I was up there the other month and looking for somewhere to wild camp away from people but on the road up along the river and through the gorge there's signs saying no camping. As far as my non-lawyer mind reads in the access rights, they're not allowed to do that unless they use the land for something commercial (such as a camp site themselves)? The access rights specifically require land owners NOT to put up such signs. So what is it that they do there that prevents public camping?

Local bylaws can IIRC mean no camping in specific areas. It can also be that such areas have been overused in the past meaning that it is not "Responsible" to camp in these areas. The signs could be meaningless however.

Given the amount of use that that area gets and that there is a campsite on the road I don't think it would be reasonable to camp there. although the consensus seems to be that roadside camping is allowed under the access code my own view is that only in remote areas – not within a mile or two of a campsite and not in highly used beauty spots.

Perhaps this is another area that requires a court case to settle the legalities.

SET AN EXAMPLE

Minimum Impact Camping
…………………..
* Develop your own skills in finding a discreet place to camp rather than resorting to popular congregational spots that tend to be overused.

ROADSIDE CAMPING

* Although camping beside a road is not normally considered wild camping, it does take place and is lawful.
* Whenever practicable use an official campsite with sanitation facilities. [Wild Camping, a guide to good practice]
…………………………….
* Avoid sites that are at risk of being overused. Congregational roadside camping can cause significant problems.

From

http://www.mountaineering-scotland.org.uk/leaflets/wildcamp.html

Coffeeeking – for your lawyer mind there is a reasonableness test for the access rights – they are not absolute rights but qualified by the need to be reasonable in the legal sense.

If you don't want to pay to use the 'proper' campsite i'd say it was entirely resonable to camp there.

Ewan – even given that the MCofS guidence specifically states :

Whenever practicable use an official campsite with sanitation facilities

?

Its another grey area in the access code IMO. Its new law and will take years to iron out all these marginal areas.

I was simply looking for somewhere quiet and away from the crowds, preferably not visible from the road, and in a 1.6kg dark green trekking tent. Had no intention of digging latrines or setting bonfires etc, just wanted a quiet place to kip but didn't want to ruffle anyones feathers. I noticed people were camping up in the gorge near the wire-rope bridge, which was much more populated.

I dont much like paying £15 a night to camp 3ft from someone else, or fight to sleep due to a bunch of morons with their car stereo on. I do, however, see the point about groups camping next to the road causing problems.

The whole glen is national trust,and they sell fishing rights to the river,would that be an example of commercial interest? Plenty people still wild camp mind. Before the new car park the place used to be a right mess, mind you, with 200,000 visitors a year it still is.

No absolute answers for you coffeeking. apply your lawyers mind to that link to the advice from the MCofS and then decide remembering its not just your impact but the impact that would be if others did the same thing

It looked pretty empty and camper-free when I was there at Easter (the time in question) Rights to the river surely dont include all the land to the sides of the river either? I'm not sure how the fishing rights thing works, as you have the right to use lochs etc as you like (responsibly)?

From the rangers I've spoken to, I can turn up at any loch and lob on a canoe/kitesurf kit and go (providing I dont cause damage or interfere with fishermen already there). I'm confused.

I'm wholely for the idea of leaving no trace etc, I always ensure that's the case, but if I now have to consider what others might do if they join me…..?

I would guess as it is national trust land it is covered under a bylaw for no camping. Only a guess tho.

coffeeking – Member

I'm confused.

Oh dear – qualified rights and "reasonableness" a bit difficult for you? All you can do is read the code and try to stay within it I guess. Easter – arrive and pitch late and be away early – should be OK I guess. Mid summer and camp for 3 days – not reasonable. My opinion only.

Oh dear – qualified rights and "reasonableness" a bit difficult for you?

Your definition of reasonable and the next persons will be totally different. I'm not a lawyer but this is my point really, and why it's a tad confusing. No need to be childishly patronising.

I've read a few case studies (written from the land owners perspective) and they seem to be saying things such as "camping is legal but we leave no camping signs up to dissuade people coming bay car and leaving a tent for several days" and "we leave signs for no fires" despite it being legal. So it sort of seems like everyone is saying "we'll cope with it so long as it doesnt get silly" – which is fair enough, but if my definition of minimal disturbance differs from someone elses, which is distinctly possible. I'd consider a single tent, or a couple of tents camping near a car for a couple of days and leaving no mess to be quite reasonable. I'd expect the 10 following tents coming along to think "there's a lot of tents there already, we'll go somewhere else".

Sorry coffeeking – meant to be funny not patronising or childish. The limitations of communicating by text.

You are absolutely right that its all open to interpretation and can thus be confusing. Stopping to think about what you are doing and keeping within the code is the right way to go about it. You views broadly seem to agge with mine and both the spirit and letter of the law and the code.

My own opinion is that it it probably not reasonable to camp in the glen alongside the road except perhaps out of season and arriving late and leaving early – not leaving a tent there all day.

I'm obviously feeling sensitive today! 😆 OK, well I suppose that clears a few things up and does ultimately mean I have to rely on my own sense of right and wrong when making the choice of location. I suppose that's what it's all about really!

Referring to the fishing thing, I was just saying it's a tad odd that (practically) all fishing is privately owned and therefore not part of the access rights, but I suppose most of the lochs will have been privately stocked and maintained for many years before the access code came along so it makes sense.

Put up late, pack up early and leave no trace. Stop worrying. 🙂

Not being argumentive here (i'm actually interested), but what legal weight would be put upon MCofS opinion of what is resonable or not? Isn't it just a random charity that happens to have an opinion on the subject (it's code of conduct)?

It could be that the signs on the road are to deter folks from parking in passing places and camping next to the vehicle ( iirc the road is narrow ).

Further up the gorge it could be for safety reasons, plenty of loose stuff falls from the hills at times, including unlucky ( ? ) walkers,
as I understand it once through the gorge and into the more open meadow for want of a better word it's OK , go deep into the meadow on the left there is an old ruin which makes a secluded wild camp area as most folks follow the river on the right past the wire bridge and waterfall

Ewan – IIRC ( and I ain't 100% sure) The MCofS code is the definition of what is reasonable. they were one of the interested parties to the discussions and representing the majority of countryside users and I think they were asked to come up with the code which was then debated in the access forums. so following the code that was agreed with all other interested parties keeps you on the right side of the law. Not legally binding but guidence that was agreed with all other parties.

I spent much of my school summer holidays camping and bivvying up Glen Nevis (which was a while ago now, but…) and as far as I know most of land in the Glen is owned by the same family who own the campsite, caravan site, cabins and farm in the glen. I think he might have a vested interest in preventing or trying to prevent camping.

If you're out of sight of the road go for it. We used to pitch directly under the flaky old 'No Camping' sign at Poldubh, just above the Lower Falls. About halfway between the lower and upper falls ('lower' being the falls under the road bridge and the 'upper' being the big slab falls) there is a layby and foot bridge where you could park, cross the bridge and camp well out of sight of passers by. There's also a cave up there you could bivvy in; Samuel or Somairlaid's cave.

Enjoy! and think of me getting pished on diamond white, snogging boys and going climbing in bare feet. 🙂 Happy days!!

🙂 Thats cleared all that up then, I'll just use common sense! 🙂

And of course I'll think of you jo 🙂 I'll even get some photos in case you wish to remenisce, though I can't guarantee any boys for you 🙂

Personally, I think the Access Code should have included some "absolute" guidance – e.g. no camping with 1km of a public road. At the moment, you have places like Glen Etive which are rapidly becoming one large cess pit.

Glen etive has been like that for years – not been there for a few years myself but we had some great parties there in the 90s. Hundreds of folk camping along the glen then and a turd under every rock along with greassfires from campfires

Glen etive has been like that for years – not been there for a few years myself but we had some great parties there in the 90s. Hundreds of folk camping along the glen then and a turd under every rock along with grassfires from campfires

Yes TJ – but I'd rather not see the same scenes repeated at every small glen in Scotland

I agree with Druidh that that 1km from a road would have been a good condition to have. thats what I always used pre the act.