http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-16657527

Bad precedent…or good comprimise?

I know it is water, but easily transferred to land…

I imagine they are putting the blue woad on as we type 😉

or it’s a compromise between two incompatible commercial activities

The “thin end of the wedge” was the banning of wild camping on Lomondside. While I don’t disagree with the sentiments of either restriction, I worry about the precedents they are setting.

Indeed – having been involved in a couple of the issues, it worries me.

Seems a sensible compromise to me.

Not surprising really. I was on a stag do in Aviemore and went canyoning on a river near Loch Laggan. Apart from our group of 12 or so, there were another two outdoor activity companies with minibuses on the canyon too. The damage to the canyon was terrible, the paths along the side had widened massively and were knee deep mud in some places. Young trees had been pulled out everywhere and rocks had been dislodged. I keep meaning to report it to SNH, open access is good on one hand but the local impacts can be serious.

I am concerned too, as there is no distinction between inland water and land in the legislation. The SCA pushed hard to ensure that this was the case.

I don’t think the ban covers private groups.

Sounds like a fairly simple local solution to a local issue. No inference that this is something that might spread to more rivers…unless it needs to of course.

druidh – Member

The “thin end of the wedge” was the banning of wild camping on Lomondside. While I don’t disagree with the sentiments of either restriction, I worry about the precedents they are setting.
Given the mess the schemies left behind, I have no problem with a ban at that location.

Surely this is more about sharing access rather than reducing it as a whole. It would be interesting to see the economics behind the decision.

It would be interesting to see the economics behind the decision.

Well, whilst salmon angling brings in a LOT of money to the rural Scottish economy, I think it largely goes to a very few people, though not just the wealthy landowners, ghillies and food suppliers, tackle shops etc will be supported to some extent. I imagine the money going into outdoor activity companies spreads out more evenly across all levels of the local economy though. Would be interesting to see a non-biased economic analysis of it.

Given the mess the schemies left behind, I have no problem with a ban at that location.

All that it’s done has moved them further North, meaning Loch Lubnaig among other places gets them instead…

… until it’s banned there, whereupon it’ll be Loch Voil etc etc etc.

And if the existing law had been enforced, there would have been no need for a local bylaw.

bogjim – been having that thought. We had a neighbour object to our group walking a track on a forest edge in October as it was upsetting his stalk that was ‘worth £300 a day’. I pointed out that the group there had paid the same to be there (added together) – it was quite a shock to him. And that we had six more groups out, 24 people employed on FT contracts etc, to his one ghillie and himself on a daily contract job.
The real confuzzlement / obscuring of all this comes as much from the environmental cost – e.g. over eroded paths from bikers and walkers vs the changes that the fishermen often cause etc..

And if the existing law had been enforced, there would have been no need for a local bylaw.

Absolutely. The police have no resources and no back up – would you take on 10, 20 even 30 beered up lads, in the middle of nowhere with iffy radio and phone reception, help 20 miles away and control who reckon that the 20 heading out the pub in Stirling are more important than the 20 with beer and chainsaws up on Loch Tay?
They NEED to enforce law strictly and clearly.

The age old lairds vs plebs battle still continues! I don’t think it’ll ever end sadly. My old man gets Trout & Salmon magazine and the anti-canoe letters are always frustrating to read, but I know the canoe side have been equally pig headed about the whole thing too.

Its about respect really, I wouldn’t intentionally walk through a stalking area when they are stalking, but I would expect my presence to be accepted the rest of the time for example. Salmon anglers and canoeists should hammer out some kind of agreement but they are both so pig-headed about it at the moment I doubt it’ll happen. outdoor adventure companies should manage their access and its impacts accordingly too, otherwise that too will have to be managed by an external party.

My old man gets Trout & Salmon magazine and the anti-canoe letters are always frustrating to read, but I know the canoe side have been equally pig headed about the whole thing too.

If you’re referring to paddlers in England and Wales, then the only pig headedness is in standing up for what we believe to be our right to equal access to rivers (in the same way they have in Scotland – and indeed every other country in the world apart from Iraq) in the face of threats, intimidation and sometimes vandalism. I and most paddlers agree that we should be considerate towards anglers and keep out of their way wherever possible. There are clearly plenty of anglers also happy to share, but their major organisations all have a policy of not allowing us on “their” rivers. We’d be more than happy to agree to share the rivers, it’s their intransigence and insistence on exclusivity which is the problem.

I did this stretch of the Tay last year in my packraft. I was slightly surprised by the number of large rafts going down the river.

Does open access mean open access to everyone, all the time? Even commercial operations?

It not unreasonable to expect they dont do it during the salmon spawing season.

I have biked around there and its a great place but i didnt find myself riding in the Tay so its not really going to affect bikers is it.

Anything that could help stop the smug ‘we can ride anywhere’ retorts from those North of the Wall has to be a good thing! 😀

I think the Scottish access model is fantastic, but I do wonder if it would work if the population densities were similar (to England).

“The UK population is very unevenly distributed. 84 per cent of
the population live in England, 9 per cent in Scotland, 5 per cent in
Wales, and 3 per cent in Northern Ireland.”

“Overall, the UK population lives at an average of
257 people/km2, or around half a hectare per person, but this
masks considerable spatial differences. The highest densities are
in London (4726/km2), but this high figure is explained partly by
the regional boundary that includes almost exclusively built-up
land. The lowest densities are in Scotland (65/km2), but even here
the figures range from 8 persons/km2 in the Highland region to
3309 in Glasgow (see Figs. 1–3 below)”

See: http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/bispartners/foresight/docs/land-use/jlup/10_space_per_person_in_the_uk_-_a_review_of_densities_trends_experiences.pdf

In a nutshell they’ve experimented with rats (*react similarly to humans apparently), really simple, lots of space, few rats – happy rats, limited space – lots of rats – fighting rats

So I guess if the population of Scotlnd ramps up then there’ll be more problems.

IME. Riding on stalking ground, I just found out where the owners lived, knocked and asked, they were really helpful – we’re here today so could you stay that side – yep, sorted.

I’d suggest there are a few rafting companies who have misinterpreted “responsible access”. If you are directly interfering with the livelihood of the landowner/manager you are not being responsible. Doesn’t really seem any different to marching across stalking land in the middle of the season, or scaring the crap out of a bunch of ewes in lambing season. The disappointing thing is it has taken the court to “find a compromise”. The LRA permits people (e.g. guides, instructors etc) to operate commercial activities on the land using their rights – that must particularly grate for land owners/managers: someone else is making profit from that facility that you own and maintain. There must be a moral, in not a legal, obligation on such users to not only protect the “land” but also to work with the land manager to “put something back”.

I agree however that Loch Lomond was far more the thin end of the wedge – and was totally unnecessary the “problems” were already criminal and road traffic offences (drunk and disorderly, criminal damage, illegal or dangerous parking, littering) etc. A ban on “open” fires would have achieved much towards the same end without penalising the legitimate user; likewise if you believe alchohol is a major factor than ban its consumption out of doors (and ensure that includes within a tent) in the area. What’s more most of the people who were allegedly committing said offences probably had no right of access within the LRA anyway having driven to the sites (the right to wild camp is ancillary to the right to access by non motorised means – so camping at the roadside when you drove there is not prima facie a protected right). I don’t understand how it is so much easier to enforce a “no camping” law against a group of drunks with a chainsaw than it would a criminal damage offence. What’s more the “mitigation” against the loss of this right was that the NPA will provide some designated “approved” campsites with basic facilities etc – would it not have been better to provide those facilities and see if the problem moved? I expressed those views to the NPA during its “consultation” but I think it is quite clear the decision had already been made.

I thought roadside camping was a protected right – the MCofS seem to think so

I personally would have liked the camping rights to have been a certain distance from a road

http://www.mcofs.org.uk/assets/pdfs/wildcamping.pdf

As TJ says, all it needed was a simple (must be at least 500m from a public road) and the Loch Lomond problem would have been fixed without recourse to additional bylaws. That would have put a stop to many landowners thinking they can come up with some excuse to stop legitimate backpackers.

It not unreasonable to expect they dont do it during the salmon spawing season.

In actual fact, this new ruling allows them open access every day during the spawning season, as that’s when they’re not fishing! Paddling during the spawning season is only an issue if you’re passing over shallow spawning beds where you might disturb the gravel – not something which is likely to happen on the bit of the Tay in question – I don’t think there are any spawning beds there (they tend to be much higher up the rivers).

If you’re referring to paddlers in England and Wales, then the only pig headedness is in standing up for what we believe to be our right to equal access to rivers (in the same way they have in Scotland – and indeed every other country in the world apart from Iraq) in the face of threats, intimidation and sometimes vandalism

Not referring to england/wales, the subject is Scottish access. The scottish paddlers boycotted negotiations with the anglers I believe? It was on the news a while back, can’t remember names of any groups or anythink.