This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Went for a saunter round the 4 Glen Lyon munros yesterday, and found that Chesthill are up to their usual tricks, sticking up signs to deter people from heading onto the hills in the area.
http://goo.gl/y455wB
I'm aware that this estate has a long history of being dicks when it comes to access - a quick google throws up lots of discussion on various forums and blogs where people consistently offer measured and reasonable suggestions for encouraging the estate owners to change their tune. Given that little seems to have changed, you have to wonder if a 'Ledgowan' style outing on a regular basis might help to encourage the current incumbents to sell up and piss off to somewhere that might embrace their antiquated approach to land management.
http://goo.gl/y455wB
I'm aware that this estate has a long history of being dicks when it comes to access - a quick google throws up lots of discussion on various forums and blogs where people consistently offer measured and reasonable suggestions for encouraging the estate owners to change their tune. Given that little seems to have changed, you have to wonder if a 'Ledgowan' style outing on a regular basis might help to encourage the current incumbents to sell up and piss off to somewhere that might embrace their antiquated approach to land management.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
How annoying - best to contact MCofS access officer and Perthe and kinross council. Can't let them get away with this.
How annoying - best to contact MCofS access officer and Perthe and kinross council. Can't let them get away with this.
In reply to AG:
Yes, nor with "with the The Access Code" on their sign.
I've never had a good time in that glen; nasty lot, even the person we rented a cottage from was rude when we met them on the hill.
> How annoying - best to contact MCofS access officer and Perthe and kinross council. Can't let them get away with this.
Yes, nor with "with the The Access Code" on their sign.
I've never had a good time in that glen; nasty lot, even the person we rented a cottage from was rude when we met them on the hill.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
It's a really weird one. They must know that people are going to want to get on the hills, simply because they're Munros, and as a group of four, they're an attractive option. Quite why they can't learn to deal with it is beyond me.
It's a really weird one. They must know that people are going to want to get on the hills, simply because they're Munros, and as a group of four, they're an attractive option. Quite why they can't learn to deal with it is beyond me.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
Just ignore it would be my advice. Then, if the estate confronts the "transgressor", get all the evidence needed and let Andy W know.
http://www.andywightman.com/
Council Access Officer's don't seem to do much that is visible but who knows what pressure they're putting on estates behind the scene.
Just ignore it would be my advice. Then, if the estate confronts the "transgressor", get all the evidence needed and let Andy W know.
http://www.andywightman.com/
Council Access Officer's don't seem to do much that is visible but who knows what pressure they're putting on estates behind the scene.
It is Perthshire, the place is hoaching with keep out signs. They are getting a bit bolder these days. Even the core path network is infested with rubbish signs.
For quite a while the propriator of Chesthill was actually on their access committee. Might explain why the Perth and Kinross half of the county is the land that the Land Reform Act forgot - not that it is much better on the Stirling governed half.
Just keep visiting the place.
For quite a while the propriator of Chesthill was actually on their access committee. Might explain why the Perth and Kinross half of the county is the land that the Land Reform Act forgot - not that it is much better on the Stirling governed half.
Just keep visiting the place.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
If we win the yes vote I'd happily trade Perthshire for Cumbria.
I love Glen Lyon, reminds me of The Lakes a bit with its farmed lower valley. One of my favourite rides is from Kenmore through Glen Lyon, over the Lawers road and back via the south Loch Tay road. Did it a month ago, pleasing that all the drivers we encountered were very courteous save for a dour faced tosser in an estate Landrover that belted past giving me and Ms B no room to spare despite having a fair bit of room to play with on his other side.
Yes, definitely keep going there.
If we win the yes vote I'd happily trade Perthshire for Cumbria.
I love Glen Lyon, reminds me of The Lakes a bit with its farmed lower valley. One of my favourite rides is from Kenmore through Glen Lyon, over the Lawers road and back via the south Loch Tay road. Did it a month ago, pleasing that all the drivers we encountered were very courteous save for a dour faced tosser in an estate Landrover that belted past giving me and Ms B no room to spare despite having a fair bit of room to play with on his other side.
Yes, definitely keep going there.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
Were you walking this route more or less? http://www.ukhillwalking.com/logbook/r/?i=484
Be good to get an idea where the sign was relative to that
Were you walking this route more or less? http://www.ukhillwalking.com/logbook/r/?i=484
Be good to get an idea where the sign was relative to that
In reply to Neil Pratt:
I know a stalker in Glen Lyon/Meggernie Estate. From his point of view, unfortunately the geography means a walker can easily push the deer a LONG way and make a stalkers life a misery.
He said a day can be wasted by a single person very easily - unlike in surrounding glens.
Presumably this is the reason for the aggressive signage.
I know a stalker in Glen Lyon/Meggernie Estate. From his point of view, unfortunately the geography means a walker can easily push the deer a LONG way and make a stalkers life a misery.
He said a day can be wasted by a single person very easily - unlike in surrounding glens.
Presumably this is the reason for the aggressive signage.
Post edited at 10:25
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I can imagine his frustration but struggle to empathise. Imagine having to work hard in order to kill these animals?
Looks like he may need a change of career.
I can imagine his frustration but struggle to empathise. Imagine having to work hard in order to kill these animals?
Looks like he may need a change of career.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
i know of a very similar occurance in the same area - two walkers scared off the deer, and the four paying customers of the estate demanded their money back for a day finished by 10am. at least £1000 in lost cash, 2 gillies still wanted paying for the day, no deer carcasses to see to the game dealer and customers who won't be returning.
far too many see the hills as empty - they aren't, they are as much a work place as a factory or lab. right to roam is great - but what about a responsibility not to trash other peoples livelihoods?
i know of a very similar occurance in the same area - two walkers scared off the deer, and the four paying customers of the estate demanded their money back for a day finished by 10am. at least £1000 in lost cash, 2 gillies still wanted paying for the day, no deer carcasses to see to the game dealer and customers who won't be returning.
far too many see the hills as empty - they aren't, they are as much a work place as a factory or lab. right to roam is great - but what about a responsibility not to trash other peoples livelihoods?
In reply to ballsac:
A blanket ban on accessing these hills isn't the answer though, as folks have mentioned there are 4 Munros there and thus people are going to try and climb them. The sign linked to above looks awfully permanent.
The vast majority of estates have managed to work together with walkers/climbers. Any time I've encountered stalking parties I've always spoken to them to check where we were going wasn't an issue and only once have I had to make a slight detour to our planned route.
A blanket ban on accessing these hills isn't the answer though, as folks have mentioned there are 4 Munros there and thus people are going to try and climb them. The sign linked to above looks awfully permanent.
The vast majority of estates have managed to work together with walkers/climbers. Any time I've encountered stalking parties I've always spoken to them to check where we were going wasn't an issue and only once have I had to make a slight detour to our planned route.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
So why not put up temporary signs, purely when a shoot is taking place? ie as allowed for by the Access Code. Most of us will look sympathetically on such short-term restrictions; a permanent sign like this is going to be permanently ignored.
So why not put up temporary signs, purely when a shoot is taking place? ie as allowed for by the Access Code. Most of us will look sympathetically on such short-term restrictions; a permanent sign like this is going to be permanently ignored.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
I spent a couple of days on the Atholl estate near the start of the stalking season - I checked their website, and planned my route to keep away from the areas where they were planning to shoot during my visit. We did much the same thing in October with a DofE group on the Mar estate.
It's really not that complicated - they provide the information, we exercise our right of access responsibly so as to take account of people's work and livelihoods on the hills.
The signs in Glen Lyon are just a polite way of telling you to "piss off my land", and I'm afraid my attitude to that is "right back at you!". If they want that kind of sovereignty over their estate, they should sell up and buy somewhere in England instead.
I spent a couple of days on the Atholl estate near the start of the stalking season - I checked their website, and planned my route to keep away from the areas where they were planning to shoot during my visit. We did much the same thing in October with a DofE group on the Mar estate.
It's really not that complicated - they provide the information, we exercise our right of access responsibly so as to take account of people's work and livelihoods on the hills.
The signs in Glen Lyon are just a polite way of telling you to "piss off my land", and I'm afraid my attitude to that is "right back at you!". If they want that kind of sovereignty over their estate, they should sell up and buy somewhere in England instead.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
I worked in Killin in the early 1980s & there were problems with several of the Glen Lyon estates back then. Seems somethings don't change.
I worked in Killin in the early 1980s & there were problems with several of the Glen Lyon estates back then. Seems somethings don't change.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
I wholeheartedly agree with the upthread comments about the glen being a place where people earn their living.
But it'd be interesting to know the number, timing and exact locations and nature of the 'incidents' where hillwalkers have adversely affected the livelihood.
One aspect of this glen is the way that hillwalkers are funnelled onto the adjacent hills at a limited number of access points- The 'strath' farmland preventing ad hoc entry. You could say one adverse incident is too many, but I wonder if the problem is more one of perception that actuality.
Click on each month in the Chesthill estate's calendar on this link and you'd wonder why they're so uptight about non paying visitors:
http://www.chesthill.com/conservation.php
It's a strange and beautiful place-well kept houses and land, but people themselves appear to be absent. One I met last year on a walk was a lady whose father had owned Meggernie castle. Fascinating to hear her describe the pre damming upper glen and the two lochs at the now Lochan nan Daimh. Speaking of the good old days, if you've the time, here's an old radio programme on the glen from Tom Weir:
youtube.com/watch?v=QZuzkC_703w&
I wholeheartedly agree with the upthread comments about the glen being a place where people earn their living.
But it'd be interesting to know the number, timing and exact locations and nature of the 'incidents' where hillwalkers have adversely affected the livelihood.
One aspect of this glen is the way that hillwalkers are funnelled onto the adjacent hills at a limited number of access points- The 'strath' farmland preventing ad hoc entry. You could say one adverse incident is too many, but I wonder if the problem is more one of perception that actuality.
Click on each month in the Chesthill estate's calendar on this link and you'd wonder why they're so uptight about non paying visitors:
http://www.chesthill.com/conservation.php
It's a strange and beautiful place-well kept houses and land, but people themselves appear to be absent. One I met last year on a walk was a lady whose father had owned Meggernie castle. Fascinating to hear her describe the pre damming upper glen and the two lochs at the now Lochan nan Daimh. Speaking of the good old days, if you've the time, here's an old radio programme on the glen from Tom Weir:
youtube.com/watch?v=QZuzkC_703w&
In reply to Wee Davie:
They had to kill 400 last season on Meggernie alone just to keep the population sustainable. A wasted day and the numbers begin to spiral.
Given your sarcasm I'd suggest you might consider a days stalking to see whether your criticism of the stalker is justified.
> I can imagine his frustration but struggle to empathise. Imagine having to work hard in order to kill these animals?
> Looks like he may need a change of career.
They had to kill 400 last season on Meggernie alone just to keep the population sustainable. A wasted day and the numbers begin to spiral.
Given your sarcasm I'd suggest you might consider a days stalking to see whether your criticism of the stalker is justified.
1
In reply to Toreador:
Hourly conditions dictate the movement of the deer. Access to potential shooting areas can be 360 degree and for miles around, sometimes you shoot over Lochan nan Daimh for example. Temp signs are a nice idea but unfortunately useless.
Hourly conditions dictate the movement of the deer. Access to potential shooting areas can be 360 degree and for miles around, sometimes you shoot over Lochan nan Daimh for example. Temp signs are a nice idea but unfortunately useless.
1
In reply to ballsac:
Very true. It's a tough balance - these estates are often not self sufficient and desperation leads to blanket walking bans I suppose.
Very true. It's a tough balance - these estates are often not self sufficient and desperation leads to blanket walking bans I suppose.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Firstly blanket bans are NOT permissible under the land reform act.
Secondly the estate is making their own lives harder because their reputation precedes them. The end result is visitors are less likely to follow estate instructions, every year there are complaints about the estate not being particularly cooperative, the end result is people will just ignore the signs if they don't appear to be both reasonable I.e in accordance with the code, and current ie specific dates rather than generic.
While I understand the difficulties of conducting a stalk on a small estate close to major conurbations, and thus popular with the public, their approach is not really helping themselves. Furthermore they are trying to rewrite the access code as they see it.
Firstly blanket bans are NOT permissible under the land reform act.
Secondly the estate is making their own lives harder because their reputation precedes them. The end result is visitors are less likely to follow estate instructions, every year there are complaints about the estate not being particularly cooperative, the end result is people will just ignore the signs if they don't appear to be both reasonable I.e in accordance with the code, and current ie specific dates rather than generic.
While I understand the difficulties of conducting a stalk on a small estate close to major conurbations, and thus popular with the public, their approach is not really helping themselves. Furthermore they are trying to rewrite the access code as they see it.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Well said, "sporting" estates are a totally unsustainable way of "managing" the deer. They also provide few jobs and those that they do are not secure. A massive cull is needed.
Well said, "sporting" estates are a totally unsustainable way of "managing" the deer. They also provide few jobs and those that they do are not secure. A massive cull is needed.
1
In reply to Saor Alba:
Blimey alba I'm finding I agree with you again..........and it's nothing to do with the season of goodwill!
Blimey alba I'm finding I agree with you again..........and it's nothing to do with the season of goodwill!
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer: Temporary signs work very well on at least one estate I've worked on.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
These hills are now, rightly in my view, regarded as a national resource for all to enjoy responsibly.
The estate workers and owners depend on people who live and work outside Glen Lyon. They rely on fuel, food, education, power, health care and vehicles provided by people outside Glen Lyon and when the teachers, supermarket workers, electricity company workers, nurses etc come to recreate in Glen Lyon, its just a quid pro quo.
No man is an island.
When Glen Lyon can sustainably provide its own electricity, TV, all its food, etc then they can pull up the drawbridges and operate a locked door policy.
Until then, join the human race and learn to share and share alike.
These hills are now, rightly in my view, regarded as a national resource for all to enjoy responsibly.
The estate workers and owners depend on people who live and work outside Glen Lyon. They rely on fuel, food, education, power, health care and vehicles provided by people outside Glen Lyon and when the teachers, supermarket workers, electricity company workers, nurses etc come to recreate in Glen Lyon, its just a quid pro quo.
No man is an island.
When Glen Lyon can sustainably provide its own electricity, TV, all its food, etc then they can pull up the drawbridges and operate a locked door policy.
Until then, join the human race and learn to share and share alike.
1
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
Dan - that was the route, but in a clockwise direction, starting from Carn Gorm.
Dan - that was the route, but in a clockwise direction, starting from Carn Gorm.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Other estates don't seem to have this problem
> Temp signs are a nice idea but unfortunately useless.
Other estates don't seem to have this problem
In reply to Toreador:
Could you explain how they manage it? Genuinely curious.
When I've been out for a wander with a stalker we can easily walk 15 miles on a big day to get position. You don't know where you're going to go at the beginning because it depends on what the deer do.
I'm not sure how temp signs could be effective - there are too many variables... you could be 15 miles south of where you start, you could be 15 miles north west of where you start. Short of putting temporary signs up at ever access point within a 15 mile radius, how is it done?
Could you explain how they manage it? Genuinely curious.
When I've been out for a wander with a stalker we can easily walk 15 miles on a big day to get position. You don't know where you're going to go at the beginning because it depends on what the deer do.
I'm not sure how temp signs could be effective - there are too many variables... you could be 15 miles south of where you start, you could be 15 miles north west of where you start. Short of putting temporary signs up at ever access point within a 15 mile radius, how is it done?
Post edited at 10:05
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Well it could probably be removed now - not a great deal of stalking activity going on at the moment. I don't know what it says as my access is barred to that link, but I'm assuming that it suggests a couple of months in spring when access is allowed. Most estates don't seem to need much access management outside of the stag shooting season. I can't believe that Chesthill is that different, even if they do have some constraints.
Well it could probably be removed now - not a great deal of stalking activity going on at the moment. I don't know what it says as my access is barred to that link, but I'm assuming that it suggests a couple of months in spring when access is allowed. Most estates don't seem to need much access management outside of the stag shooting season. I can't believe that Chesthill is that different, even if they do have some constraints.
Post edited at 10:12
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I have no idea how it is done, I just see the results as a walker. Presumably they don't put signs out on days when no stalking is taking place.
The fact remains that a permanent sign like the one in the photo is going to be ignored, even when stalking is genuinely happening.
I have no idea how it is done, I just see the results as a walker. Presumably they don't put signs out on days when no stalking is taking place.
The fact remains that a permanent sign like the one in the photo is going to be ignored, even when stalking is genuinely happening.
In reply to malky_c:
Nope. It simply says:
Deer Management in Progress
In accordance with the The (sic) Access Code
DO NOT PASS THIS NOTICE
Please walk elsewhere as recommended by the Code.
See SNH website:
'Heading for the Scottish Hills'
www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/hftsh
If you look at the calendar on their web site (link in llechwedd's post above) it states that stalking of stags starts in August, with hind stalking starting in November and running through to February. That's seven months out of twelve when they have 'deer management' scheduled.
I don't believe that the sign is reasonable as it stands. It should be reported to the LA access officer, though knowing Perth & Kinross' reputation - especially the supposed influence of the landowners on that authority - it's not clear that this would achieve much.
> I don't know what it says as my access is barred to that link, but I'm assuming that it suggests a couple of months in spring when access is allowed.
Nope. It simply says:
Deer Management in Progress
In accordance with the The (sic) Access Code
DO NOT PASS THIS NOTICE
Please walk elsewhere as recommended by the Code.
See SNH website:
'Heading for the Scottish Hills'
www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/hftsh
> Most estates don't seem to need much access management outside of the stag shooting season. I can't believe that Chesthill is that different, even if they do have some constraints.
If you look at the calendar on their web site (link in llechwedd's post above) it states that stalking of stags starts in August, with hind stalking starting in November and running through to February. That's seven months out of twelve when they have 'deer management' scheduled.
I don't believe that the sign is reasonable as it stands. It should be reported to the LA access officer, though knowing Perth & Kinross' reputation - especially the supposed influence of the landowners on that authority - it's not clear that this would achieve much.
In reply to Martin W:
Cheers for that. Even more restrictive than I thought. I know most estates do roe and hind stalking over the winter period, but I've never had any issue with that as it's on a much smaller scale. Hence thinking that it doesn't require much management of hillwalkers.
> If you look at the calendar on their web site (link in llechwedd's post above) it states that stalking of stags starts in August, with hind stalking starting in November and running through to February. That's seven months out of twelve when they have 'deer management' scheduled.
Cheers for that. Even more restrictive than I thought. I know most estates do roe and hind stalking over the winter period, but I've never had any issue with that as it's on a much smaller scale. Hence thinking that it doesn't require much management of hillwalkers.
In reply to Toreador:
I agree that perm signs are going to be ignored. However I do wonder how you'd implement accurate temp signs.
I agree that perm signs are going to be ignored. However I do wonder how you'd implement accurate temp signs.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3766009
These are used quite a bit for roe stalking. Flip the sign when you are in the wood with a rifle.
http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3766009
These are used quite a bit for roe stalking. Flip the sign when you are in the wood with a rifle.
In reply to malky_c:
Exactly, the notion that huge areas of land can be just closed for the sake of one stalk is not realistic.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against stalking at all but jobs, communities, biodiversity, a healthy deer population - Sporting estates are the least effective ways of producing these results.
Exactly, the notion that huge areas of land can be just closed for the sake of one stalk is not realistic.
Don't get me wrong, I am not against stalking at all but jobs, communities, biodiversity, a healthy deer population - Sporting estates are the least effective ways of producing these results.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
I was thinking more the Glen Lyon kind of scenery... i.e. large open mountainsides and huge expanses of land with massive boundaries.
Agreed, in a wood/small perimeter, no problem at all.
I was thinking more the Glen Lyon kind of scenery... i.e. large open mountainsides and huge expanses of land with massive boundaries.
Agreed, in a wood/small perimeter, no problem at all.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Except your argument fails on the grounds that the hills in question can only really be realistically approached from the south, via one specific road and via one specific track.
Keep trying though, it's rather amusing seeing you trying to justify the English style 'get off my land!' trespass mentality in country that's proved it's neither necessary, nor wanted by the Scottish population.
> (In reply to Fat Bumbly2)
>
> I was thinking more the Glen Lyon kind of scenery... i.e. large open mountainsides and huge expanses of land with massive boundaries.
>
> I was thinking more the Glen Lyon kind of scenery... i.e. large open mountainsides and huge expanses of land with massive boundaries.
Except your argument fails on the grounds that the hills in question can only really be realistically approached from the south, via one specific road and via one specific track.
Keep trying though, it's rather amusing seeing you trying to justify the English style 'get off my land!' trespass mentality in country that's proved it's neither necessary, nor wanted by the Scottish population.
In reply to TOS:
Crikey, I didn't mean to wind you up. I simply have spent time with stalkers in Glen Lyon and have seen it happen with my own eyes - I'm not fussed as I don't shoot.
Yes, there is one central road - isn't this pretty much the same with 'most any glen? And regarding tracks, I'm not sure I see the relevance given the Scottish access laws in question in this thread.
Regardless, it makes little difference to me. I'm rarely in Scotland and merely suggesting the opposite point of view. There is far too much aggression from both sides (I'd point maybe a little at your post here though appreciate 'tone' is lost on the internet), everyone would do well every now and then to try to see things from the other side.
Clearly at risk at winding a few of you up, I'll leave it there.
Merry Christmas to all!
Crikey, I didn't mean to wind you up. I simply have spent time with stalkers in Glen Lyon and have seen it happen with my own eyes - I'm not fussed as I don't shoot.
Yes, there is one central road - isn't this pretty much the same with 'most any glen? And regarding tracks, I'm not sure I see the relevance given the Scottish access laws in question in this thread.
Regardless, it makes little difference to me. I'm rarely in Scotland and merely suggesting the opposite point of view. There is far too much aggression from both sides (I'd point maybe a little at your post here though appreciate 'tone' is lost on the internet), everyone would do well every now and then to try to see things from the other side.
Clearly at risk at winding a few of you up, I'll leave it there.
Merry Christmas to all!
Post edited at 14:32
In reply to TOS:
I'm a great fan of Scottish access reform but it's a bit rich calling 'get off my land' an English mentality when the estate in question is Scottish. It's not the only estate in Scotland to take that sort of attitude either. There's also quite a lot of 'get off my land' in Wales. And the Republic of Ireland. In England, funnily enough, I can't remember ever having had a problem with it.
I'm a great fan of Scottish access reform but it's a bit rich calling 'get off my land' an English mentality when the estate in question is Scottish. It's not the only estate in Scotland to take that sort of attitude either. There's also quite a lot of 'get off my land' in Wales. And the Republic of Ireland. In England, funnily enough, I can't remember ever having had a problem with it.
In reply to TOS:
Not really true - Innerwick gives a nice walk from the west over Meall a Mhuic and Beinn Dearg to Carn Gorm, Carn Mairg and Meall na Aighean can be approached from Fortingall to the east, and Meall Garbh and Carn Mairg can be approached from Kinloch Rannoch to the north.
There's an unfortunate combination of a 4 munro baggers' route from the south with a small and irritatingly GoML estate.
Much as I'm tempted to walk there just because they're such to***rs, I prefer the hills further west there anyway.
> Except your argument fails on the grounds that the hills in question can only really be realistically approached from the south, via one specific road and via one specific track.
Not really true - Innerwick gives a nice walk from the west over Meall a Mhuic and Beinn Dearg to Carn Gorm, Carn Mairg and Meall na Aighean can be approached from Fortingall to the east, and Meall Garbh and Carn Mairg can be approached from Kinloch Rannoch to the north.
There's an unfortunate combination of a 4 munro baggers' route from the south with a small and irritatingly GoML estate.
Much as I'm tempted to walk there just because they're such to***rs, I prefer the hills further west there anyway.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Maybe if they tried putting up temporary signs when they're actually shooting rather than the permanent GOML type, people might actually respect them...
> (In reply to TOS)
I simply have spent time with stalkers in Glen Lyon and have seen it happen with my own eyes - I'm not fussed as I don't shoot.>
Maybe if they tried putting up temporary signs when they're actually shooting rather than the permanent GOML type, people might actually respect them...
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
There was a thread not so long ago about someone who was turned back on a track that was a short distance from a right of way, it resulted in a thread where there was a split between two very different camps; those who thought the world would implode if England adopted a Scottish 'responsible access' style approach, and those from Scotland reading in disbelief that people interested in sports that require access to the outdoors, actually fighting the corner for the tresspass law.
When it comes to access and trespass, rightly or wrongly, the Scots and the English are wired up very differently.
My comment wasn't an insult directed at English people, just an observation of the differences in attitude and laws... and how those attitudes can come up to Scotland when people people buy estates up here (eg. Ledgowan).
As for getting wound up, well yes, the law in Scotland has been proven to have no teeth and the more this gets to be known, the more likely other estates will follow suit.
I go to the outdoors to escape the hassles of everyday life, not so I can have arguments with landowners regarding unecessary blanket banning of people on their land. I've already turned back on two solo hillwalking days in the Scottish Highlands due permanent signs like the one in the OP.
There was a thread not so long ago about someone who was turned back on a track that was a short distance from a right of way, it resulted in a thread where there was a split between two very different camps; those who thought the world would implode if England adopted a Scottish 'responsible access' style approach, and those from Scotland reading in disbelief that people interested in sports that require access to the outdoors, actually fighting the corner for the tresspass law.
When it comes to access and trespass, rightly or wrongly, the Scots and the English are wired up very differently.
My comment wasn't an insult directed at English people, just an observation of the differences in attitude and laws... and how those attitudes can come up to Scotland when people people buy estates up here (eg. Ledgowan).
As for getting wound up, well yes, the law in Scotland has been proven to have no teeth and the more this gets to be known, the more likely other estates will follow suit.
I go to the outdoors to escape the hassles of everyday life, not so I can have arguments with landowners regarding unecessary blanket banning of people on their land. I've already turned back on two solo hillwalking days in the Scottish Highlands due permanent signs like the one in the OP.
In reply to TOS:
To be fair, for security reasons, and top bagging trips, I have visited the Carn Mairg group from the Loch Rannoch side on a few occasions. Of course the flip sign would work well at the Invervar pinch point, or any other "Red line" route (red lines on the SMC guide to the Munros) Most munro baggers tend to stick to limited routes.
Such a sign would be a good replacement for the one in the thread, but for now I suggest that folk act as "recommended by the code" and ignore non compliant signage on the day and report it to the local authority later.
(This is of course Perth and Kinross council area so good luck with that one.)
To be fair, for security reasons, and top bagging trips, I have visited the Carn Mairg group from the Loch Rannoch side on a few occasions. Of course the flip sign would work well at the Invervar pinch point, or any other "Red line" route (red lines on the SMC guide to the Munros) Most munro baggers tend to stick to limited routes.
Such a sign would be a good replacement for the one in the thread, but for now I suggest that folk act as "recommended by the code" and ignore non compliant signage on the day and report it to the local authority later.
(This is of course Perth and Kinross council area so good luck with that one.)
Post edited at 17:12
In reply to TOS:
Wired up differently? Being English originally but a big fan of our far sighted Scottish access laws, we'll have to agree to disagree there. Heard of the Kinder Trespass?
I've not seen that thread but if the pro/anti access posters really could be cleanly divided on national grounds it was likely pure chance.
Access wise we're lucky to have so much more open country up here, and that must have had a bearing on how the free-roaming culture developed. It'd be interesting to speculate how things might've panned out if all of Scotland had been as densely developed and populated as down south. Poor old Eng/Wal do have a more limited set of rights of course, but most of their bits and bobs of open hills are now Access Land where you can walk as you please - which at least approximates to (in pale imitation of) our right of responsible access up here.
Perhaps I'm being over sensitive (nationality antennae quite twitchy at present for obvious reasons), but it looks like you're wanting to blame any and all access issues up here on incoming landowners? Apologies if i'm wrong.
But isn't the estates system that permits these people to act like little lairds a weird setup for which Scotland can take all the credit? I strongly doubt too - with no evidence, mind - that it's only landowners who hail from outwith Scotland who are hostile to public access.
Agree - the law obviously needs laying down, some estates are well out of line.
Wired up differently? Being English originally but a big fan of our far sighted Scottish access laws, we'll have to agree to disagree there. Heard of the Kinder Trespass?
I've not seen that thread but if the pro/anti access posters really could be cleanly divided on national grounds it was likely pure chance.
Access wise we're lucky to have so much more open country up here, and that must have had a bearing on how the free-roaming culture developed. It'd be interesting to speculate how things might've panned out if all of Scotland had been as densely developed and populated as down south. Poor old Eng/Wal do have a more limited set of rights of course, but most of their bits and bobs of open hills are now Access Land where you can walk as you please - which at least approximates to (in pale imitation of) our right of responsible access up here.
Perhaps I'm being over sensitive (nationality antennae quite twitchy at present for obvious reasons), but it looks like you're wanting to blame any and all access issues up here on incoming landowners? Apologies if i'm wrong.
But isn't the estates system that permits these people to act like little lairds a weird setup for which Scotland can take all the credit? I strongly doubt too - with no evidence, mind - that it's only landowners who hail from outwith Scotland who are hostile to public access.
Agree - the law obviously needs laying down, some estates are well out of line.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
Ok, ok... is it not fair to say that of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who do those munros each year, only a tiny handful do them from anywhere other than the south?
and of that tiny handful, how many actually get anywhere near a deer shoot?
The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make, was that with those hills, 99%+ of the people who could potentially disturb a shoot each year, will pass through one place.
Ok, ok... is it not fair to say that of the hundreds (thousands?) of people who do those munros each year, only a tiny handful do them from anywhere other than the south?
and of that tiny handful, how many actually get anywhere near a deer shoot?
The point I was trying (and obviously failing) to make, was that with those hills, 99%+ of the people who could potentially disturb a shoot each year, will pass through one place.
In reply to TOS:
You made it very well - Invervar is a choke point and the obvious route if wanting four munros in one go. That is why the barstewards built a big gate across it in the 1990s.
You made it very well - Invervar is a choke point and the obvious route if wanting four munros in one go. That is why the barstewards built a big gate across it in the 1990s.
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I would have thought that the walking 15 miles in a day to find some beasts is an exception rather than the rule? But also that some estates will find it easier to put up signs than others, depending on the number of access points. We used to only have one main location where they were needed, hence not really a problem. Just a map of the area we were likely to cover and some notes on the most appropriate walking routes. Given the weather and wind conditions are reasonably well forecast an educated guess seemed to work well most days.
Interestingly, the head stalker on the estate I used to work would actively encourage walkers to use certain routes some days as with a particular wind it would move beasts into a particular area!
For what it's worth, through my experience on both sides I think several estates either can't be arsed or are finding it difficult to adjust shooting activities which haven't really changed for a long time.
I would have thought that the walking 15 miles in a day to find some beasts is an exception rather than the rule? But also that some estates will find it easier to put up signs than others, depending on the number of access points. We used to only have one main location where they were needed, hence not really a problem. Just a map of the area we were likely to cover and some notes on the most appropriate walking routes. Given the weather and wind conditions are reasonably well forecast an educated guess seemed to work well most days.
Interestingly, the head stalker on the estate I used to work would actively encourage walkers to use certain routes some days as with a particular wind it would move beasts into a particular area!
For what it's worth, through my experience on both sides I think several estates either can't be arsed or are finding it difficult to adjust shooting activities which haven't really changed for a long time.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
Last time I did those four Munros (outside the stalking season) there there was notice telling you to do them counter-clockwise (I think). No explanation. I made a point of going in the opposite direction. What's all that about?
> You made it very well - Invervar is a choke point and the obvious route if wanting four munros in one go.
Last time I did those four Munros (outside the stalking season) there there was notice telling you to do them counter-clockwise (I think). No explanation. I made a point of going in the opposite direction. What's all that about?
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Surely the most aggression is from the side that thinks it's spiffing fun to kill defenceless animals? I'm always amused at the self righteousness with which the fans of "killing for fun" defend this rather primitive side of human character.
> There is far too much aggression from both sides...
Surely the most aggression is from the side that thinks it's spiffing fun to kill defenceless animals? I'm always amused at the self righteousness with which the fans of "killing for fun" defend this rather primitive side of human character.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
On that point, if there's an estate worker, acting as gatekeeper when you pass through said gate, and he informs you that 'they're stalking today, please don't go up', would you;
(a) change your route for the day, cognisant of responsible access
or
(b)assume that, given the estates history, he's lying and attempt to continue on past him.
I guess most, for all their bluster, would comply with his directive, since they've no way of checking.
I wonder if all the internet airing of the estate's stance on access has reduced the number of visitors via Invervar. Presumably the list tickers will do the horseshoe once, at least.
> Invervar is a choke point and the obvious route if wanting four munros in one go. That is why the barstewards built a big gate across it.
On that point, if there's an estate worker, acting as gatekeeper when you pass through said gate, and he informs you that 'they're stalking today, please don't go up', would you;
(a) change your route for the day, cognisant of responsible access
or
(b)assume that, given the estates history, he's lying and attempt to continue on past him.
I guess most, for all their bluster, would comply with his directive, since they've no way of checking.
I wonder if all the internet airing of the estate's stance on access has reduced the number of visitors via Invervar. Presumably the list tickers will do the horseshoe once, at least.
In reply to llechwedd:
a) of course. Been in that position many times. Would be amazed to see that here though. A reasonable request at a specific time is not their MO,that would be the action of a responsible estate. Bluster does not come into this situation. Such encounters have always been amicable in my experience.
You need to be flexible in the stag season.
Chesthill just don't want you on the hill at any time though. You should have seen the rambling justification for their attitude that used to be on the gate 15 years ago. This place goes beyond stalking season etiquette, sadly. They are full on goml.
(That gate was locked for months at a time BTW - they must have had a near inexhaustable supply of targets)
a) of course. Been in that position many times. Would be amazed to see that here though. A reasonable request at a specific time is not their MO,that would be the action of a responsible estate. Bluster does not come into this situation. Such encounters have always been amicable in my experience.
You need to be flexible in the stag season.
Chesthill just don't want you on the hill at any time though. You should have seen the rambling justification for their attitude that used to be on the gate 15 years ago. This place goes beyond stalking season etiquette, sadly. They are full on goml.
(That gate was locked for months at a time BTW - they must have had a near inexhaustable supply of targets)
Post edited at 20:40
In reply to llechwedd:
I've always presumed a lot of N Chesthill's aim was to reduce repeat foot traffic. They could be as busy as Lawers given their position.
Make it unpleasant and folks will be loathe to repeat them.
> I wonder if all the internet airing of the estate's stance on access has reduced the number of visitors via Invervar. Presumably the list tickers will do the horseshoe once, at least.
I've always presumed a lot of N Chesthill's aim was to reduce repeat foot traffic. They could be as busy as Lawers given their position.
Make it unpleasant and folks will be loathe to repeat them.
In reply to Fat Bumbly2:
You don't think they'd make such 'requests' when no stalking was taking place,just to dissuade or intimidate, or am I being paranoid?
You don't think they'd make such 'requests' when no stalking was taking place,just to dissuade or intimidate, or am I being paranoid?
In reply to Neil Pratt:
Back to your original post - had you phoned the estate office the day before to see if there were any stalking restrictions? I've phoned them in the past, and still managed to get out because they had nothing scheduled in that area that day.
It's got to give both ways - we want to walk on the land, they want to earn their keep from it - so sometimes you just got to plan to go elsewhere.
Back to your original post - had you phoned the estate office the day before to see if there were any stalking restrictions? I've phoned them in the past, and still managed to get out because they had nothing scheduled in that area that day.
It's got to give both ways - we want to walk on the land, they want to earn their keep from it - so sometimes you just got to plan to go elsewhere.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
Just received an email saying that the MCofS has today issued a press release entitled "Appeal to MSP over Glen Lyon access; John Swinney urged to act on longstanding access problems".
Not yet on their website, but no doubt will be shortly.
Just received an email saying that the MCofS has today issued a press release entitled "Appeal to MSP over Glen Lyon access; John Swinney urged to act on longstanding access problems".
Not yet on their website, but no doubt will be shortly.
In reply to TOS:
>
> When it comes to access and trespass, rightly or wrongly, the Scots and the English are wired up very differently.
> true, when I was fizzing away at the Ben Lomond car park when I got a ticket for parking there, a group of English walkers were genuinely bemused at my annoyance of having paying for parking, where I had been parking for many years, and also my annoyance at their placid their Southern acceptance.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
If they don't want any walkers to access the estate, how come when doing a clockwise circuit of the 4, there is a sign directing walkers to Carn Gorm followed by several arrow signs later on? Also, there is a sign directing walkers to the exit path when you get back near to the road at the end.
The estate owners are clearly too lazy to change the access signs on a daily basis in order to advise the public when stalking is taking place. Such behaviour means they are making it more difficult for themselves. Therefore I have no sympathy with the estate owners, but the local council are clearly not up to the job.
If they don't want any walkers to access the estate, how come when doing a clockwise circuit of the 4, there is a sign directing walkers to Carn Gorm followed by several arrow signs later on? Also, there is a sign directing walkers to the exit path when you get back near to the road at the end.
The estate owners are clearly too lazy to change the access signs on a daily basis in order to advise the public when stalking is taking place. Such behaviour means they are making it more difficult for themselves. Therefore I have no sympathy with the estate owners, but the local council are clearly not up to the job.
In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
I wonder if it's just coincidence that the estate website isn't available at the moment?
I wonder if it's just coincidence that the estate website isn't available at the moment?
In reply to tony:
Doubt it... given the error message that appears for me:
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
I'd say they might have had one or two folks looking at their webpage!
Doubt it... given the error message that appears for me:
"Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
I'd say they might have had one or two folks looking at their webpage!
Post edited at 16:46
In reply to Fiona Reid:
Quite a wee hornets nest this has all stirred up
It'll be interesting to see if any tangible changes emerge as a result of this flurry of activity. It seems to me that, given Glen Lyon is widely recognised as an area of great beauty, it's perhaps time to raise the question of whether it's current management is really working, and if it's time for a change. I've heard various rumours that there's a lot of discontent amongst locals about the way the current owners conduct themselves, so perhaps the time is ripe for a discussion about community buyouts or encouraging a sale to a group like the NTS or John Muir Trust.
Quite a wee hornets nest this has all stirred up
It'll be interesting to see if any tangible changes emerge as a result of this flurry of activity. It seems to me that, given Glen Lyon is widely recognised as an area of great beauty, it's perhaps time to raise the question of whether it's current management is really working, and if it's time for a change. I've heard various rumours that there's a lot of discontent amongst locals about the way the current owners conduct themselves, so perhaps the time is ripe for a discussion about community buyouts or encouraging a sale to a group like the NTS or John Muir Trust.
Out of interest has anyone ever tried calling the numbers provided in the guides for the Estates? We were walking in Scotland in August, tried ringing various Estates to check if we were okay to access but could not reach anyone. Luckily most the areas we walked had signs recommending routes to stick to during stalking season, this seemed quite helpful. Personally I don't want to upset land owners or anyone's livelyhood, we just need a way of obtaining information about what is happening so we can make sure we respect that. I was surprised there was not just a generic website where you could go online and see which areas were currently being worked.
A blanket ban on people walking at all times is just confusing and will just encourage people not to try and find out if it is okay to walk there or not.
A blanket ban on people walking at all times is just confusing and will just encourage people not to try and find out if it is okay to walk there or not.
This is always going to be a stark flashback that the clearances were not that long ago. While people hark on about sport and lost livelihoods, these were wild lands which normal people lives and worked on under increasing estate control and then kicked off the hills for stupid sheep, and these are the same estates and lineages who perpetrated these acts. I have little respect for sporting estates for this reason.
In reply to Milesy:
.....and the UK's financial position would be a hundred times worse if we hadn't nicked most of what we own off the 3rd World.
Need to be a little more pragmatic in dealing with the here and now rather than harking back to centuries old issues.
> This is always going to be a stark flashback that the clearances were not that long ago. While people hark on about sport and lost livelihoods, these were wild lands which normal people lives and worked on under increasing estate control and then kicked off the hills for stupid sheep, and these are the same estates and lineages who perpetrated these acts. I have little respect for sporting estates for this reason.
.....and the UK's financial position would be a hundred times worse if we hadn't nicked most of what we own off the 3rd World.
Need to be a little more pragmatic in dealing with the here and now rather than harking back to centuries old issues.
In reply to Neil Pratt:
The piece on BBC Scotland website at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-25404428
explains the current position.
The piece on BBC Scotland website at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-25404428
explains the current position.
In reply to kinley2:
The sporting estates and the colonial attitudes of their owners (http://www.primelocation.com/homes-news/scottish-country-estates-living-the... ) need to get dealt with by government.
Since it would apparently be illegal to just confiscate the estates the SNP should force them out of business with regulations and taxes. Licensing requirements for anyone that wants to shoot at deer or grouse - say a 3 months mandatory training course - would be a start.
> Need to be a little more pragmatic in dealing with the here and now rather than harking back to centuries old issues.
The sporting estates and the colonial attitudes of their owners (http://www.primelocation.com/homes-news/scottish-country-estates-living-the... ) need to get dealt with by government.
Since it would apparently be illegal to just confiscate the estates the SNP should force them out of business with regulations and taxes. Licensing requirements for anyone that wants to shoot at deer or grouse - say a 3 months mandatory training course - would be a start.
In reply to jamie84:
They should make the paying guests get a licence and training and the cops should be allowed to roll up unannounced and do breath tests on anyone that's been using a gun.
> Deer stalkers require a license at the moment.
They should make the paying guests get a licence and training and the cops should be allowed to roll up unannounced and do breath tests on anyone that's been using a gun.
In reply to Milesy:
F*ck sake Chris, get a grip!
Does having an opinion for the sake of having one on an event which has no bearing on your own enjoyment of the outdoors make it valid?????
Nothing like a bland, baseless, ill informed opinion presented as fact to colour an argument!
Aye, undoubtedly the landowners of the 18th and 19th century were bad bastards. History proves that. However, we live in the 21st century and the days of big bad lairds and earls and their omnipotism are essentially gone.
Modern access issues in Scotland (which would appear to be pretty few to be fair) are usually dealt with by the likes of the bmc, smc or whichever relevant body, through official channels, and noone dies as a result.
If you can tell me that your ancestors were victims of the purge, then i can understand your animosity, but otherwise it seems to me you are taking a stand for the sake of taking it!
F*ck sake Chris, get a grip!
Does having an opinion for the sake of having one on an event which has no bearing on your own enjoyment of the outdoors make it valid?????
Nothing like a bland, baseless, ill informed opinion presented as fact to colour an argument!
Aye, undoubtedly the landowners of the 18th and 19th century were bad bastards. History proves that. However, we live in the 21st century and the days of big bad lairds and earls and their omnipotism are essentially gone.
Modern access issues in Scotland (which would appear to be pretty few to be fair) are usually dealt with by the likes of the bmc, smc or whichever relevant body, through official channels, and noone dies as a result.
If you can tell me that your ancestors were victims of the purge, then i can understand your animosity, but otherwise it seems to me you are taking a stand for the sake of taking it!
Post edited at 23:30
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh: (http://www.primelocation.com/homes-news/scottish-country-estates-living-the... )
Please wait while I go puke. Could be a piss take... (hope so!)
Please wait while I go puke. Could be a piss take... (hope so!)
In reply to Fiona Reid:
Is this not a symptom of one of those web Denial of Service attacks?(?)
> Doubt it... given the error message that appears for me:
> "Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
> The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later."
Is this not a symptom of one of those web Denial of Service attacks?(?)
In reply to TOS:
I'm pretty sure the website is down just because lots of folks have looked at their website because of the various internet forum and new articles. As a result they've exceeded their daily/weekly or monthly bandwidth limit (the limits and when they get reset depend on the ISP hosting the website) and it's very likely that the website is currently not accessible because of this.
> Is this not a symptom of one of those web Denial of Service attacks?(?)
I'm pretty sure the website is down just because lots of folks have looked at their website because of the various internet forum and new articles. As a result they've exceeded their daily/weekly or monthly bandwidth limit (the limits and when they get reset depend on the ISP hosting the website) and it's very likely that the website is currently not accessible because of this.
Post edited at 09:29
In reply to Neil Pratt:
Are there reports of problems also on the South Chesthill Estate?
That beside lawers.
Are there reports of problems also on the South Chesthill Estate?
That beside lawers.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...