Personally I think it’s a great idea.

Link

High Altitude Hut system, what are they going to do. Float them from weather balloons?

Maybe?! 🙄

Conflicted.

Cameron McNeish has a really good piece on WalkHighlands about some of the potential futures for “wild” Scotland. This just seems to add another option to the mix.

On the one hand, it would be fantastic to experience wolves and lynx, then there’s the need to retain existing investment and jobs, plus the desire to see some of the glens returned to habitation and multiple land use. Certainly, we need to stop pretending that the current landscape is natural and not the result of man-made desertification.

I suspect we’ll see a mix of these options come about. Perhaps someone like the Assynt Crofters Trust might consider a hut or two to see how the experiment pans out.

And the highlands only being accessible to the 20kg rucksack carrying elite is also bllx.

Anyway, its an interesting idea, quite like to see more info about it. Reckon I’d miss the bothy rats tbh.

Edit, follows Scotroutes link

There is actually a very good network huts in Scotland, most have excellent facilities.

All you need to do is join a climbing club.

They’re not needed at “altitude”, there are insufficient unbroken ranges to warrant it, i.e. you’re up and down constantly anyway.

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland’s wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that’s the price of entry and that’s what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place! 🙂

I’m all for inclusive access in Scotland, but it’s not that big and the relatively short distances between current accommodation means that this isn’t needed IMO.

And the highlands only being accessible to the 20kg rucksack carrying elite is also bllx.

Whilst you obviously don’t have to be Ranulph Fiennes to survive a couple of days in bothy’s, it is a fact that not everyone wants to be self sufficient or look like a middle aged version of a DoE trip. Even if they are fit and able to carry a bag full of kit. There are hiking trails all over the world where you can set off with little more than a clean pair of pants, but in Scotland you’d have to limit yourself to a 7 mile radius of civilization to do that.

Add to that there are demographics of people who probably don’t fancy the idea of sharing a room for the night with dubious strangers for their own safety.

Most of the alpine huts I’ve been in hospital had shared sleeping areas.

Good point about demographics though we’re already supporting walkers who want to experience the Highlands but aren’t prepared to carry overnight gear or walk up a reasonably small hill.

Add to that there are demographics of people who probably don’t fancy the idea of sharing a room for the night with dubious strangers for their own safety.

My first thought was ‘they’ll be nedtastic’ no thanks.

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland’s wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that’s the price of entry and that’s what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place!

I think in tourism development terms they’d rather people paid a price for entry rather than earned one 🙂

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland’s wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that’s the price of entry and that’s what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place!

I’d tend to agree with this. “Wilderness* areas” and “inclusive” are strange bedfellows IME. I certainly wouldn’t want Scotland to go to much towards the Alps (taking it straight to an absurd extreme in true STW fashion 🙂 )

*Yeah, it’s not really wilderness etc etc.

I’ve seen it in action in NZ over the last 15-20 years. It’s a pretty impressive tourist drawcard (things like the Milford Track etc). For the purists it doesn’t appeal but I don’t think the outdoors like that should be exclusively for the Rab wearing outdoorists but should have a multi user base, if they can make it work then go for it. There are some incredible private alpine huts in NZ that you can only fly into.

The more I think about this, if we ended up with what is being suggested, the highlands will just become a really shit version of the Alps.

Shit ski “resorts”, shit “alpine” hut network, shit weather and small mountains.

I bloody love it the way it is 🙂

The tourist board should just make a new ad campaign along the lines of “You’re never more than a 2 hour walk from a B&B”

too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent

Cobblers & what sounds like a hint of elitist tosh imho…

I for one love the wilderness & have happily walked for hours/days to get to places way off the beaten track.

But, I also quite like a shower & some hot scoff/comfy bed at the end of the day too. Where’s the issue with allowing a degree of that?

We used to have remote hostels (e.g. Craig) but they closed as the market, apparently, changed

But, I also quite like a shower & some hot scoff/comfy bed at the end of the day too. Where’s the issue with allowing a degree of that?

That’s the point. There are few places in Scotland where you’re more than a day away from a comfy bed and shower.

Maybe I’m missing the point in this, but huts are normally needed to join up a route that would otherwise provide insufficient accommodation (i.e. on a route at altitude where it would be impractical to descend and ascend each day, or where the distances between populated areas are vast).

I don’t really think that Scotland suffers from those issues, certainly not in those areas which are likely to be popular with the kind of tourists who would want such facilities.

that’s the price of entry
+1

the kind of tourists

I think you’re missing the point. There’s a market aimed at wealthy, aging “adventurers” that would love to walk in Scotlands remote places but who will never consider, or be able to, afford your entry criteria.

I think you’re missing the point. There’s a market aimed at wealthy, aging “adventurers” that would love to walk in Scotlands remote places but who will never consider, or be able to, afford your entry criteria.

Is the idea to also form new long distance trails or will it just be a case of building one on existing routes where you need an overnight, ie the middle of Knoydart?

I’m not trying to be obtuse, I’m genuinely struggling to come up with that many areas that are inaccessible without a wild camp overnight that would be popular enough to build a hut? You know the highlands far better than me so I’m curious as to where we’d put these things.

I always find that I’m going to a reasonable amount of effort to put together decent multi day trips!

scotroutes – Member

We used to have remote hostels (e.g. Craig) but they closed as the market, apparently, changedYHA liquidated their assets even if the buildings were used,profitable and had been donated in the first place.
FTFY.

Posted 22 minutes ago #Report-Post

If they can’t drum enough support to open the likes of Derry Lodge,or run a bunkhouse in Glen Dessary,I don’t see there being a need for it many other places. I “GET” folk may want it,but are the Knoydart trust going to be too keen to see the Cholera infested mouse repostitory that is Sourles being replaced with and eco hut with composting cludgies?

It be good just to keep the ones we have…

Don’t go expecting to stay at the Traquair one.

http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/news-general-item.asp?item_id=803

Pretty much that. There is the new Affric-Kintail Way though, with nothing available between Cannich and Morvern.

But you’re young, fit and capable of organising yourself. Think of folk to whom 12 miles would be a massive trek, who aren’t willing/able to carry their overnight gear, who need to be spoon-fed a waymarked route. Like it or not, these folk exist and they often have enough money to make their dreams come true. And see above for the Affric-Kintail Way as an example.

Meanwhile, try finding available accommodation in many parts of the Highlands and Islands in the summer months and you’ll find it’s fully booked (this “summer” season extended well into October).

I think it’s a good idea. You never know it might even lead to the creation of more inspiring long distance routes through the more spectacular parts of the highlands.

I think this is elitist crap, for these areas to develop they better accommodation is needed. I for one love the hut networks in the alps and pyranees. I’d love not to have to carry a load of gear, in fact I’ve given up backpacking in the UK as hate carrying so much crap. It’s even worse in the UK as you always have to carry extra clothes as the weather is so rubbish. I see my friends who are hardened backpackers when they get into their fifties who have shifted to b&bs and having their bags portered, they would definitely use these huts.

I’m all for it, Tourism isn’t taken seriously enough in Scotland, we really need to invest and maximise what we have.

Tourism is responsible for 42% of employment in the CNP. I’m all for increasing the overall tourist take but would also like to see more diversity rather than it just being MacDisneyland.

I think the key point in the proposal is a NETWORK – a single hut is interesting but in isolation is just an alternative to a B&B/Hostel/Bothy at that location. If you had say over a dozen huts spaced say 15 miles apart in a configuration that allowed you walk/ride several in a loop etc – that would be a compelling proposition. The challenge could be that if you put these in truly remote areas rather than in small towns is it actually increasing tourism spend?

I’ve made good use of the hut network abroad where it is much more necessary (bigger hills and distances, limited camping). But I think it could also work well in parts of Scotland. Not all tourists are young to middle-aged men capable of comfortably carrying a tent and 3 days food (and even some of these might appreciate hot food and proper shelter, at least some of the year).

Whether it’s really viable is another matter. Who is going to pay for it?

Err, the users. Not that I see it being financially viable in other than a couple of locations. Alltbeithe YH seems to work. I assume the SYHA would close it otherwise.

If its making places more accessible to those wanting an easier time, is the north west really the best option.

Perhaps Aviemore to Blair Athol could be a starting point with a 2 huts between Rothie and Athol? Cheaper to supply as well with vehicle access. And already pulling in tourists in decent numbers.

Oh aye, the practicalities.

Find an existing, unused building that can be repurposed or make it a new build with inevitable planning issues.

Landowners responsibilities?

Re-supply and staffing.

Path improvement to cope with the increased usage.

Car parking at route start/End.

Etc etc etc

I reckon all of these are surmountable given similar systems are in place in other countries. Up front cost for an uncertain return might be an issue.

Oh – and I’d like some assurances that this wouldn’t result in a reduction in the number of bothies or even more pressure on the right to wild camp.

I love how any suggestion that skills and fitness are needed to access an activity is met with accusations of elitism.

Somethings should be hard work and be kept as hard work. Get the skills, get the fitness, enjoy the hills. Don’t bring them down to a lower level in the name of equality.

It will never happen anyway.

I love how any suggestion that skills and fitness are needed to access an activity is met with accusations of elitism.

nobody mentioned skills or fitness…

There are plenty of people with passion for the hills that don’t have capacity to experience them as fully as they would like. But that’s a bit of a tangent here.
I like the idea but I also think it’s already fairly well covered by bunkhouses and hostels. And where it isn’t I can’t see a viable business being made unless a massive amount of money was thrown into creating the network with new paths being built. That’s not going to happen.

On the one hand, it would be fantastic to experience wolves and lynx

I spotted what i thought was a very large fox (previous) last weekend whilst out on the bike with toby (jack russell) up behind the golf course in Kirkcudbright, i only caught a brief glimpse of it before it slunk back into the woods but toby was going absolutely nuts running around the fields following it’s scent and yelping excitably when he got to the fence, i thought no more of it as he quite often flushes out foxes from the undergrowth and gives chase but with teeny wee legs he never catches them, I got back home and on speaking to my mum that night i found out that it was an escaped wolf from the local wildlife park, I was back up that area at the weekend and the dog was going nuts again but no sign of the wolf so it must still be in the area.

wolf escaped (apologies for daily record link)

Somethings should be hard work and be kept as hard work.

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.
I’m more than happy to be self sufficient if I get benighted in an emergency, but I’ve no desire to hump a heavy pack into the ulo anymore. Been there, done that.

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.

I don’t think the outdoors are limited to those prepared to work hard. We actually have pretty good access to most areas. There are actually not that many areas that you couldn’t get to see, even if you absolutely cannot sleep in a tent/bothy, with a bit of planning. Regardless of where they put the huts, unless they stick one every mile people are still going to have to walk reasonable distances between them, so you’re not talking about facilitating access to those with mobility problems…it’s for those who don’t want to carry a pack and who want running water. We already have significant coverage by bag carrying services on Scotland’s many long distance trails.

I’m conflicted on this. One one hand I want everyone to experience the most beautiful, remote areas of Scotland. On the other, it’s already there and has been for a long time and if you want to see it you just have to go. We shouldn’t have to build special huts because some people can’t enjoy their surroundings unless they’ve had a shower.

Some of the more remote areas of the country hold a real value to a large number of people who love them because of how unspoilt and remote they are and because part of the reward is in getting there.

If the plan is to build stuff to make remote areas more accessible, I’d get over it but I can’t say I would support it. If they just plan on sticking huts in high traffic areas then I don’t have a view either way other than it feels a bit pointless.

One thing I think we could all agree on is that there is no doubt a financial incentive to building them (if they can fill them of course).

Building stuff in “wild” areas just because it would be nice is not a great route to go down IMO.

One thing I think we could all agree on is that there is no doubt a financial incentive to building them (if they can fill them of course).

Peter – I’m a bit sceptical about that…

its not clear that there is a financial proposition that works for the “hut owner” at all, but assuming he can make it turn a small profit and this brings a small number of relatively low income jobs who else benefits financially from them existing?

Some B&B, Bunkhouse, Hostel and campsite owners will claim they suffer as a result (this may or may not be true and is impossible to measure with certainty). Some others might benefit before or after a trip (e.g. 1 night in B&B then 3 on the hut trail) but many people will drive up, walk the trail, stay in the huts, drive back. Unless they are in areas with ample local facilities anyway the chances of them popping in to somewhere for lunch or a pint are minimal, the likelihood that they visit a museum or paid visitor attraction is small. I’m not seeing how a hut network directly benefits the local economy?

Sorry poly, it was meant as a tongue in cheek comment. I agree with all your points.

I reckon the estate owners might like it though as it could provide an income.

I’m conflicted on this. One one hand I want everyone to experience the most beautiful, remote areas of Scotland. On the other, it’s already there and has been for a long time and if you want to see it you just have to go. We shouldn’t have to build special huts because some people can’t enjoy their surroundings unless they’ve had a shower.

+1

I am in the business of encouraging our next generation to get out into the wilds, and I too have reservations about either opening up access that means those with less care for wild places (more care for beer and a big fire) or removing the close contact with wilderness. Both of these are not to restrict access – dirtbagging on a budget is a a huge part of the history of adventure for walking, canoeing, climbing and biking; equally those with disabilities can access wild spaces and places if they are determined enough – but close contact with nature, the hardships and challenges mean that you cannot help but appreciate the place more. See the rise of car camping challenges in the southern highland area – too easy to drive in, light up, drink up and trash the place – you have not ‘invested’ personally to be there or understand that place.
[video]http://vimeo.com/106377287[/video]