UKC

A most interesting topic has emerged on MCofS website, The Long Walk-in Principle & Car Access.
http://www.mcofs.org.uk/pitch-in-messages.asp?s=2&id=MCS-X10006
"MCofS has been approached with reference to access along a number of Government-owned tracks..."

The character contributing the second item to "The Long Walk-in Principle:", Steven Reid (SMC guidebook writer for Galloway) seems to have hit the nail right on the head. That those following his own particular choice of activity in the hills, along with MCofS and SMC members, are special cases and should be subject to preferential treatment.

As he says, nobody can reasonably expect climbers to "dampen their enthusiasm" by having to walk for 3 hours just to get to their route, or Munro Buggers to waste 3 hours approaching a hill, poor things! And if he were being truthful, couldn't give a shit about over exposure, erosion, vandalism, or any other issue which might inconvenience himself and his pals, or prevent them from gaining access in their 4X4's. And it's clear from his remark, "there is the faint possibility that vehicular access for the public to the B###hill of B### Bothy may at last be allowed and I had enquired about getting a letter of support for the notion.", that he is either ignorant of the issues of vandalism in the Galloway bothies due to vehicular access, or that the matter neither interests nor concerns him.

I say that if he and his mates balk at walking to their objective they shouldn't be going into the hills in the first place.

Attitudes like his can only contribute threats to the integrity of our flimsy, new access laws. The old adage, "abuse it and you'll lose it" still rings true and if those with purely selfish agendas get too much lee-way, access will once again be in question.

I doubt if Steven Reid will ever read this but if he does, Get out and walk!

In reply to Fireglow: Your quotes seem totally out of character for Steven Reid, but he is a regular contributor to this forum so I am sure he will be along soon to clarify the issue.

From my own point of view I think the long walk-in or cycle in is a good thing. Some of my most memorable hills have been those that have taken that little extra effort to reach and partly for that reason I would happily see vehicle access to some areas limited.

In reply to Fireglow:

Why? If the objective is to go climbing, why should he spend hours walking, taking up time when he'd rather be climbing?

In reply to tony: How about they just start earlier and put up with the walk in? If they balk at the idea of a long walk in then they can just choose climbs that are closer to a convenient car park, it's not like they don't exist.

In reply to crabduck:

That's a reasonable answer to a different question. I'm not necessarily agreeing with Stephen Reid's point of view, but I'm equally not convinced that he 'shouldn't be going into the hills in the first place' if his objective is to go climbing.

In reply to tony:

Apologies, I may have misunderstood (I blame a shocking lack of coffee) - I was under the impression that it wasn't about his right to go into the hills, rather the debate about increasing vehicular access to allow people to cut down on the walk time.

I wouldn't dream of arguing a point about someone's right to go climbing or access to said climbs. However, I might have something to say if their sole reason for not going to an area or objection was based on the fact they can't drive up to the bottom of the climb/to the doorstep of the bothy.

In reply to Fireglow:

I think you are misreading the tone of Steve's contribution - he's highlighting the fact that vehicular access has been available to a relatively small number of people accessing the area and that this is not very egalitarian

In reply to Fireglow:

So why did you feel the need to post your rant about Steve's opinions here - with the (incorrect) assumption that he wouldn't see it - instead of on the MCofS thread, where he certainly would?

In reply to Anonymous:

Perhaps one way of levelling the playing field may be to name the fishing club which (if I'm reading SR's post correctly)can make keys available for that part of Galloway?

In reply to Fireglow:

would be great to get this riposte on MCofS website - give it a bit of balance. dunno how you do that, but if SR managed it they you should have your points on too!!!!

In reply to Anonymous:

yeah but bear in mind those getting access is probabaly through the old boys club stylee of whether you know the right people and suspect thats how these really remote places had their first ascents and now they have been claimed the first ascensionists wanna see people repeating their routes otherwsie they would have been egalitarian from the start!!!!!!, so 2 options - give everyone equality to drive up and down these tracks, or give nobody that advantage

In reply to dumblonde:

And the fact that the forestry commission leave their gates open for seasons at a time, giving the opportunist plenty chance to use their car...

In reply to dumblonde:


It's a forum, Fireglow can post there if he/she wants.


That's one of the points Steven is making - to quote his MCofS post, regarding access to the top carpark on Ben Nevis "I would feel a lot more comfortable if we were all allowed to, or none of us were."

In reply to Fireglow:

FWIW I totally object to preferential access arrangements, or those too lazy to deal with the current very user-freindly situation.

The principle of the long walk in to certain areas (Beinn Dearg, long? Lol) must remain. It acts as a deterant and attraction in equal measures.

For all those who feel its too inconvenient, stick to your honeypots.

E-mailed MCofS these very feelings.

Member No. 1595.

In reply to Fireglow:

I can't see increased access happening to be honest, whatever the MCofS may decide. The argument being put forward seems to be that these access tracks (Hydro/Forestry commission/whatever) are publicly owned, therefore the public should have an automatic right to drive on them.

I can't see this sitting very well with the public bodies concerned, as they would no doubt be expected to fund the additional maintanence costs. Most of these tracks will have been built for the purpose of logging or maintenance of dams/intakes etc, and will not have been designed to handle the additional traffic (provision may be required for passing places, parking, and more frequent re-surfacing/repairing would be required).

The other alternative would be adoption by the relevant regional council, which I can't imagine they would particuarly want either.

My personal preference is that things stay as they are. But I am aware that this is just my opinion.

However access to some of the more remote places changes over time -just part of life. You can no longer drive up Glen Tilt, to Loch Pattack, or to the west end of Loch Quioch (I think you could prior to it being dammed). But you can now drive up Glen Strathfarrar and part way up Strath Mulzie. I'm sure future landowners and renewables projects will continue to change the access situation in remote places.

Bit of a ramble really -I've forgotten what my original point was!

In reply to Anonymous:

I have re-read SR's letter and must concede that he does make that point which, to a degree, negates that part of my "rant" with regard to his own argument. I know nothing of the gentleman, other than having recognised the name, probably from SMC and MCofS sources and did not, as someone has stated, purposefully post where I assumed he would not see it!

My issue is with vehicular access to those seen as having respectable intentions leading to vehicular access for all. There are 4X4 and Moto-X clubs just waiting for such a precedent. Do we allow motorised access for some interests and not to others? Or should vehicular access be allowed only to those with legitimate, practical purposes?

As for the last residents of B###hill of B###(now a bothy),the children had to walk 6 miles to school and supplies had to be brought in by pony! Is it then too much to ask that rough, tough climbers and hill-walkers should walk or cycle?

Incidentally, the aforementioned bothy is currently under threat of closure due to vandalism, as are 3 other bothies in the area, and there has been talk of demolitions. The reason... unlocked Forestry gates allowing easy access to cars, which the MBA and other interest groups have protested against to little avail.

It isn't just so called "Yobs" who were responsible either. A Warden reported that B###hill of B### had been trashed and fire-damaged by a group of Doctors from Birmingham!

N.B.;
I have no specific interest in the Galloway area, or its bothies, as I have never been there. My concern is with general vehicular access, or extending the number of Elite Groups with exclusive access, to fragile areas via the Landrover tracks penetrating them.


Climbers wasting time walking is an irrelevance.

The question is, do you wish to see 4X4's, Quads and Trail-bikes accessing areas like Letterewe and Fisherfield?... as that is the ultimate conclusion to S.R's argument!

In reply to Fireglow:

It's a tricky one. Looking at it purely on a selfish level, making access easier means more climbing. On the other hand, the best days out often seem to coincide with those times you've really had to put some extra effort in.

Trying to look at the broader picture, considering the fragile ecosystems we play in, I'm amazed at how few access restrictions there are. This makes it even more incumbent on us, as walkers and climbers, to try and temper our sometimes insatiable (and wholly selfish) need to go into these areas, and be mindful of the effects we are having.

With that in mind, I'd be in favour of stricter measures to reduce vehicular access in particular. It would be nice to leave some wilderness relatively unscathed, no?