Loch Lomond National Park- Unfit For Purpose?

This is on course to be banned on Loch Lomondside

This is due to be banned on Loch Lomondside

Leave No Trace. Wherever I go in the outdoors I try to follow that simple code. Often I will return from a trip with other peoples rubbish in my backpack, carrying it out to a bin because others are too lazy or just careless. He outdoors community is a large one and it covers a multitude of interests. Angling, biking, climbing, there’s probably an alphabet’s worth and then some, and not everyone who participates in them will have the same values that I think we would all like see displayed. So the legislation currently which has been agreed upon by the Loch Lomond National Park (LLNP) to put further restrictions on wild camping on the shores of Loch Lomond to clamp down on unacceptable behaviour by some users of the park will have a serious effect on others users who by and large cause little or no trouble. In the main this will affect the through hiker, although it is the weekend camper, the fair weather visitor who seems by all accounts to habitually combine fishing, fire raising and alcohol in various measures. The first is already controlled through the issuing of permits and bailiffs. The second is mentioned on the LLNP website, where it requests that open fires are kept small and under control, and asks that trees aren’t cut down. There’s a fair bit of wriggle room there, but these are guidelines, not legislation. It should be specified that fires should not be perhaps greater than 60cm in diameter and that only deadfall can be burned. Not rubbish, bottles, sleeping bags, plastics or the like, but dead, fallen wood only. That’s a reasonable rule which if breached should lead to an on the spot fine, and a byelaw in this respect would not be unreasonable. Likewise the consumption of alcohol in public, which is already outlawed with byelaws introduced in 2011. In reality then, the LLNP virtually has the powers it already needs, but is failing to implement them.

We should not have to come together to fight the National Parks, in fact National Parks should be at the spearhead of the campaign for better access right across the country. In the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003 we have some of the best legislation in Europe when it comes to outdoors access. But if we allow it to be eroded then all the work that brought it to pass is in vain. The Scottish Government and local authorities around Scotland are all culpable in this respect. In Perth and Kinross for example, the Chesthill Estate has amassed a huge number of complaints against it for denying access, and as yet the local authority and the Scottish Government have failed to resolve the situation. Organisations such as Scotways, MCofS and Ramblers have taken up the challenge of protecting these rights, and it is to be expected that the vast majority of cases will be representing the rights of the individual against large private estates or smaller private landowners. It’s probably exceptional when they have to hold to account those who are charged with looking after national assets on behalf of the nation itself.

When LLNP issued it’s consultation I responded, as many others did, that a ban on camping was unnecessary. I felt, as did others, that the consultation was a paper exercise and that LLNP would press ahead with its mission to ban wild camping. What are their intentions? To corral all those who want to spend the night under canvas (or in modern terminology proofed nylon) into sanitised areas where they will pay for the privilege? To squeeze every drop of profit from the through hiker who in many cases is already spending cash in the hotel at Rowardennan, the bar at Inversnaid, the pub at Inverarnan. Is it a way of directing money directly to LLNP, rather than the indirect benefits it enjoys from the local economy. Or is it a genuine but ham-fisted attempt to crack a walnut with a truckload of slegehammers? Only those within the executive of LLNP will know that. In any case they have chosen to override the 51% of respondents who called for no ban on camping, and have approved the plan to instead ban it. It seems to me that LLNP are in part, unfit for purpose, if they are to continue on this course.

The matter now moves on to the Scottish Government for its approval, and it is to the Scottish Government where the fight must now be taken. As solo walkers, as individuals and as small groups our voice cannot be heard and it is likely that the Scottish Government will approve this legislation unless we unite our voices and make a visible and vocal stand on this issue. I have contacted the MCofS and asked if they will be interested in co-ordinating a march on Holyrood to demonstrate against not only the erosion of the access legislation from within (in the case of LLNP), but in the wider context where it is being eroded by failure to ensure that local authorities fulfil their obligations in applying the act. They are already working away (as always) on all these issues as best they can, but there is a limit to what faceless petitions can do. As walkers we often go the extra mile. This time we might have to do just that to protect the access we enjoy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Loch Lomond National Park- Unfit For Purpose?

  1. Dave says:

    Jim, having worked on the Loch side in the mid 80’s and then in 2011 something drastic had to be done to save the area. The limited camping ban on the East shore was implemented in 2011. It almost instantly stopped all the desecration that was happening. The lazy twats that cause it will not walk further than 50m to chop live trees, burn tents that they don’t want and leave all sorts of sharp and dangerous litter about.
    At Sallochy bay the Forrestry Commission had to spend 2-3 days clearing up the big stuff after every weekend. Surely that is NOT what we want to see on our special places.
    You really have to go there to believe it! Car parks used for a free 3 week holiday, fires the size of a house (and endangering residents property and houses) incidentally I do not think that there is a no drinking law there. Drinking bans in Scotland are quite geographically proscriptive.
    Alas these brain dreads have infested the other lochs. My sons paddled in Loch Voil a few years back at a time of low water. The remains of car seats, family tents, ghetto balasters, stereo units, mountains of fishing gear, gas canisters, bottles, cans food and beer, knives, axes, machetes, bits of cars, tyres, – to mention but a few bits had to be seen to be believed. You could not make this up!
    I actually thing that the right to roam legislation needs to be amended to what we mean by ‘roam’ and ‘camp’.
    The 2 person tent, the more than 30m from a road is to be encouraged.
    You will find that most National Parks in Europe disapprove of wild camping. They will allow a one night stand and then you move. Funnily enough they then do not have any of the issues as listed above.

    From one that has been there and tried to make a difference believe me – someone has to do something!

    Pong me an email if you want to discuss further and maybe we can make some reasoned proposals at the MCof S

    D

    • jester1970 says:

      Good to hear from you Dave. I know just how bad some places can be. As a former cycle ranger with Sustrans I am aware of the futility of the endless cycle of clearing up other peoples rubbish. It is never ending, and sometimes strong action has to be taken. In this case minor tweaking of local by-laws coupled with proper enforcement. Public consumption of alcohol on the east side of Loch Lomond was banned in 2011, but if no one enforces it then it becomes toothless legislation.
      I agree with you on the fact that European national parks frown on multi-night camping in the same spot, but as I said the ones who will be indirectly affected are responsible through hikers who will only be stopping for one night anyway.
      It’s time that the police and the National Park cracked down on the irresponsible, but at the same time encourage responsible behaviour. Once a freedom is gone, it’s very hard to get it back.

  2. I’d agree with the one (or maybe 2 at a stretch) night rule. I almost always move on after one night – partly from a safety point of view as a lone woman ‘camper’ (often just sleeping in my car actually). I don’t like people to know where I’m staying if they’ve seen me alone in the pub in the evening or walking during the day so tend not to sleep in the area I’ve walked in but rather sleep the night before a walk. I definitely don’t leave any trace though…

    People burning plastic bottles and sitting around the fire burning them are basically off their heads – the amount of poisonous fumes from burning plastics can be unbelievably high, especially in close proximity! I’d like to see ‘short-term’ plastic got rid of myself – it is so long-lived, it should only be used for permanent/semi-permanent use, e.g. double glazed windows, motorbike mudguards etc.
    Carol.

    • jester1970 says:

      You are the type of person who the legislation ISN’T aimed at, but most likely to comply with it! Having won those rights they should be secured and extended where possible. What LLNP are attempting is to start stripping those rights back. It’s absolutely shameful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s