LAKE District National Park Officer Paul Tiplady is to be commended for his bluntness and honesty, at least, in defending the proposal to scrap the authority's events programme, including the free guided walks, and instead target the urban youth, ethnic minorities and disabled visitors.

As a centrally-funded organisation it would have been easy for Mr Tiplady to respond to the avalanche of criticism by blaming faceless bureaucrats and Government imposed targets, allied to funding shackles.

But no, Mr Tiplady instead decided to say that the rethink was being proposed as it was the right thing to do and was something of which to be proud.

He didn't exactly repeat the words of his press officer who stirred up a hornets' nest in the national press by saying the Park only attracted the white, middle class and middle-aged. But he made it clear that he agreed with the sentiments.

His argument is that the events programme, including the walks, only attracts 4,500 people a year, out of the 12 million plus visitors. At a cost of £83,000 for the programme, or £40,000 for the walks, that amounted to £8.30 per walker.

That doesn't seem to be good use of public money when urban youth, the disabled and ethnic minorities were demonstrably absent from the mix, he says.

The trouble with this analysis is that it is simplistic. The thinking behind how to go about addressing the perceived problem has been muddle-headed. And to make matters worse the execution has been ham-fisted.

As a result the reputation of the Lake District will have been besmirched in certain circles of influence; the heat generated by the angry reaction will put off some of the very people Mr Tiplady wants to attract; and people who pour into the Lake District every year will have been alienated.

The sadness is that it could all have been avoided.

The walks and other events are obviously popular with a significant minority of people, as illustrated by the scale of the reaction.

A guided walk lead by an impassioned volunteer seems an ideal way to enjoy the fells. Some of the other events are innovative, educational and fun. So why on earth scrap them?

Surely a better solution would have been to maintain these excellent services and focus the marketing of them at the people that were seen to be absent.

The authority has already done a lot of work resurfacing and sign-posting walks appropriate for the disabled, elderly and pram-pushers. Asians, who include Japanese and Chinese, already come in their droves. And as for the urban young, even parents and those who live cheek by jowl with them in our cities have difficulties motivating them. Despite the best efforts of the likes of the splendid Duke of Edinburgh scheme and the scout and guide movements, the idea of a healthy outdoor experience appeals to an increasingly middle-class elite.

So instead of a dramatic scrapping of the events programme, the Authority should concentrate on fine-tuning it to appeal to each of these very different customers, including their present ones. At the same time the volunteers should be consulted, asked how they think a change in audience could be achieved and generally brought into the equation. When these plans are in place, the targeted marketing campaign could begin.

At least the furore has given the authority pause for thought, which it was right to take advantage of. When it next meets on the subject, it has promised to do so with the press and public present. That is a belated, but necessary, improvement.

Having been brave enough to order a rethink, it should now be big enough to admit it has mishandled this potentially very sensitive issue, and work out a detailed, step by step, approach to achieving its aims, without putting off those who have taken most advantage of the Park for the fifty years of its existence.