to P100 would enable people who live in the south more access to the program.
Again I agree with this and it would most certainly benefit me. I can present no hard evidence here but I suspect us “Southern Softies” would soon get fed up with activating bumps and lay byes.
However overall I think this is 1 point in favour of P100
3 A change to P100 would increase access for those of a lesser ability.
Very difficult to argue against this as it would introduce more “easy” summits. However disabled access to the SOTA programme is 100% achievable as a chaser and therefore the programme is already all inclusive.
4 A change to P100 would reduce fuel costs for activators and be more “Green”
I do not believe that this will be the case. Many activators will travel further and burn more fuel to activate the new unique. Those that continue to activate locally may well be tempted to activate several smaller summits and thereby use up more fuel. I am sure that for some the costs will reduce, but I think there would be an overall increase in the carbon footprint.
5 A change to P100 would increase the level of trespass and bring SOTA into disrepute.
I am almost certain that this would be the case. We all know that there have been activations carried out from private property and it is suspected that permission was not obtained on all occasions.
Reducing the prominence level will result in more hills on private property and will most likely result in conflict with landowners.
Perhaps the most compelling point is that of viability. The idea of P100 is to assist where more hills are required to allow for a viable association. The English association is perfectly viable as it stands and the levels of activation remain high. I therefore stand by the old adage of “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it”
Conclusion.
There has been no new evidence in favour of a change. The number of people looking for change remains relatively small.
Therefore there is no need for change.
73,
James M0ZZO