Save the Cairngorms from Singletrack

I’m pretty sure that I’ve heard you ( I may well be mistaken on this.. it could have been a. n. other dartmoor local ) on here before playing down the attraction of a certain SW national park to try and keep the numbers down..

it’s unlikely. up until this year i’ve been running bike-dartmoor, an mtb touring company. the more the merrier would have been my mantra, if at least on legal trails.

it’s possible that i have posted on here on a pro conservation agenda. i’m sure in the past before i embarked upon heritage studies i, like most people would make the assumption that conservation and minimal impact was always the way forward. in that regard the worm has definately turned for me.

Can’t see a problem with it personally. If walkers can use it, so can bikes. There’s no difference. If they wanted to use it for a race course then I can see the OP point.

More people going into the cairngorms is a good thing. Why cant we all ride in the woods? The same reason you don’t walk in the woods!

Live for today, and enjoy what we have, if it looks nice to ride, then ride it!

The Scottish Outdoor Access Code (which has special legal evidential status regarding the interpretation of “responsible access” with the LRA) actually provides quite clear guidance – including the potential for voluntary agreements between land managers and recreational bodies, local authorities, SNH etc. to protect plants/birds/animals and erosion. In the absence of such local guidance (I assume that there is no special agreement with regard to cycling on the plateau since nobody has highlighted it) then it is about avoiding intentional or reckless damage rather than staying away all together.

The Cairngorms are already a highly regarded mountain bike location – but even in great weather in summer are hardly over run with MTBs, and are a vast area with many options.

Whilst the plateau is relatively close to the “road” its far from an easy trip up there with a bike – so its not going to get casual riders who think its a trail centre.

The weather is such that for ~6 months of the year the plateau will essentially be unridable (under snow / ice / ridiculous winds).

The weather is such that for the other 6 months there will only be limited opportunities for all but the most committed riders to visit the plateau (wind, rain, cloud).

Given that Singletrack is going to describe cycle routes/trips (thats what mags do) – is it less responsible to highlight the cairngorm plateau than somewhere that is already really popular, close to population centres and more likely to be “over-riden”? Or should mountain bike mags only describe cycling on man-made cycle paths (usually not on mountains!) where erosion management usually falls to the land manager?

Surely, the more unusual locations for riding, that give people inspiration for moving off the well trodden routes then potentially the better?

Finally are Singletrack readers not all a bit more refined than the MBUK/MBR etc readers – and therefore more likely to be responsible, as well as having enough imagination to find their own routes rather than only riding where the mag told them to? The absence of a “pull out” OS routemap should help ensure this.

>Given that Singletrack is going to describe cycle routes/trips (thats what mags do) – is it less responsible to highlight the cairngorm plateau than somewhere that is already really popular, close to population centres and more likely to be “over-riden”? Or should mountain bike mags only describe cycling on man-made cycle paths (usually not on mountains!) where erosion management usually falls to the land manager?<

Christ on a bike. Is it really necessary to keep banging on about this? Rightly or wrongly the Gorms plateau is an environmental sacred cow. You can argue til your blue in the face about the validity of the designation and / or all the other negatives man has wreaked upon that habitat but promoting mtb upon it is an ‘argument’ a lot of us would rather not have seen started.

>Finally are Singletrack readers not all a bit more refined than the MBUK/MBR etc readers – and therefore more likely to be responsible, as well as having enough imagination to find their own routes rather than only riding where the mag told them to? The absence of a “pull out” OS routemap should help ensure this.<

Funny you should raise that and it will be interesting to see where we are in 10 years time for example. IMO there’s a bandwagon rolling now and they’ll be on it sooner or later.

Heather – singletrack/sanni weren’t the first people to ever ride a bike over the plateau, or even to write about it publicly. e.g. http://www.mtbbritain.co.uk/forum/lofiversion/index.php?t6083.html

Your sacred cow analogy is a good one. Just because some people see cow’s as sacred should I stop eating beef? Should anyone who writes a recipe for beef stew be stoned?

My point was whilst it IS a fragile environment, and excessive use (by bikes or walkers) will damage that environment – there are provisions within the LRA which would restrict or limit that access if it were actually required. The fact that (to my knowledge) neither SNH, the Highland and Islands Development Board (the land owner?) or the Cairngorms Conservancy Trust are actively doing anything to discourage the currently levesl of MTB use at the plateau suggests that the land manager do not see this as a significant concern.

You might not want to see the “argument” started – but actually I think the debate about where/when it is acceptable to ride is a constructive one – and one I’d encourage Singletrack to cover in its pages at some point!

Just because some people see cow’s as sacred should I stop eating beef?

No, but it would be rather rude to eat their sacred cow when there are plenty of others in the field.

Typing this as I eat my crunchy nut cornflakes before I head out on the bike.

Heather bash

Is your argument predicated on the assumption that increased use will lead to a ban on bikes. Let’s say it does. Why will that concern you? If you disagree with bike access and suggest that cyclists will be irresponsible, why worry? You’re not going to ride there, are you? Or is it a case that you want to be able to ride there but would prefer others not to and for the likes of myself not to write or talk about it?

If you are suggesting that you are responsible but others aren’t, what makes you more responsible than the next rider? Would you prefer no one talks or writes about the area so only the exclusive elite get to know about it and ride the trails that exist up there?

If we as a user group are banned, is the worry that the ban will extend? If it is, this would suggest to me that you regard mountain bikers as a collective as being irresponsible in which case I too would suggest we are meriting of a wider ban on access. Quite the contrary, I firmly believe that by demonstrating that we can ride in sensitive areas with respect and an awareness of our surroundings, we strengthen our case as a user group, not weaken it.

Talk of banning mountain bikes is something that is close to my heart. Instead of worrying about what might happen in ten years time, I decided to do something about it and joined my local access forum. You might be surprised to know just how much the various user groups have in common and there is not in my experience a push to ban mountain bikers or limit our access. Better to be on the inside and have a voice than just post on a forum doomsday scenarios.

On that note, I’m off to ride my bike in a responsible manner. I may even write about it too!

Oh and before I go, following on from what poly says, I’d much rather that we have a public discussion of access and the ability of us as a user group to do so responsibly than cower in fear of what might happen. Much better to use the article as a basis to engage with the stakeholders and work with them than paint them to be anti bike and us being the enemy.

Agree with Sanny above, that if nothing else this has triggered a big debate about responsible access which will hopefully encourage everyone to think more about it. It’s not just the Cairngorms, it’s everywhere. Has anybody on this forum not done rides where you are cutting ruts across soft terrain?

Haven’t read through all of this thread, but how can riding a bike responsibly (i.e no skidding or riding soft patches) in the Cairngorms on the huge network of existing walking paths cause any more damage than the walkers have already done?

IMO most of the damage to the environment in the Cairngorms has nothing to do with walkers or MTBs. Look at the Larig Ghru for example. Hundreds of walkers go through every year. almost none go more than 10 yards either side of the path. Riding the tops will be the same.

Most of the damage to the hills and glens is caused by the over population of deer. Almost nobody talks about it. I’ve been visiting Glen Feshie for the last 40 years. It used to be a bit of a heather desert. Lots of old pines but no young trees. Thousands of deer though. The current owners have cut deer numbers to a fraction, maybe 10% of former numbers. The glen is recovering without fencing. It’s incredible seeing the young growth all up the glen now.

That’s private owners. Meanwhile the part of the Gorms in public ownership continued the old way with deer overgrazing the place to death. Seems to be changing now though.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/12/13/top-gamekeeper-quits-famous-estate-over-deer-slaughter-86908-22780647/

I appreciate the tops are more fragile than lower areas but I still say in the big picture a few MTBs riding on the paths make no difference.

Sanny – you’ve not demonstrated that “we” (as a collective) can ride in sensitive areas with care and respect. You did a ride, you wrote an article.

Based on my own experience I cited an example of irresponsible behaviour (and it continued right the way down, or rather through, a newly built path.) Not isolated either unfortunately. If that’s what’s happening with the very few numbers going there at present it doesnt fill me full of confidence when these numbers increase.

So yeah, I’m in no rush to proclaim the wonders of the Cairngorm plateau to the mtb community at large…

We aren’t talking about the douse suburbs of Glasgow here or even the myriad trails up to an including the Lairig Ghru – the OP concerned the plateau itself -yeah? So to widen the debate, perhaps there’s one person from these 6 pages on THE local access forum who can give us their take on it?

it is an ‘argument’ a lot of us would rather not have seen started.

which sounds to me rather like “Lah lah I’m not listening”. Once the cat is out of the bag it cannot be stuffed (or wished) back again.

Hmmm. Can I demonstrate that all mountain bikers are responsible. Of course not, absolutism is a dangerous path to take and one that leads to inevitable failure. However, on the basis of the reader survey of some while back, I recognize the audience my article will typically be read by – well educated, decent level of disposable income, knowledgable of environmental issues. On the basis of this thread alone, the awareness of our environment and our impact is clearly demonstrated. Taking that you agree with that demographic, I would suggest that your argument that the article will have the impact of encouraging irresponsible behavior somewhat flawed and does the average reader a grave disservice. Just where is the flood of irresponsible riders coming from? If folk are behaving badly already, they may continue to do so whether out of ignorance or simple disregard for their surroundings. However, if they read the article (have you gotten round to reading it yet?), I would hope that it raises an awareness of the issues should they chose to ride up there. I suspect I give more credit to the typical reader than you and you are unlikely to change your mind on that.

Ultimately, all credit to you for being passionate about the issues. That can only be a good thing. However, as flattering as it is that you think the article will have such a significant impact as to encourage scores of irresponsible riders, the demographic of readership would suggest otherwise.

A little late to this but I enjoyed the article and didn’t get the urge to take a big travel bike up there and ride off the paths. I didn’t get the impression that Sanny was encouraging us all to move the Singletrack Weekender to the region and it seemed a reasonably balanced article given it touched on the fragility of the landscape.

I must say that trailmonkey’s posts have been quite thought-provoking. Certainly here in the South I’ve felt that the word ‘conservation’ has been uttered and everyone blindly accepts it.

Wildlife Trusts, imo, have their own agenda and often can be motivated by grants etc. without looking at the big picture or indeed local picture affecting local people.

trailmonkey – is there anywhere I can read more about this ‘alternative’ viewpoint?

Haven’t got round to reading the mag yet, just looked at some stunning pics though. 🙂

Hey Sanny, hope you’re well.

Not read your article yet (heard it was well written!), but don’t think my remarks need me to know the details because my concern’s mainly about the effect of it being published, and not so much what it said.

For me, I know the ride well, did it a few times in the past when I knew a bit less about the area than I do now. Would I go back and do it again, probably not unless I was solo and up there by 5am like the first time to avoid pissing folk off, or with (a)nother rider who fully understands the background and knows how to ride this kind of terrain.

I now know how sensitive the place is, how under the microscope it is, how political and hotly contested an area the Plateau is. Regardless of the rights and wrongs, the facts and fictions over erosion, feet versus tyres, walkers versus bikers, low or high volumes of riders likely to be attracted by your feature etc etc – for me, perhaps because I make a living from this game and want mountain biking to be sustainable, and because I know personally how much attention these kind of features generate – I’d probably hold back on publicising a ride like this in a magazine, and maybe just keep it to myself.

Magazine features can be a great way to boost business, and rural economies through increased tourism etc, great when the trail infrastructure can support the influx of new riders. But I also know that if the venue’s as sensitised as this one, then any bad press (regardless of how justified it is) can undo a lot of great work (and goodwill) that’s going on locally for bikers in the surrounding area.

Maybe publishing an article about the Cairngorms plateau can put the mountain biking ‘community’ on the (bad) radar as being irresponsible given the Cairngorms’ special context. Your feature may not attract a ton of new riders, but there’ll be quite a few nevertheless, some entirely responsible and capable of making minimal impact, others less so. We all know that ones and twos often don’t make much impact, or attract too much attention, but going by the condition of some of the trails I know that have seen larger STW Forum rides, even with the best intentions a group can cause carnage on the landscape which unfortunately is undeniably and visibly bike related. Even the most skilled guide can’t ‘police’ the whole group’s riding – the tell tale signs of folk unacustomed to riding this kind of trail, short cuts taken etc are all there to be seen.

And even if the feature attracts zero new riders, it’s created quite a lot of forum debate here, and doubtless conversations all over the place that might be good and bad for the reputation of biking in that area.

I suppose given how much alternative, even better riding there is in Scotland, that I know won’t cause such a furore, and is on much more stable terrain e.g. Torridon, would be enough of an argument for me to avoid riding and publicising certain places.

And I don’t think that ‘withholding’ such route information means it’s just for some kind of elite, it just means that some places stay low key, get minimal traffic, keep the rambling police calm, stop biking bans, and any traffic they do get is from those that’ve probably got an appreciation of the terrain, are self sufficient and ride in small numbers.

I reckon that sometimes seeing a magazine feature encourages forum or club rides in larger numbers, which is fine for lots of places, but less so when it’s at particularly sensitive venues.

Am I just getting old Sanny…

What do you think?

🙂

There’s no problem, it’s too far for the neds to travel, and then they’d have to get up the hill.

I must admit to suffering from eco-fatigue. It always seems to be a case of restricting ordinary people so the eco-saints can have exclusive access for their guided tours.

I’d ride there. I wouldn’t shortcut, I wouldn’t skid, and I suspect that is the case for anyone on here.

All that needs to be done is to make it clear that it is a sensitive area.

Even better I’d take my fat bike and make even less impact than a walker.

Yeah I guess for some folk mountain biking’s always been on the wrong side of the ‘eco-fence’ – I guess my thinking’s that regardless of the rights and wrongs, it’s just cleverer to be mindful of what’s on their radar, than ignore it, or advertise it.

keep the rambling police calm, stop biking bans

AFAIK “the rambling police” do not exist, and any supposed biking ban would lack any feasible enforcement, particularly in the current climate of savage cuts. There are no sensitive places, only sensitive people.

Hey Andy

You know for an article that virtually no one on this forum has read, it’s generated an awful lot of debate! Will someone please just read the darn article 😆

Anyhoos, I’m good ta. Saw your coupon in What Mtb in Smiths today and I’m sure in MBR as well. You’re becoming ubiquitous!

To answer your points, I thought long and hard before I wrote the article. I was and am keenly aware of the sensitive nature of the plateau so sought to see what the local take was. A quick web search and I found images of riding on the plateau posted by a local bike shop on their website and a local guiding company who offer Ben MacDui as a guided route. Coupled with the myriad of guide books on the area for walkers and climbers, I took the view that the cat was already well and truly out the bag. Coupled with the fact that either way up onto the plateau is going to be a really tough stretch for the average rider, there effectively exists a barrier to entry to all but the most committed.

Where I question things is the notion that in a fight club manner, it is ok to do the ride but we should keep quiet about it like naughty schoolkids for fear of being chastised for our actions. Either it is acceptable to ride on a preexisting network of trails that walkers have trodden in over decades or it isn’t.

Good point well presented.

Garrrrrr! Bloody iPhone. Right. Where was I? Oh yeah, acceptable or not…..while we may justify our actions on the basis of only being seen by a few walkers means that we minimise the harm, how can you be sure? If the fear is one of restricted access, how many odd riders here and there does it take to form a critical mass of negative opinion leading to attempts to restrict access? We may co gratulate ourselves on being crafty and maintaining the status quo but is that healthy? Is it not better to address the thus far absent move to ban or restrict access by bike. Whether we acknowledge it or not, any such moves come from our collective actions and don’t rest solely with an article.

Personally, I’d rather have the debate than live in fear of what might be. Beyond the realms of this forum and the magazine, I very much doubt that my riding on the plateau responsibly will be a catalyst for access Armageddon. If it is, it won’t be as a result of one article but the cumulative effect of all the odd riders here and there doing their own thing.

Ultimately, if riding responsibly on pre existing trails leads to a ban then we have a far bigger fight on our hands than any of us are aware. If walkers can coexist in harmony with the plateau despite their reported pooing in the open, creation of cairns, churning up tracks with their walking poles, are they not the real offenders who should be first on the banning list. Of course, it may be that mountain bikers are an easier target as we lack a single collective voice in such matters. Perhaps now is the time to address that? In Englandshire, collective acceptance of the laws pertaining to footpaths and a near universal misunderstanding of the law and it’s practical implications means that mountain bikers are made to feel like criminals when they ride footpaths. A single voice lime that of the Ramblers Association could help fight preconceptions and advocate sustainable reasonable access.

But I digress. It’s late and I’m tired after a 4+ hour night ride up the Braes so will start rambling soon (oops, too late!)

Cheers

Sanny

Ps Na, you’re not old, just a bit worn out! Ha! Ha!

Where I question things is the notion that in a fight club manner, it is ok to do the ride but we should keep quiet about it like naughty schoolkids for fear of being chastised for our actions

exactly so, I have intentionally abandoned this approach and received WAY more criticism for it from other mountain bikers than from anyone else.

So you rode on the biggest bird reserve in Britain to promote debate over access?If so,picking your battles better should be a priority.We,being switched on about erosion by both groups know that there is debate over the damage caused by each.Does the average person in the street see both parties as causing equal harm? Not a chance. BTW,I was training at Glenmore last weekend and the article was a source of debate amongst users and staff.

Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis?

“Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis? “

Don’t do as they do, do as they say!

I’ll be on the plateau this summer sometime. Maybe walking, maybe biking. I’ll report back here on the number of walkers V the number of bikers up there.

I didn’t see the article. I’d be interested in how many other bikers/walkers were seen during the ride.

druidh – Member
Is that the same Glenmore that takes walkers and climbers over the plateau on an almost daily basis?

Ah, but they’re eco-saints with guided tours. All that’s missing is the exclusive access… 🙂

Only been dipping into this thread, but again, if we are riding responsibly and on paths already eroded by 1000’s of walkers, what is the problem, as we are creating no more erosion than a walker with poles IMO. (Note, riding responsibly means no skidding or sliding, and having consideration for other users of the path)

I should also say that I have done a number of rides on to the plateau, plus a number of other Munros, and have only ever had one walker give us a disapproving look. Pretty much all the others were very positive and stopped for a chat. So where is this big anti brigade?

Playing Devil’s advocate there Druidh. With regards to Glenmore, the way that they don’t at all suggest any respect for the enviroment you are on,or have local knowledge of which tracks are being overused and should be avoided is a scandal,but then Druidh,as a compleatist you will be well aware of that. I remember you saying there had been a big gap between you starting and finishing your Munros, how much more worn/busier were the paths of any you re-visited?
Naturally all mountain bikers will take the same care as full time guides,some of the switchbacks on the paths are a bit tight,maybe be easier to cut straight across.
Just out of interest if you are on the plateau coming down say Ben Mcdui,I take it you will stop every time you come across a person walking up the path,or because you have earned your downhill they should get out of your way? If you follow the rules of the hill,give to people still climbing,then you will either have no choice but to leave the path,causing further damage,or stop every few yards.
I don’t for a minute think that on the back of an article in STW the car park is going to sprout a showrooms worth of Skoda estates and the plateau is going to be awash with Ti 456’s. But we are the minority, not the walkers, all it will take for a lot of bridge building to be undone is one accident or example of what a walker views as poor riding. Who has the biggest lobby us or walkers? The Loch Lomond camping ban is an example of how fluid our “Right to Roam” actually is.

I think this debate is useful. Hopefully people will think about their actions and the consequences of them,

Its clear there is no consensus on this issue, no obvious right answer.

My view is that to avoid this one small area – the high plateau – would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR. I certainly am very dubious about publicising the route. We can see from the thread that as well as those like the author who understand the issues there are others ( take a bow SFB) who clearly have no understanding of what responsible access is.

I fear for it becoming a “must do” and getting unsustainable levels of traffic. I would prefer we keep the bikes to the ski side of the massif and on carn ban mor

An interesting debate.

Sorry for not reading this whole thread but although the Cairngorms may be special exactly the same could apply to any upland area of the UK. Most are SSI’s and most are really sensitive to foot fall with problems of erosion, pollution, over grazing. They also have really short growing seasons and take a long time to recover.

So in short should we be riding/Walking on any upland landscapes?

Kinder Scout for example is a right mess, with the peat badly eroded, I am not sure if it is from Walkers or over grazing (Not bikers anyway) but the birthplace of the UK’s right to roam is not really a good advert for open access.

Does the average person in the street see both parties as causing equal harm?

now you betray a naive belief that we live in a democracy ?

there are others ( take a bow SFB) who clearly have no understanding of what responsible access is.

no, rather I deny that it is a meaningful concept

GEDA – Member
…Kinder Scout for example is a right mess, with the peat badly eroded, I am not sure if it is from Walkers or over grazing (Not bikers anyway) but the birthplace of the UK’s right to roam is not really a good advert for open access.

But isn’t that because there is actually no real right to roam in England and so the multitudes get concentrated on those corners where there is free access?

I’ve really enjoyed this so far. As I mentioned earlier, I was up on the plateau collecting baseline data for a longterm environmental impact assessment of the (at the time) newly proposed railway. It was at that time that I got a feel for how wonderful an environment it is. Do you know that the heather travels in waves up there as the growth is dictated by windburn, or that there are huge rocks slowly surfing down the slopes? How cool is that?

For me, it’s not a place I would choose to ride my bike. I think Andy@inner probably reflects my views the closest. There are many trails much more local to me that depending on conditions I won’t ride either because of the impact I would have on them. At the moment, a prime example would be Dumyat. It’ll be a soggy mess now, and my tyres would cut it to pieces. However, that’s my personal choice governed by my values and my appreciation of the landscapes that I ride on. I’m fully aware that these will differ from everyone else. Everyone’s values differ.

For me, what’s heartening to see from this excellent debate is the amount of awareness that folk have. When I first read Sanny’s article, I did see and take note of his warnings about the environmental and ecological nature of the area and I was glad to see these. However, within a day of reading his article, one of my riding partners was talking about organising a group ride based on this article. This was when I started to cringe, as I’ve seen first hand the impact that a big group ride can have on a hillside, especially if ridden in less than ideal conditions.

I’ve no problem with folk riding where they want, and based on the majority of replies to this thread I’m a bit more reassured that folk who do chose to ride in such a sensitive area do so with an awareness of their impact.

Just as an aside though, if you think about the number of walkers up there, and then think of the visual / political impact that just a few ‘out of place’ tyre tracks might have, it certainly makes me pause for thought.

Beagy, unashamed tree hugger

My view is that to avoid this one small area – the high plateau – would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR.

Good PR or ammunition for the mythical anti brigade? Not riding there because it is “sensitive” legitimises the viewpoint that bikes are somehow more harmful than walking.

Unless you mean promote the idea of all mountain users avoiding the area, which brings us back to my point that if the plateau is that sensitive then a way of limiting all users to a sustainable level is needed.

Just as an aside though, if you think about the number of walkers up there, and then think of the visual / political impact that just a few ‘out of place’ tyre tracks might have, it certainly makes me pause for thought.

At the hypocrisy of walkers using an eroded path ignoring their own impact? Me too.

Dave – Moderator

“My view is that to avoid this one small area – the high plateau – would be no great loss to mountainbiking and thus no huge sacrifice and shows good PR.”

Good PR or ammunition for the mythical anti brigade? Not riding there because it is “sensitive” legitimises the viewpoint that bikes are somehow more harmful than walking.

I believe that if and when pressure comes to restrict bikes to say ( for the sake of debate) Rothimurcus then we would be able to say – look – we can be trusted to be responsible – we keep off MacDui ona voluntary basis.

However your sceario is possible as well.

The appears to be no clear cut answers just opinions and quite a range of them.

Duckman

Interested to know a bit more about the debate you overheard at Glenmore and what was said? I suspect it would reflect the discussions we are having on here. One quick point, I didn’t do the ride and write about it to promote the access debate. I did it because it is a lovely hard ride in wonderful surroundings. As for the bird reserve comment, I’d be more concerned about the number of dogs off leash running free that we saw when we were on the mountain back in August. We’ve had issues down here at a bird reserve near Glasgow with thoughtless dog walkers letting their dogs off leash and chasing ground nesting birds. Responsible access that isn’t! I’m fairly sure the free wandering herd of reindeer and the roaming herds of red deer that can be regularly seen on the pleateau do nothing to help the cause of the ground nesting birds either nor the fragile plant life.

Druidh, epicyclo and irc

In a couple of short sentences, you’ve managed to capture the very essence of the discussion.

As mountain bikers, we’re the relatively new kids on the block. We don’t have the history of illegal trespass in order to secure rights of access. We don’t have biking resorts built on environmentally sensitive mountains in the 60s. We don’t have outward bound centres using the same mountains as their base for operations all year round. We don’t press for funiculars to be plonked on the self same mountains or cafes at the top to cater for us. We didn’t create the trails though we will happily use them.

Why is it ok for the likes of Glenmore Lodge to offer outdoor courses on the mountain, advertise it on their website, make regular appearances on radio and television in connection with the area but not ok for mountain bikers to ride there? Similarly, why do we accept that the likes of Trail, TGO and other publications of the walking and climbing fraternity can publish route guides, articles and guide books for the area for a far larger constituent user group but that we as mountain bikers shouldn’t? Is it because we perceive them as being a big group with a louder voice than us? It is perhaps ironic but what first turned me on to the area was a pull out supplement that came with The Great Outdoors magazine as it was then advertising Glenmore Lodge and the area in general. It was the spark that lit the fire of a lifelong passion for the area.

I wonder whether we are our own worst enemies here, blithely accepting and even promoting the notion that walkers, climber and skiers are the defacto guardians of all that is good about the plateau by virtue of having been users for a longer period of time while mountain bikers are the bad boys and girls of the user groups and can’t be trusted to behave responsibly. Sorry but I just don’t buy that argument nor the notion that you can only be responsible if you are a local. Geographic proximity does not imbue knowledge and respect. Look at the scar of a trail that was Ben Lomond’s main path before action was taken to remedy it a good number of years ago now. It wasn’t irresponsible bikers but walker causing the damage. The same can be said of virtually any mountain in Scotland. Schehalion, Conic Hill and Ben Nevis spring immediately to mind. What then gives them the moral high ground to judge what is right and wrong? It would be interesting to garner the views of walkers and other user groups to see if the prejudice we fear may lead to loss of access is real or imagined. We’ve done a great job of beating ourselves up over this issue. I wonder whether there are similar debates on walking forums or does the thought never enter their heads?

If we are going to get into an us v them debate (something I am loathe to do as being as much a walker as a mountain biker, I don’t consider it a healthy thing to do – we are all mountain users and can all appreciate and enjoy them responsibly), perhaps we should reflect on which user group is more likely to stray from the paths? The loose sandy soil and the jumble of boulders on the plateau that the paths go through would make for a joyless affair on the bike were you to go off piste for want of a better phrase. Who is it you are more likely to see wandering off in all directions and not sticking to the paths? I would suggest that is easier to construct an argument that says walking should be the first group of users to be banned. However, I don’t believe this nor would I wish to exclude another user group in order to preserve the mountains for my use alone.

In terms of relative numbers of users when we were up there, at a conservative estimate, we must have passed between 200 and 250 walkers on the day we headed over from Cairngorm. Ironically, it was something of a challenge to get photos that didn’t have walkers in the background. I also lost count of the number of walkers I saw off path whether to take a leak, take a picture, add to a cairn or eat their pieces away from other people. Perhaps I should have said something to them. Perhaps in future I will.

Great debate. Really enjoying reading all the views and arguments being put across.

Cheers

Sanny

PS Just read the bit about the Loch Lomond camping ban. As a regular user of the trails there, the ban makes sense. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve ridden on the trails and come across stacks of litter, bushes and small tress hacked into to make fires, uncontrolled fires by the shoreline, pished campers and the odd bit of man poo by or even on the trail. I’m assuming it’s man poo given that there was toilet paper beside it. Yeuch! The situation is indeed a fluid one but there is a clear body of evidence from user groups including the police, local residents, walkers, bikers etc that a significant element of the users are abusing the lochside. If we contrast that with bikers on the plateau, I very much doubt that they will be the irresponsible numpties from the city in their souped up Corsas who has no regard for their surroundings nor the impact they make. Is the worry that our very presence there so offends and that one or several walkers may take umbrage at us being there that we shouldn’t be there at all? If there is one thing this thread makes clear, it is that we are all acutely aware of our environment and our potential impact on it.

PPS TJ

As for traffic becoming unsustainable, at what point is that reached? We are surely already past that point if we are saying that a self selecting and I suspect very small number of bikers are going to tip the trails over the edge with irreparable damage compared to the thousands of existing walkers and climbers who already use the area? Responsible access surely has to be for all or no one at all?

Good thread 🙂

One of the issues with Trailmonkey et al’s approach to heritage, value, ownership etc is the risk that it becomes mired in relativism. Theories developed in colonial contexts naturally pick up on the imposition of control and rights, without understanding (cf Uluru). Are these theories applicable in this context? The risk with these ideas is you simply state who’s views aren’t valid, or try to point out how shakey their foundations are.

The fact remains that part of TJ’s (and many people’s) identity is bound up in the authorized heritage discourse. Our understanding of who we are and our relationship with landscapes and places is a product of these histories. For TJ (only as an example) the conservation of an environment like this is fundamentally important… as important to his identity as the aboriginal people’s relationship with bits of Uluru is to theirs.

You can use a criticism of AHD to understand that, but that doesn’t negate their identities and “rights” over that landscape. You run the risk of simply replacing a AHD derived hegemony with a relativist construct where academics tell people that what they believe isn’t valid. A critique of AHD is only useful if it allows you to be more inclusive of people’s viewpoints.

People “believe” in science, they “believe” in conservation. That makes these things as real and valid as other view points. It easy to criticise them because they are the establishment view, but it’s important to understand that they are still valid.

And back to the article… personally I think it’s important that mountain bikers ride responsibly, are seen to ride responsibly, and writing about them riding responsibly demonstrates that to a wider audience than would actually see them on the hill. Mountain bikers need to seen and heard or we will be left out of the debates on these issues. My identity is drawn from many things, being a mountain biker is one of them and it colours all my views on access, heritage and conservation. It’s important.

Sorry I lost interesttrack somewhere after the overpopulation by deer argument.

I think I have a resolution – Wolves and Lynxes 😆
They should be allowed to keep the population of deer, ramblers, mountain climbers, mtb’ers and skiers to a minimum.
Only the fit will survive.

can they be unkillable wolf soldiers ?