Landward tonight on BBC Scotland at 19:30. Dougie goes looking for illegal trails.
Is he going to England?
Is it legal to dig, build etc. anywhere - seems strange if it is
No you can't just build trails where you like. Common misconception. Will be interesting to see if the program has got it right or if it's cringe time. Good to raise the issue though, some problems around Dunkeld at the moment with conflict with mtbers turning historic little footpaths on private land into teh rad trailz apparently.
Is it legal to dig, build etc. anywhere – seems strange if it is
Strange that it's illegal to build your own trails, without permission?
Not really, someone owns the land, you need permission first.
Can get into the rights and wrongs of landownership, but I suspect that's a deviation of the thread! (Or perhaps where the thread should go! 😆 )
Must have written it a little less clearly than I thought it 😉 It was a response to the OP's slight snugness about there being no illegal trails in Scotland
No you can’t just build trails where you like. Common misconception. Will be interesting to see if the program has got it right or if it’s cringe time. Good to raise the issue though, some problems around Dunkeld at the moment with conflict with mtbers turning historic little footpaths on private land into teh rad trailz apparently.
Are you sure? I was out the other night with Adam and Doug who built pretty much everything round Dunkeld recently. We were having a discussion about new trails etc and they say that the landowner has not authorised new trails yet but talks are ongoing. That's Birnam hill BTW. The FC are in charge of Craigvinean and there are plans afoot to take control of the upkeep of the trails there from them. As far as i was led to believe there is no more conflict there than anywhere else. All pretty respectful on both sides with a lot of work going on to secure more land / trails.
the shows on about unofficial stuff at glentress btw.
Started good, went bad as it seemed to suggest anything that wasn't a trail centre was 'wrong'...
Sounded like a gentle request from the FC for trail builders to talk to them rather than just crack on. On the face of it that sounds reasonable.
I'll continue to dig in my local unnatural, monocultured, otherwise dead hillside. Meh.
Here's our take on it - https://tweedvalleytrails.org/news/2018/4/23/tvtas-response-to-landward-a-rider-led-solution-to-wild-trails
Linky no workey
Ta for fixing link, i've not come to terms with the actual website upgrade that was so eagerly awaited in 1999...;-)
Decent response. I guess ultimately you need to prove the tourism claim with numbers, funding if you did? I dunno, worth a go?
Losing the trail network would be a huge blow to the Tweed Valley – it brings tourism, recreation, opportunity, and encourages an active community
I knew that one cut into the Fort scheduled monument would cause problems! I thought Historic Scotland were going to freak.
I thought the MTB ranger and dmbins were very good.
@mactheknife yeah apparently some issue on atholl estate land to the north of the town, I've never been and it's second hand info but an old popular little footpath has had some work done on it to turn it into a mtb trail kind of situation and it's riled locals it seems, I know no more.
Genuine question. Is every foot path on a hill/Munro sanctioned? They may be now but I'm assuming at first they weren't officially built by the landowner?
What do you mean by sanctioned?
every foot path on a hill/Munro sanctioned? They may be now but I’m assuming at first they weren’t officially built by the landowner?
You should check out the Scottish Outdoor Access Code for the full story but in very basic terms you can ride wherever you like in Scotland (path or no path) so long as you are not invading people's privacy or interfering with them doing their jobs. A most enlightened piece of legislation.
Big difference between riding across ground in accordance with the spirit of the Access Code and building a trail with berms, features, steps and drops though....
<div class="bbp-reply-author">
BoardinBob
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Genuine question. Is every foot path on a hill/Munro sanctioned? They may be now but I’m assuming at first they weren’t officially built by the landowner?
</div>
Munro/hillpaths will have come about in a number of ways. Ancient drovers roads, military roads, stalkers paths and estate tracks all provide access to the hills but were never really aimed at getting to the top of them. Of course, deer stalking and the like also created a network of tracks which were often upgraded and maintained, but not for the purposes of public recreation.
Now, there are various landowners (public and private) building and maintaining paths and tracks for recreational use bit these are often subject to tight planning regulations - particularly for things like windfarms, hydro schemes, hunting, shooting etc. but all are done by or with the permission of the landowner.
Big difference between riding across ground in accordance with the spirit of the Access Code and building a trail with berms, features, steps and drops though….
Absolutely. Didn't see the program, did they make that clear?
Decent response. I guess ultimately you need to prove the tourism claim with numbers, funding if you did?
Well, I know that anecdotes aren't data, but: I went up to Glentress/Innerleithen for the first time ever last month, drawn pretty much entirely by the reputation the place has for having shedloads of interesting off-piste stuff. We had a great time the two days we stayed (spending money on food and accommodation midweek in the off-season fwiw). I was amazed by just how much quality stuff there is to ride up there, and will definitely be back to ride it again. The officially sanctioned trailcentre stuff that we used to link things up seemed ok, but I'd not drive the eight hour round trip just for that.
We also didn't encounter a single mardy walker anywhere on the trails, it was bloody lovely... 😉
Going off the OP's original point slightly but relevant nonetheless
"Now, there are various landowners (public and private) building and maintaining paths and tracks for recreational use bit these are often subject to tight planning regulations – particularly for things like windfarms, hydro schemes, hunting, shooting etc. but all are done by or with the permission of the landowner."
Really? Hydro and Windfarms maybe just. But otherwise I'd say not...
The environmental impact of the thousands of miles of LRT's bashed across our moors and Glens - without planning permission - in the name of "farming" and "estate management" utterly eclipse any cheeky trailbuilding within FC land and elsewhere. And the FC's management of many of our forests seemingly cannot be questioned.
Not defending what these guys were doing across a sensitive historic site.
You should check out the Scottish Outdoor Access Code for the full story but in very basic terms you can ride wherever you like in Scotland (path or no path) so long as you are not invading people’s privacy or interfering with them doing their jobs. A most enlightened piece of legislation.
You mean -
You should check out the Scottish Outdoor Access Code for the full story but in very basic terms you can ride responsibly wherever you like in Scotland (path or no path) so long as you are not invading people’s privacy or interfering with them doing their jobs. A most enlightened piece of legislation.
Theblackmount x 1000!
The big problem with any trail, is it becomes the landowners responsibility.
If somebody builds a trail on your land that's poorly built, and you are aware of it, should somebody get injured as a result of the poor design/construction, then you are potentially liable, unless you can prove either you weren't aware of it, or had taken reasonable precautions to minimise risk. Things like mountainbike trails exiting onto/crossing existing footpaths are a huge liability, but far too often the people building illegally don't think about the risks, then get upset when the landowner destroys the trail.
And an often missed part of the SOAC (Scottish Outdoor Access Code), is universal access does not apply to custom built trails. If somebody was to build a new designated footpath, you're not legally allowed to ride a bike (or a horse) on that foot path, just the same as walkers wouldn't be able to walk on a custom built mountainbike trail.
When you actually read the SOAC, there are quite a lot of exceptions, with the other big exception being anywhere that's been designated as a sporting venue. A prime example would be if the Innerleithen chairlift had proceeded, the planning permission would have included everything north of the SUW being designated a sporting venue with the only exception being existing ROWs. The SOAC would not apply to quite a large area, and if you did ride the area without paying for access, it would be no different from going into your local gym without paying.
You should check out the Scottish Outdoor Access Code for the full story but in very basic terms you can ride wherever you like in Scotland
Almost but the key term is responsible access and as stated above a lot of sensible exceptions. Including leaving when the land manager requests.
The guys up at the mast in Inverness have done a great thing in meeting with the landowner and actually paying a rent for the rights to build trails there. The agreement means that everyone who is a member of the mast trails association (for £10 a year) is insured under the trail organisation's liability and not the landowners. This appears to have been his main objection to building trails there and I can understand why if he is unable to apply any risk assessments or input into their construction to the trails, yet is felt to be liable under law for any injuries resulting from their use. This could be a great model for future trail-building as it protects landowners and allows for proper organised community trail-building.
Blackmount is spot on.
I think it just highlights the need for partnerships going forward like TWTA dialogue with relevant parties.
We have had a lot of activity lately with minimal 'backlash' and the 2 official bodies represented were very fair I thought so let's embrace the move forward .
The recent combined efforts on Gold Run Lower at Innerleithen (Officially sanctioned) show just what can be achieved
You should check out the Scottish Outdoor Access Code for the full story but in very basic terms you can ride wherever you like in Scotland
Almost but the key term is responsible access and as stated above a lot of sensible exceptions. Including leaving when the land manager requests.
There is guidance in the code to suggest that you might want to follow the advice of any land manager but that's a lot different to saying that you must leave if asked. The LR(S)A does not give land managers this right.
Really? Hydro and Windfarms maybe just. But otherwise I’d say not…
The environmental impact of the thousands of miles of LRT’s bashed across our moors and Glens – without planning permission – in the name of “farming” and “estate management” utterly eclipse any cheeky trailbuilding within FC land and elsewhere. And the FC’s management of many of our forests seemingly cannot be questioned.
Not defending what these guys were doing across a sensitive historic site.
The planning system defines what needs permission and when, and in relation to wind farms/hydro there's clear guidelines defining whether an EIA is needed.
The issue that people are missing is that of land ownership - and land owner can do things to their own land within the rules of the planning system. However I can't just rock up into someone's land or garden and start building trails though. I can't just build a trail in a forest on land that isn't mine because a landowner somewhere else many miles away has built a shooting track on their own land, that's a null argument.
It also affects things like path maintenance, many people on here have been involved in repairing trails in the Pentland Hills, but one landowner in particular doesn't want trails improved and we were unable to do any work on that trail.
And an often missed part of the SOAC (Scottish Outdoor Access Code), is universal access does not apply to custom built trails. If somebody was to build a new designated footpath, you’re not legally allowed to ride a bike (or a horse) on that foot path, just the same as walkers wouldn’t be able to walk on a custom built mountainbike trail.
I'd doubt it is that easy, I know you can get exemptions, but you can't just build a trail, say it's a dedicated track and off you go, you can bar everyone else. Surely you need to apply for exemption? I doubt walkers are actually barred from the likes of glentress?
I was wondering about that too seosamh
which one bigjim? I was taken aback by how much some trails have changed (some better, some in dire straits) when I returned after several years hiatus last month..
I started a thread last week touching on this, and it was 50/50 between those saying you shouldn't do it, and those saying do what you want its not harming anyone.
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/mtb-hooligan-culture/
I started a thread last week touching on this, and it was 50/50 between those saying you shouldn’t do it, and those saying do what you want its not harming anyone.
Dare I say "it depends"? As nobberinthefridge says, if it's a sterile spruce forest with no other recreational use then there can be little harm in carrying out a little trail building/routing. When the forest is harvested the whole area gets mullered anyway. If it's already a busy area with walkers, kids, dogs etc then building high-speed trail features and jumps is simply stupid. There's a whole world of gray between those extremes that make blanket statements useless.
"I doubt walkers are actually barred from the likes of glentress?"
They aren't outright barred- I think the FC could make a good case for it but they've chosen not to. In most cases, walking on GT trails couldn't be considered responsible though, and dodging bikes wouldn't be much fun- even walking onsite for trailbuilding can be a pain with traffic.
It's also, let's be honest, mostly a pretty ugly forest- lots of shitey haunted sitka desert. The oakwood and bits of the lower slopes are pretty nice though.
which one bigjim? I was taken aback by how much some trails have changed (some better, some in dire straits) when I returned after several years hiatus last month..
pentlands trail? Black hill - it's historically been managed as a grouse moor and I don't think they wanted to encourage public onto the land, so requests to repair the trail to the north of the hill were declined. In the wake of the golden eagle being shot nearby they're now citing public traffic as the cause of it no longer being a viable grouse moor.
By the way the Pentand Hills regional park access forum probably still needs a mountain biker representative. I did it a few years ago and struggled to find anyone else keen on here or the pentland hills users facebook page when I could no longer attend. Probably needs someone more diplomatic and level headed than the average stwer though! (not you, in general)
They aren’t outright barred- I think the FC could make a good case for it but they’ve chosen not to. In most cases, walking on GT trails couldn’t be considered responsible though, and dodging bikes wouldn’t be much fun- even walking onsite for trailbuilding can be a pain with traffic.
It’s also, let’s be honest, mostly a pretty ugly forest- lots of shitey haunted sitka desert. The oakwood and bits of the lower slopes are pretty nice though.
Plus there is a dedicated network of, apparently fairly little used, way marked walking trails at glentress so there isn't an awful lot of reason to walk the bike trails.
which one bigjim? I was taken aback by how much some trails have changed (some better, some in dire straits) when I returned after several years hiatus last month..
I've heard more than once that Black Hill's landowner is not happy with the existence of public paths on his land and so won't allow any work on them.
Plus there is a dedicated network of, apparently fairly little used, way marked walking trails at glentress so there isn’t an awful lot of reason to walk the bike trails.
Don't make me laugh. The "walking" trails have been cut up by MTB tyres.
which one bigjim? I was taken aback by how much some trails have changed (some better, some in dire straits) when I returned after several years hiatus last month..
I’ve heard more than once that Black Hill’s landowner is not happy with the existence of public paths on his land and so won’t allow any work on them.
Very interesting. I was up there a couple of weeks back and noticed that some of the trails had virtually disappeared, and that nothing is listed on trailforks.
Black Hill's been a point of contention since my mum used to go up there with the Guides in about 1970. Growing up in Currie, there was an urban myth that the farmer had shot and killed a walker.
Does anyone else remember the fluorescent light units used to shore up the fence?
duplicate
They aren’t outright barred- I think the FC could make a good case for it but they’ve chosen not to. In most cases, walking on GT trails couldn’t be considered responsible though, and dodging bikes wouldn’t be much fun- even walking onsite for trailbuilding can be a pain with traffic.It’s also, let’s be honest, mostly a pretty ugly forest- lots of shitey haunted sitka desert. The oakwood and bits of the lower slopes are pretty nice though.
I'd rather leave it down to common sense tbh, even in places where you are likely to run in to walkers, ie close to glasgow, cathkin braes, carron valley, you do get walkers out on the trails, but they soon realise they need to keep out the road. Out in mugdock, walkers and cyclists happily co-exist (though I'm up for poisoning all the dogs! 😆 )
Only been out the pentlands a few times, but seems fine over there too. And if you are actually up a decent sized hill/mountain. people are actually fairly supportive of your efforts.
Personally I'd hope the glentress arrangement is just common sense live and let live, it does generally work all over in my experience.
Don’t make me laugh. The “walking” trails have been cut up by MTB tyres.
That is true on some of the paths. All I meant was that separate walking trails do exist though, which I imagine was a deliberate attempt to keep cyclists and walkers apart where possible.
replying to bigjim -- it was Black Hill I was on, not the best conditions (shouldn't have gone to be fair) but it was not enjoyable. It bore no resemblance to the peaty path descent I recall :/
I did once bump into the gamekeeper leading a shoot, as I had a chainsaw bag over my shoulder, I thought it rude not to ask if it was okay to take out some windfallen trees.
He said 'no problem, do what you want in the woods up there, we don't shoot in there.
Tbh I was going to anyway, but still....
@ bigjim
I’m not advancing an argument for illegal trailbuilding, I made the point to set the problem in perspective. It’s tiny...
I’m sure there must be many on here, like me, who have spent time traversing hundreds of hills and glens who are simply awestruck by the sheer magnitude, ugliness and destruction of those bulldozed tracks.
The Landowners have got away with this because they sit outside the current planning regime.
but it's a different problem, the issues with unofficial mtb trails are as presented in the program and the cosmetic damage caused by them is a minor point compared to the others being raised.
I'd imagine across the country unofficial mtb trail building generates far more issues and interactions for stakeholders, access officers, landowners and user groups than upland estate tracks, despite their difference in physical scale.
I’d imagine across the country unofficial mtb trail building generates far more issues and interactions for stakeholders, access officers, landowners and user groups than upland estate tracks, despite their difference in physical scale.
That's a guess though, based on nothing at all. I could be quite confident in a similar guess that there are actually very few interactions, in Scotland Anyway. Probably be a bit more of an issue in the crowded south.
Litigation is a similar story, loads of folk going on about landowners being sued, but how many times has this actually happened in reality? Genuine question.
Had another watch of it...I'm still getting the impression to most people, that whole piece was about getting mountain bikers to only use trail centres. The chat from Jess didn't seem to get any traction and was more a wee nod to those that think outside what they want to be the 'norm'.
it's a guess but it's based on experience. I'm not sure how you would find out about historical cases of people being sued. The Mast as described above is a good example of a landowner/trail builder conflict being resolved nicely.
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can't recall seeing much, if any at all?.
Member of public: I'd like to sue this landowner.
Solicitor: You should definitely put all the details on social media as that's never going to have a negative impact on your case....
Bigjim is correct in terms of what generates more issues.
Yes landowners getting sued isn't an uncommon occurrence. No you won't hear about it. It only takes one serious case to cost millions.
<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">To avoid being sued landowners have to demonstrate they have discharged their duty of care which costs time and money in terms of day to day management but then defending yourself in court as well. Lots of cases get paid out as it's cheaper than fighting it.</span>
And I know this doesn't fit your narrative so will go in one ear and out the other.
Member of public: I’d like to sue this landowner.
Solicitor: You should definitely put all the details on social media as that’s never going to have a negative impact on your case….
Bigjim is correct in terms of what generates more issues.
Yes landowners getting sued isn’t an uncommon occurrence. No you won’t hear about it. It only takes one serious case to cost millions.
<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>To avoid being sued landowners have to demonstrate they have discharged their duty of care which costs time and money in terms of day to day management but then defending yourself in court as well. Lots of cases get paid out as it’s cheaper than fighting it.</span>
And I know this doesn’t fit your narrative so will go in one ear and out the other.
Going by that logic, the case regarding the lawyer who sued the MTB coach wouldn't have made the news then eh?. Obviously such details don't reach the news during cases, but after the ruling has been made. The likes of this place, pinkbike etc would be full of them, would they not?. Maybe that doesn't fit with your drama queen narrative?.
As I said earlier, my experiences are based pretty much all on riding in Scotland, with the odd twice or thrice yearly weekend in the Lakes, and I've never had an issue there either. I ride responsibly, ceding to walkers, horses, etc, not spooking cattle or other livestock, avoiding certain trails due to soft conditions after poor weather etc,... I'm afraid the landowner comes way down that list of priorities. YMMV.
Aye - black hill owner will not allow any work on the paths. A few years ago I tried to get involved and organise some path repair.
Really? do they just not want people on their land? If the likes of the national trust/national parks had that attitude, can you imagine the size of the scar running the length of the likes of Ben Lomond? the erosion would be horrendous.
It's a complex issue which isn't exactly specific to the UK either, it happens globally. Turning it round, Landward was around highlighting (I think, my opinion etc) that there are trails being developed outside the Trail Centre networks, 'Wild Trails' - and that to ensure these are enduring we need to find a way to engage the stakeholders constructively. It's not about taking things away or making new trail centre trails, it's about making sure they remain accessable and can be developed sympathetically. The various groups will not engage with individuals (esp. not large ones) so getting organised helps legitimise our aims and creates a way to have this dialogue properly. My NZ experience was that it went from tracts of land being 'closed' to a more constructive dialogue which has meant better access and ultimately more joined up, maintained trails. That's my experience anyway.
The good think in Scotland is that the land access laws have encouraged dialogue between landowners and trail users/those that "cut down windfallen wood".
I think there's obviously a line to be drawn - for me it would be causing genuine damage, e.g. removing live trees which will eventually be felled for wood. Clearing some low lying branches in a forested area is fine, working out a way of getting through/over wind fallen trees seems OK to me too. Natural ruts and berms, sometimes even drops will develop. And a couple of cheeky jumps is maybe pushing a bit but if it's not affecting the landowner, why not?
Being sued is another matter altogether, but there's no provision as far as I'm aware to ban people from access to your land in Scotland in case they sue you. I guess in the case of trail features and stuff, expectations for off piste trail users have to be managed - it's not going to be like a trail centre where proper consideration has been given to keeping the riders safe. You're looking after yourself like a big boy, which is why people like to ride off piste!
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can’t recall seeing much, if any at all?.
No, why? The media just cherry picks interesting stuff. There's all kinds of crazy cases going on all the time, people are killed every day in various ways but you only hear of the juicy/unusual stuff, I mean people getting on roads is just background noise, look at how many people die on roads vs how many stories you see every day. There's been a few high profile mtb cases but most will be in the background.
Really? do they just not want people on their land? If the likes of the national trust/national parks had that attitude, can you imagine the size of the scar running the length of the likes of Ben Lomond? the erosion would be horrendous.
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don't want to encourage people onto their land (like a large proportion of private landowners) they're trying to run as a grouse moor.
Natural ruts and berms, sometimes even drops will develop. And a couple of cheeky jumps is maybe pushing a bit but if it’s not affecting the landowner, why not?
agreed, but look at some of our local stuff off the Westie - 'secret trails' etc .... 🙁
Don’t make me laugh. The “walking” trails have been cut up by MTB tyres.
This genuinely surprises me - when there are bike trails available and plenty of of piste stuff should the wish arise. But then again there are far, far more bikes visiting GT than walkers.
agreed, but look at some of our local stuff off the Westie – ‘secret trails’ etc ….
(not sure why that smiley's gone huge)
I guess that's the fine line between "someone's massive estate" and "someone's back garden" - it seems like after some communication (and reportedly some bad behaviour on both sides) the situation has resolved itself.
Surely any MTBer v landowner cases would be all over social media? Can’t recall seeing much, if any at all?.
Down south a rider sued the Crown Estates for a four figure sum a few years back. I don't think it ever made the news and only came to light because it caused* a big shake up of some rather nice semi official trails.
*well, it may have been one of several causes.
"This genuinely surprises me – when there are bike trails available and plenty of of piste stuff should the wish arise."
They mostly get used as links- the path from Tower Ride up to near Zorro is a popular one to cut out the last bit of climb and Britney Spears, frinstance. That one's really obvious because the start's so muddy. And people use the Ponds Trail to cut across from ponduro to the road, for some reason
No, why? The media just cherry picks interesting stuff.
I never said the media, I said social media, two very different entities.
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don’t want to encourage people onto their land
No, again, you have not read what I wrote. Because they have to allow access to us serfs, and by not allowing path upgrades, they are leaving themselves open to unarmoured paths being turned into motorway wide bogs, as seen on the likes of cut gate and many other places.
No beer - the landowner in this case desn't care. He wants the land for grouse shooting. the worse condition the plebs path is the happier he will be
they are leaving themselves open to unarmoured paths being turned into motorway wide bogs, as seen on the likes of cut gate and many other places.
it pretty much is a road width bog! But they don't want to improve it as it'll encourage more use of it.
I'm not sure how a case of this nature would end up big on social media without first being in the media. I do know for a fact from working for a large landowner that there's plenty of claim cases, that I've certainly never seen in any social or mainstream media. I'm not sure why or how they'd ever get into any media without being some kind of particularly interesting flagship case.
Also I was thinking it was strange the Landward feature didn't include the TVTA - Dougie's parting comment was a perfect segue into the work of the TVTA.
Ach away it’s not a different problem at all. Trashing the landscape is just that - whether it’s some wee laddie with a shovel or an Estate Owner with a bulldozer.
FCS has justifiable concerns about litigation but then they could look to relinquishing / ceding control of some of the forests to the local communities instead of paying lip service to the
You have a very innocent view of the world! No, they don’t want to encourage people onto their land (like a large proportion of private landowners) they’re trying to run as a grouse moor.
so ultimately this question should go where I first suggested, the rights and wrongs of land ownership. ie lets kick these shysters oot! 😆