This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
An interesting article on the subject - apparently it's gained some monied traction.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/14095345.Could_the_creation_of_alpin...
A quote from the article: "I don’t think our wild places should only be accessible to a mountaineering elite who are prepared to carry 20-kilo backpacks” - the only time I recall taking such a rucksack with me on a hike in the UK it contained 20kg of beer and wine, hardly the "mountaineering elite"...
As I understand it the huts would be to cater to the very precisely defined group who find B&Bs to be to cushy, but who find wild camping and mountain bothies to be to crude.
What do people think? I'd be particularly keen to hear views more positive than mine...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/14095345.Could_the_creation_of_alpin...
A quote from the article: "I don’t think our wild places should only be accessible to a mountaineering elite who are prepared to carry 20-kilo backpacks” - the only time I recall taking such a rucksack with me on a hike in the UK it contained 20kg of beer and wine, hardly the "mountaineering elite"...
As I understand it the huts would be to cater to the very precisely defined group who find B&Bs to be to cushy, but who find wild camping and mountain bothies to be to crude.
What do people think? I'd be particularly keen to hear views more positive than mine...
In reply to wintertree:
Sounds like an attempt to bring more year round tourism and jobs to some areas if Scotland.
Sounds like an attempt to bring more year round tourism and jobs to some areas if Scotland.
2
1
In reply to wintertree:
Didn't such things used to be called youth hostels?
> As I understand it the huts would be to cater to the very precisely defined group who find B&Bs to be to cushy, but who find wild camping and mountain bothies to be to crude.
Didn't such things used to be called youth hostels?
24
In reply to Orgsm:
Indeed; I imagine given the highly variable weather and the difficulties in access and planning that most of these would end up built in valleys and near roads, and would rather more resemble youth hostels as MG notes, than genuine mountain huts.
I like the idea of being able to visit a cushy hut on, say, Beinn a Chearcaill, and to enjoy the sunset with a beer or two before getting some tea. Although I wouldn't like it enough to see the plateau built on!
So it's more a case of valley floor huts for the intrepid long distance walker. Will needs some good drying rooms...
> Sounds like an attempt to bring more year round tourism and jobs to some areas if Scotland.
Indeed; I imagine given the highly variable weather and the difficulties in access and planning that most of these would end up built in valleys and near roads, and would rather more resemble youth hostels as MG notes, than genuine mountain huts.
I like the idea of being able to visit a cushy hut on, say, Beinn a Chearcaill, and to enjoy the sunset with a beer or two before getting some tea. Although I wouldn't like it enough to see the plateau built on!
So it's more a case of valley floor huts for the intrepid long distance walker. Will needs some good drying rooms...
1
In reply to wintertree:
There's probably a reasonably large group of people who like walking but have a health issue which means they need to be a bit more careful about where they stay overnight. If you add to that those who can't/won't carry heavy packs and those with minimum standards for toilet facilities a hut represents the minimum comfort a fairly large group of people is willing to put up with.
A hut which split up a long section of long distance walking trail into two manageable ones would quite likely make the whole trail much more popular.
There's probably a reasonably large group of people who like walking but have a health issue which means they need to be a bit more careful about where they stay overnight. If you add to that those who can't/won't carry heavy packs and those with minimum standards for toilet facilities a hut represents the minimum comfort a fairly large group of people is willing to put up with.
A hut which split up a long section of long distance walking trail into two manageable ones would quite likely make the whole trail much more popular.
Post edited at 22:33
1
In reply to wintertree:
unmanned stock decent quality huts work well in other countries. But, I don't think it will work in the UK, judging by the litter and mess left in and around the UK's current huts I can't see it lasting long. They won't be cheap, due to the methods used to stock them (primarily helicopter), which will lead to dishonesty. Or the risk that some local scum will clean all the food out, the contents, the power supply etc..
Perhaps only the remote parts of Scotland would work, out of reach of the rabble.
unmanned stock decent quality huts work well in other countries. But, I don't think it will work in the UK, judging by the litter and mess left in and around the UK's current huts I can't see it lasting long. They won't be cheap, due to the methods used to stock them (primarily helicopter), which will lead to dishonesty. Or the risk that some local scum will clean all the food out, the contents, the power supply etc..
Perhaps only the remote parts of Scotland would work, out of reach of the rabble.
10
In reply to wintertree:
Nope. There are too many idiots around. Having seen the roof trusses sawn out of a bothy for firewood I'm sure there are people with very small brains and no social training using them nowadays.
Nope. There are too many idiots around. Having seen the roof trusses sawn out of a bothy for firewood I'm sure there are people with very small brains and no social training using them nowadays.
8
In reply to Rigid Raider:
Been using bothies for 45 years. Believe me its never been any different. The bothys least likely to get trashed are the remote one and those where the owner or keeper lives at the start of the route to it.
> Nope. There are too many idiots around. Having seen the roof trusses sawn out of a bothy for firewood I'm sure there are people with very small brains and no social training using them nowadays.
Been using bothies for 45 years. Believe me its never been any different. The bothys least likely to get trashed are the remote one and those where the owner or keeper lives at the start of the route to it.
5
In reply to wintertree:
I'm strongly against it; Scotland has little enough countryside which feels anything like wild, and the last thing we need is more 'infrastructure.' The hills are already there for anybody to enjoy (or not, as they like.)
As for the statement in the article that "We are looking to learn from good practice in countries like Norway and New Zealand, where long-distance routes have developed along with simple huts for people to stay in at low cost", it sounds like the person involved has never visited Norway. 'Simple' huts? 'Low cost'? Ha!
I'm strongly against it; Scotland has little enough countryside which feels anything like wild, and the last thing we need is more 'infrastructure.' The hills are already there for anybody to enjoy (or not, as they like.)
As for the statement in the article that "We are looking to learn from good practice in countries like Norway and New Zealand, where long-distance routes have developed along with simple huts for people to stay in at low cost", it sounds like the person involved has never visited Norway. 'Simple' huts? 'Low cost'? Ha!
Post edited at 11:33
9
In reply to Rob Parsons:
For people normally staying in Hilton it is simple and cheap..
> 'Simple' huts? 'Low cost'? Ha!
For people normally staying in Hilton it is simple and cheap..
Post edited at 09:15
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And spoil the character of the walk
> A hut which split up a long section of long distance walking trail into two manageable ones would quite likely make the whole trail much more popular.
And spoil the character of the walk
3
In reply to Hat Dude:
Maybe. But Scotland could use some more tourist income and the long distance paths with the exception of the West Highland Way aren't generating that much traffic. I think it is fairly obvious why: on the West Highland way you can split the walk up fairly easily into roughly 20km days with overnight stays in B&Bs but if you look at the Skye Trail or Southern Upland Way or most of the others you get one or maybe two sections where you either need to go 30-40km in a day or camp, suddenly the walk is much less accessible so there are much fewer people. That one segment is reducing traffic on the whole path, all the businesses along the whole length of the path would benefit if there was a hut to make the path a feasible undertaking for the pretty large number of people who like walking but don't want to camp. It doesn't take much to put someone in the 'no camping' category - an allergy, a bad back or having higher expectations about toilet facilities will do it.
> And spoil the character of the walk
Maybe. But Scotland could use some more tourist income and the long distance paths with the exception of the West Highland Way aren't generating that much traffic. I think it is fairly obvious why: on the West Highland way you can split the walk up fairly easily into roughly 20km days with overnight stays in B&Bs but if you look at the Skye Trail or Southern Upland Way or most of the others you get one or maybe two sections where you either need to go 30-40km in a day or camp, suddenly the walk is much less accessible so there are much fewer people. That one segment is reducing traffic on the whole path, all the businesses along the whole length of the path would benefit if there was a hut to make the path a feasible undertaking for the pretty large number of people who like walking but don't want to camp. It doesn't take much to put someone in the 'no camping' category - an allergy, a bad back or having higher expectations about toilet facilities will do it.
1
1
In reply to wintertree:
I'd love to see many more of the hundreds of ramshackle tumbledown old buildings AROUND the hills, in remote areas across the coast and valleys of Scotland transformed (or even floored and replaced) into a wide variety of styles and standards of accommodation - where there is demand to sustain them long term.
But the key for me is altitude. Our mountains are wee. So no need for paid-for huts UP the hills.
D.
I'd love to see many more of the hundreds of ramshackle tumbledown old buildings AROUND the hills, in remote areas across the coast and valleys of Scotland transformed (or even floored and replaced) into a wide variety of styles and standards of accommodation - where there is demand to sustain them long term.
But the key for me is altitude. Our mountains are wee. So no need for paid-for huts UP the hills.
D.
4
In reply to MG:
There seems to be a SYHA "Alpine" hostel near the Wetterhorn according to the cover of the 1954 SYHA handbook!
https://uk.pinterest.com/syhahostelling/archive-youth-hostel-handbook-cover...
Must be a joke I think, rather than sloppy artwork, as 1954 would have been the centenary of the 1854 Ascent that marked the beginning of the "Golden Age"
There seems to be a SYHA "Alpine" hostel near the Wetterhorn according to the cover of the 1954 SYHA handbook!
https://uk.pinterest.com/syhahostelling/archive-youth-hostel-handbook-cover...
Must be a joke I think, rather than sloppy artwork, as 1954 would have been the centenary of the 1854 Ascent that marked the beginning of the "Golden Age"
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
A more accessible range of long distance paths would be great, but surely that would be achievable with better routes and better roadside / valley accommodation options, though? There are relatively few bits of Scotland that genuinely require you to up your game a bit to get there at all, and they're special because of that.
A more accessible range of long distance paths would be great, but surely that would be achievable with better routes and better roadside / valley accommodation options, though? There are relatively few bits of Scotland that genuinely require you to up your game a bit to get there at all, and they're special because of that.
4
In reply to wintertree:
I'm replying to this topic because I want to see if writing things down will help me make up my mind!
I've long been a fan of improving access to the hills. Between them the landowners and the self-interested climbing community have always seemed obstructive in helping the occasional visitor into the wilder areas ("it will interfere with shooting/my enjoyment of the wilderness", delete as appropriate. To me the CIC hut should be a refuge in the Alpine style, open to all, and I would go further but having a road and visitor centre into one of the country's most spectacular coires. I think the idea of establishing 2-3 days trails, in the NZ style, is brilliant. Aviemore to Braemar is obvious, Fort William to Dalwhinnie and Glenfinnan to Inverie seem obvious routes (with easy transport options). Low level, manned huts to give people the confidence to get out onto a well marked trail and a bed along the way. The economic benefit would be significant.
But then how would they be serviced? By road (track) I assume (to keep costs down) and I don't really fancy slogging along a track to Corrour up the Dee any more than I have to. How much would they cost? Let's face it we'd be looking at £30-40 a night and this would rule it out for a great many people. Would we end up with lots of people camping in the immediate vicinity using (or indeed not using) the 'facilities'? In the past such routes have not worked (think Daibaig to Redopint - the SYHA closed some years ago, although transport wither end may have been an issue). And as for higher mountain huts, I assume people remember the 1971 tragedy.
But I think this is something that can work. I would like to see more people in the hills and the traditional route of scouts-climbing club is becoming more difficult for those not of particular socioeconomic strata. Marked trails on the hills are a good thing (and are present in many places) but they need to be planned with care. By far the best way to see Scotland is on foot and we should be helping people to do so.
But as I said, I'm not entirely sure and I'd like to see more debate on it.
I'm replying to this topic because I want to see if writing things down will help me make up my mind!
I've long been a fan of improving access to the hills. Between them the landowners and the self-interested climbing community have always seemed obstructive in helping the occasional visitor into the wilder areas ("it will interfere with shooting/my enjoyment of the wilderness", delete as appropriate. To me the CIC hut should be a refuge in the Alpine style, open to all, and I would go further but having a road and visitor centre into one of the country's most spectacular coires. I think the idea of establishing 2-3 days trails, in the NZ style, is brilliant. Aviemore to Braemar is obvious, Fort William to Dalwhinnie and Glenfinnan to Inverie seem obvious routes (with easy transport options). Low level, manned huts to give people the confidence to get out onto a well marked trail and a bed along the way. The economic benefit would be significant.
But then how would they be serviced? By road (track) I assume (to keep costs down) and I don't really fancy slogging along a track to Corrour up the Dee any more than I have to. How much would they cost? Let's face it we'd be looking at £30-40 a night and this would rule it out for a great many people. Would we end up with lots of people camping in the immediate vicinity using (or indeed not using) the 'facilities'? In the past such routes have not worked (think Daibaig to Redopint - the SYHA closed some years ago, although transport wither end may have been an issue). And as for higher mountain huts, I assume people remember the 1971 tragedy.
But I think this is something that can work. I would like to see more people in the hills and the traditional route of scouts-climbing club is becoming more difficult for those not of particular socioeconomic strata. Marked trails on the hills are a good thing (and are present in many places) but they need to be planned with care. By far the best way to see Scotland is on foot and we should be helping people to do so.
But as I said, I'm not entirely sure and I'd like to see more debate on it.
3
6
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm barely aware of the SKye Trail and I live there a good part of the year. One part of me says stay away, the island is crowded enough, the other half looks at the car park opposite the Fairy Pools bulging with coaches and campers and thinks a couple of extra backpackers won't really register.
I'm barely aware of the SKye Trail and I live there a good part of the year. One part of me says stay away, the island is crowded enough, the other half looks at the car park opposite the Fairy Pools bulging with coaches and campers and thinks a couple of extra backpackers won't really register.
In reply to Toccata:
But the point here is that places like the central Cairngorms or Ben Alder are more the exception than the rule. The highlands are full of places that feel pretty remote but that are still within a straightforward walk of a car park or train station. People are going on like unless the Hutchie Hut does full board and hot showers at £60 a night then the Genteel Rambler will be unable to experience The Majesty Of The Highlands at all and anything beyond a potter round the Glen Nevis Visitor Centre will be the sole preserve of elite mountaineers, but that's pish.
As it stands, there are amazing landscapes to be seen in the highlands without getting out of your car, there are loads of amazing places that you can get to in a day walk and still get home for dinner, and relatively few that really require you to be happy to rough it a bit or carry camping gear. And I don't think that this is an unreasonable balance.
Edit: I don't think that the current situation is perfect and I wouldn't rule out tweaking at the edges (it's not obvious how you'd consistently argue that Glen Affric Hostel or Steal Hut are Good Things but turning Derry Lodge into an SYHA or getting some remote shepherds' hut opened up as an MBA bothy would be Bad Things) but I am worried by the lack of perspective in an attitude that's heading towards the view that it's a problem for anywhere to be inaccessible to anyone.
> I've long been a fan of improving access to the hills.
But the point here is that places like the central Cairngorms or Ben Alder are more the exception than the rule. The highlands are full of places that feel pretty remote but that are still within a straightforward walk of a car park or train station. People are going on like unless the Hutchie Hut does full board and hot showers at £60 a night then the Genteel Rambler will be unable to experience The Majesty Of The Highlands at all and anything beyond a potter round the Glen Nevis Visitor Centre will be the sole preserve of elite mountaineers, but that's pish.
As it stands, there are amazing landscapes to be seen in the highlands without getting out of your car, there are loads of amazing places that you can get to in a day walk and still get home for dinner, and relatively few that really require you to be happy to rough it a bit or carry camping gear. And I don't think that this is an unreasonable balance.
Edit: I don't think that the current situation is perfect and I wouldn't rule out tweaking at the edges (it's not obvious how you'd consistently argue that Glen Affric Hostel or Steal Hut are Good Things but turning Derry Lodge into an SYHA or getting some remote shepherds' hut opened up as an MBA bothy would be Bad Things) but I am worried by the lack of perspective in an attitude that's heading towards the view that it's a problem for anywhere to be inaccessible to anyone.
Post edited at 10:57
13
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Sure, at the moment walking in the Highlands generally means taking the car, driving somewhere and doing a circular walk back to the car park. But I would say a linear multi-day walk where you get public transport to the start and finish of the walk and do a sequence of 20-25km days with a sense of progress and every day starts somewhere different is a much better experience. People obviously like this kind of walking holiday if the numbers on the West Highland Way are an indication but getting that kind of popularity and thus the economic activity in the villages along the route means there can't be a 'blocker' stage which involves a massive day or camping.
> As it stands, there are amazing landscapes to be seen in the highlands without getting out of your car, there are loads of amazing places that you can get to in a day walk and still get home for dinner, and relatively few that really require you to be happy to rough it a bit or carry camping gear. And I don't think that this is an unreasonable balance.
Sure, at the moment walking in the Highlands generally means taking the car, driving somewhere and doing a circular walk back to the car park. But I would say a linear multi-day walk where you get public transport to the start and finish of the walk and do a sequence of 20-25km days with a sense of progress and every day starts somewhere different is a much better experience. People obviously like this kind of walking holiday if the numbers on the West Highland Way are an indication but getting that kind of popularity and thus the economic activity in the villages along the route means there can't be a 'blocker' stage which involves a massive day or camping.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Agreed, but how often is a "wilderness" hut actually needed to do that? Taking your example of the Skye Trail, the basic issue seems that they want to do Flodigarry to Portree in a day, taking in Quirang and the Trotternish. But why not fix that with huts at (say) Brogaig and the Storr car park, which would be relatively cheap to build, maintain, staff and supply, and have a broader appeal and less impact on the landscape than sticking a mountain hut somewhere out on the ridge.
Agreed, but how often is a "wilderness" hut actually needed to do that? Taking your example of the Skye Trail, the basic issue seems that they want to do Flodigarry to Portree in a day, taking in Quirang and the Trotternish. But why not fix that with huts at (say) Brogaig and the Storr car park, which would be relatively cheap to build, maintain, staff and supply, and have a broader appeal and less impact on the landscape than sticking a mountain hut somewhere out on the ridge.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
That's exactly what I'm arguing for - one 'hut' roughly half way along the Trotternish ridge and suddenly the Skye Trail becomes accessible to a lot more people. I'm not fixated on whether the 'hut' is up on the ridge, a km off it could well be better. All that matters is that it splits the stage up so you can manage the whole trail without ever walking more than 25km in a day or carrying camping gear.
> Agreed, but how often is a "wilderness" hut actually needed to do that? Taking your example of the Skye Trail, the basic issue seems that they want to do Flodigarry to Portree in a day, taking in Quirang and the Trotternish. But why not fix that with huts at (say) Brogaig and the Storr car park, which would be relatively cheap to build, maintain, staff and supply, and have a broader appeal and less impact on the landscape than sticking a mountain hut somewhere out on the ridge.
That's exactly what I'm arguing for - one 'hut' roughly half way along the Trotternish ridge and suddenly the Skye Trail becomes accessible to a lot more people. I'm not fixated on whether the 'hut' is up on the ridge, a km off it could well be better. All that matters is that it splits the stage up so you can manage the whole trail without ever walking more than 25km in a day or carrying camping gear.
Post edited at 12:22
In reply to Ramblin dave:
The issue for most people wanting the Alpine Hut experience will be the state of paths which, other than a few honey pot places, are basically just rivers of peat bog.
The issue for most people wanting the Alpine Hut experience will be the state of paths which, other than a few honey pot places, are basically just rivers of peat bog.
1
In reply to GrahamD:
This is correct. Most alpine countries, that have linked huts like those proposed, also have properly maintained paths between them. They don't seem to struggle to get people to pay ~50 Euro a night to stay at them, however. Of course the alps do have sun, and other attractions!
This is correct. Most alpine countries, that have linked huts like those proposed, also have properly maintained paths between them. They don't seem to struggle to get people to pay ~50 Euro a night to stay at them, however. Of course the alps do have sun, and other attractions!
2
In reply to wintertree:
I don't think I could pack a 20kg pack for the UK if I tried - including wine!
> A quote from the article: "I don’t think our wild places should only be accessible to a mountaineering elite who are prepared to carry 20-kilo backpacks” - the only time I recall taking such a rucksack with me on a hike in the UK it contained 20kg of beer and wine, hardly the "mountaineering elite"...
I don't think I could pack a 20kg pack for the UK if I tried - including wine!
4
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Fair enough. To my mind, there's a big difference between a hut by the car park and a hut that's actually out in the hills. Basically, the hut by the car park doesn't change the skill set you need to be out in the hills, it just changes what you can do at the end of the day (ie stop over and then carry on in the same direction rather than having to bus / taxi / hitch back to where you left the car). Whereas a manned hut somewhere like Faindouran or Sourlies would fundamentally change the character of the respective areas, by turning them into comfortable day-walk territory. And the latter is something that we shouldn't do lightly.
> That's exactly what I'm arguing for - one 'hut' roughly half way along the Trotternish ridge and suddenly the Skye Trail becomes accessible to a lot more people. I'm not fixated on whether the 'hut' is up on the ridge, a km off it could well be better. All that matters is that it splits the stage up so you can manage the whole trail without ever walking more than 25km in a day or carrying camping gear.
Fair enough. To my mind, there's a big difference between a hut by the car park and a hut that's actually out in the hills. Basically, the hut by the car park doesn't change the skill set you need to be out in the hills, it just changes what you can do at the end of the day (ie stop over and then carry on in the same direction rather than having to bus / taxi / hitch back to where you left the car). Whereas a manned hut somewhere like Faindouran or Sourlies would fundamentally change the character of the respective areas, by turning them into comfortable day-walk territory. And the latter is something that we shouldn't do lightly.
Post edited at 12:56
3
If there's a demand for such huts, why is it that so many of the more isolated, simple youth hostels have shut ?
8
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Absolutely agree. These places are special precisely because of the inconvenience and effort it takes to get there, and stay there
Re: toccata's comment about an aviemore to braemar hut to hut walk- please, no- one of the enjoyments of entering the Cairngorms along the old rights of way is the signs warning that 'you are now entering demanding and potentially dangerous country', and noting the distances to cross it, which seem unfeasible in such a small country as Scotland. The knowledge that there was a hotel a few miles ahead would totally change the nature of this experience, in a way that diminished it considerably.
Yes, it's an illusion of wilderness; but one that can be bought into at present in a way that would be lost if civilisation intruded in the way suggested.
Absolutely agree. These places are special precisely because of the inconvenience and effort it takes to get there, and stay there
Re: toccata's comment about an aviemore to braemar hut to hut walk- please, no- one of the enjoyments of entering the Cairngorms along the old rights of way is the signs warning that 'you are now entering demanding and potentially dangerous country', and noting the distances to cross it, which seem unfeasible in such a small country as Scotland. The knowledge that there was a hotel a few miles ahead would totally change the nature of this experience, in a way that diminished it considerably.
Yes, it's an illusion of wilderness; but one that can be bought into at present in a way that would be lost if civilisation intruded in the way suggested.
7
In Alps some huts are supplied by donkeys or mules and still change you under 30 euros per night or even less if are a member of alpine clib. That is close to a price in YHA and don't see why it would be much different in Scotlandish hut.
The ones which get supplies by helicopters get the price tag close to a hundred euros. For a hut in the middle of Black Cuillin I would happily pay that.
Post edited at 13:22
In reply to nutme:
That's more than £20!
You're joking!
Scotland is too small for this sort of thing. What is sustainable for landscapes of an Alpine scale is not suitable here (I actually think, far from becoming an open hut, the CIC should be demolished). Our wild areas are already becoming almost too accessible with road imporovements, bikeable tracks and well built paths (a necessary evil if the alternative is an eroded, boggy trench).
We should take a leaf out of the USA's book where, despite having really vast areas of "empty" land, they go to great lengths to protect its true wilderness nature - if you want to go there you go on foot and are self sufficient.
> In Alps some huts are supplied by donkeys or mules and still change you under 30 euros per night or even less if are a member of alpine clib. That is close to a price in YHA.
That's more than £20!
> The ones which get supplies by helicopters get the price tag close to a hundred euros. For a hut in the middle of Black Cuillin I would happily pay that.
You're joking!
Scotland is too small for this sort of thing. What is sustainable for landscapes of an Alpine scale is not suitable here (I actually think, far from becoming an open hut, the CIC should be demolished). Our wild areas are already becoming almost too accessible with road imporovements, bikeable tracks and well built paths (a necessary evil if the alternative is an eroded, boggy trench).
We should take a leaf out of the USA's book where, despite having really vast areas of "empty" land, they go to great lengths to protect its true wilderness nature - if you want to go there you go on foot and are self sufficient.
8
In reply to nutme:
You're some way off with both those prices, I think. The range is about 40-65 Euro half board, with club discount, which it is almost always available if you have eg AAC membership. I don't think many (any?) are supplied primarily by mules any more.
You're some way off with both those prices, I think. The range is about 40-65 Euro half board, with club discount, which it is almost always available if you have eg AAC membership. I don't think many (any?) are supplied primarily by mules any more.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Agree entirely. It's not like the Lairig Ghru is particularly quiet - not everyone seems to be put off by the lack of facilities!
As a counter-suggestion, roadside huts at Kingie below Loch Quoich and the top of Loch Arkaig would make a nice public transport friendly route from Glenfinnan to Glen Shiel accessible to people who don't like having to dig a hole to have a crap, but with much less impact on the sense of wilderness of the surrounding areas.
Although that does still leave Doug's point about financial viability...
> Absolutely agree. These places are special precisely because of the inconvenience and effort it takes to get there, and stay there
> Re: toccata's comment about an aviemore to braemar hut to hut walk- please, no-
Agree entirely. It's not like the Lairig Ghru is particularly quiet - not everyone seems to be put off by the lack of facilities!
As a counter-suggestion, roadside huts at Kingie below Loch Quoich and the top of Loch Arkaig would make a nice public transport friendly route from Glenfinnan to Glen Shiel accessible to people who don't like having to dig a hole to have a crap, but with much less impact on the sense of wilderness of the surrounding areas.
Although that does still leave Doug's point about financial viability...
1
In reply to Doug:
That's a fair point.
I guess the idea is that you'd create a North West Highlands Way or something with a blaze of publicity ("it's like the WHW but with less dicking around before you get to the good bits") and open new huts to fill in the gaps where there's no bed-and-a-shower accommodation, and the NWHW traffic would make it popular in a way that "no-frill bunkhouse in the arse end of nowhere" wouldn't.
> If there's a demand for such huts, why is it that so many of the more isolated, simple youth hostels have shut ?
That's a fair point.
I guess the idea is that you'd create a North West Highlands Way or something with a blaze of publicity ("it's like the WHW but with less dicking around before you get to the good bits") and open new huts to fill in the gaps where there's no bed-and-a-shower accommodation, and the NWHW traffic would make it popular in a way that "no-frill bunkhouse in the arse end of nowhere" wouldn't.
1
In reply to wintertree:
From the sounds of it not many people here actually know too much about the huts in NZ. The majority of the huts are quite basic. You'll have a rainwater collector, a fireplace, and plastic mattresses on bunk beds. To stay in these costs a pittance: http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-stay/stay-in-a-hut/hu...
The majority of huts are basic: wooden bunkbeds with plastic mattresses, a fireplace, rainwater tank. Some will be serviced (a ranger may be there but usually not, and the firewood supply can pretty much be counted on). Only a very few (30 or so) (the Great Walk huts) will have coal choppered in and have a ranger on site most days. These Great Walks are the West Highland Ways of New Zealand, and do definitely bring in tourist income. I'm not clear how much they contribute to the overall tourism. Plenty of (possibly almost all) tourists are happy to come and take photos from the roadside and just take short 0.5-2 hour walks to waterfalls or viewpoints.
So in other words, while these huts do increase tourism in NZ, I don't think it's not a huge factor in it (including all the other things that tourists who'd use these huts would spend on).
I don't really see any huge holes in Scotland's tourism strategy - so maybe it's just a case of improvements across the board will bring in the returns? Although personally my biggest issue is the lack of native forests.
From the sounds of it not many people here actually know too much about the huts in NZ. The majority of the huts are quite basic. You'll have a rainwater collector, a fireplace, and plastic mattresses on bunk beds. To stay in these costs a pittance: http://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/places-to-stay/stay-in-a-hut/hu...
The majority of huts are basic: wooden bunkbeds with plastic mattresses, a fireplace, rainwater tank. Some will be serviced (a ranger may be there but usually not, and the firewood supply can pretty much be counted on). Only a very few (30 or so) (the Great Walk huts) will have coal choppered in and have a ranger on site most days. These Great Walks are the West Highland Ways of New Zealand, and do definitely bring in tourist income. I'm not clear how much they contribute to the overall tourism. Plenty of (possibly almost all) tourists are happy to come and take photos from the roadside and just take short 0.5-2 hour walks to waterfalls or viewpoints.
So in other words, while these huts do increase tourism in NZ, I don't think it's not a huge factor in it (including all the other things that tourists who'd use these huts would spend on).
I don't really see any huge holes in Scotland's tourism strategy - so maybe it's just a case of improvements across the board will bring in the returns? Although personally my biggest issue is the lack of native forests.
Post edited at 14:59
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
And midges ! how can you forget midges?
Personally I like the unstaffed Norwegian huts but really struggle to see how they could work in Scotland, unfortunately.
> ... Although personally my biggest issue is the lack of native forests.
And midges ! how can you forget midges?
Personally I like the unstaffed Norwegian huts but really struggle to see how they could work in Scotland, unfortunately.
Post edited at 18:11
In reply to Doug:
Yeah midges - very true. In New Zealand we have sandflies (even in densely forested areas without such large expanses of bog) that can be quite horrible. I think they're less of a problem than midges however. I wonder if in a truly healthy ecosystem there would be enough midge/sandfly predators such that they would no longer be a bother to us humans?
> And midges ! how can you forget midges?
> Personally I like the unstaffed Norwegian hits but really struggle to see how they could work in Scotland, unfortunately.
Yeah midges - very true. In New Zealand we have sandflies (even in densely forested areas without such large expanses of bog) that can be quite horrible. I think they're less of a problem than midges however. I wonder if in a truly healthy ecosystem there would be enough midge/sandfly predators such that they would no longer be a bother to us humans?
In reply to SenzuBean:
To keep the Scottish midge population numbers in check and human friendly a land predator would require the appetite and feeding style of the Blue Whale
> I wonder if in a truly healthy ecosystem there would be enough midge/sandfly predators such that they would no longer be a bother to us humans?
To keep the Scottish midge population numbers in check and human friendly a land predator would require the appetite and feeding style of the Blue Whale
In reply to SenzuBean:
Interesting question. For that matter, what mammals did midges evolve to snack on?
> ... I wonder if in a truly healthy ecosystem there would be enough midge/sandfly predators such that they would no longer be a bother to us humans?
Interesting question. For that matter, what mammals did midges evolve to snack on?
In reply to Joak:
Well with proper forest cover you'd have a lot more bats and birds, which are apparently the natural predators of midges. Apparently the thought that cold reduces the midge population might be wrong too (because it kills the predators more so): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10337812
A thick forest insulates very well and would be able to better shelter bats and birds during the winter, and provide alternate food sources for other times of the year. Forest should also help to mop up the bogs and reduce standing water, which I think is the main breeding ground of midges.
I don't think it'd get rid of the midge problem entirely, but it might make them bearable in most places.
> To keep the Scottish midge population numbers in check and human friendly a land predator would require the appetite and feeding style of the Blue Whale
Well with proper forest cover you'd have a lot more bats and birds, which are apparently the natural predators of midges. Apparently the thought that cold reduces the midge population might be wrong too (because it kills the predators more so): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10337812
A thick forest insulates very well and would be able to better shelter bats and birds during the winter, and provide alternate food sources for other times of the year. Forest should also help to mop up the bogs and reduce standing water, which I think is the main breeding ground of midges.
I don't think it'd get rid of the midge problem entirely, but it might make them bearable in most places.
Post edited at 21:13
In reply to Toccata:
Couple of points I'd like to add to this:
I disagree, I don't think humans have some kind of automatic entitlement to access anywhere on the planet.
All sound good and I'd appreciate some better paths in Scotland, however has the impact of the WHW been that significant? I've only done little bits of it as wet weather options and everyone I've seen has looked overloaded with kit and pretty miserable.
Re. Well marked trails, how much will they cost? and who is going to pay for them? There's been some serious investment in the WHW and if it was paying off, then surely there'd be more of an obvious call for further investment in more paths.
I've done diabaig to the old SYHA and back in about 4-6 hours, unless the bothy is significantly closer to diabaig than redpoint, it doesn't seem like it's worth splitting the walk.
Completely agree, there's opportunities to improve tourism in Scotland and a number of things might work.
Personally, I don't like the idea of manned huts serviced by 4x4s or helicopters in the remotest parts of Scotland, at least not until such vehicles are carbon neutral, silent and don't carve up the landscape, so basically never. If donkeys are feasible, I don't have a problem with them.
However, simple accommodation where you can grab a cheap bed and a meal not far off a nice 2-3 day walk might appeal to me. Although the walk would have to take in some mountains/ridges, I'm not interested in slogging along valley bases.
Also I've camped in the Cuillins with rope, harnesses etc. with less than 30 kilos between two of us. If you're happy to drink the spring water, then you really don't need to carry much weight.
Couple of points I'd like to add to this:
> I've long been a fan of improving access to the hills.
I disagree, I don't think humans have some kind of automatic entitlement to access anywhere on the planet.
> I think the idea of establishing 2-3 days trails, in the NZ style, is brilliant. Aviemore to Braemar is obvious, Fort William to Dalwhinnie and Glenfinnan to Inverie seem obvious routes (with easy transport options). Low level, manned huts to give people the confidence to get out onto a well marked trail and a bed along the way. The economic benefit would be significant.
All sound good and I'd appreciate some better paths in Scotland, however has the impact of the WHW been that significant? I've only done little bits of it as wet weather options and everyone I've seen has looked overloaded with kit and pretty miserable.
Re. Well marked trails, how much will they cost? and who is going to pay for them? There's been some serious investment in the WHW and if it was paying off, then surely there'd be more of an obvious call for further investment in more paths.
> In the past such routes have not worked (think Daibaig to Redopint - the SYHA closed some years ago, although transport wither end may have been an issue).
I've done diabaig to the old SYHA and back in about 4-6 hours, unless the bothy is significantly closer to diabaig than redpoint, it doesn't seem like it's worth splitting the walk.
> But as I said, I'm not entirely sure and I'd like to see more debate on it.
Completely agree, there's opportunities to improve tourism in Scotland and a number of things might work.
Personally, I don't like the idea of manned huts serviced by 4x4s or helicopters in the remotest parts of Scotland, at least not until such vehicles are carbon neutral, silent and don't carve up the landscape, so basically never. If donkeys are feasible, I don't have a problem with them.
However, simple accommodation where you can grab a cheap bed and a meal not far off a nice 2-3 day walk might appeal to me. Although the walk would have to take in some mountains/ridges, I'm not interested in slogging along valley bases.
Also I've camped in the Cuillins with rope, harnesses etc. with less than 30 kilos between two of us. If you're happy to drink the spring water, then you really don't need to carry much weight.
2
In reply to Toccata:
>To me the CIC hut should be a refuge in the Alpine style, open to all,
The CIC is open to all, but you do have to book in advance.
>To me the CIC hut should be a refuge in the Alpine style, open to all,
The CIC is open to all, but you do have to book in advance.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Completely agree.
> Maybe. But Scotland could use some more tourist income and the long distance paths with the exception of the West Highland Way aren't generating that much traffic. I think it is fairly obvious why: on the West Highland way you can split the walk up fairly easily into roughly 20km days with overnight stays in B&Bs but if you look at the Skye Trail or Southern Upland Way or most of the others you get one or maybe two sections where you either need to go 30-40km in a day or camp, suddenly the walk is much less accessible so there are much fewer people. That one segment is reducing traffic on the whole path, all the businesses along the whole length of the path would benefit if there was a hut to make the path a feasible undertaking for the pretty large number of people who like walking but don't want to camp. It doesn't take much to put someone in the 'no camping' category - an allergy, a bad back or having higher expectations about toilet facilities will do it.
Completely agree.
In reply to Oliver Houston:
There are lots of other long-distance paths in Scotland - it's something of a growth industry, as it's recognised that there is a cohort of outdoor enthusiasts who like these kinds of things.
They vary quite a lot in their user-friendliness with regard to accommodation at convenient stopping points - some, particularly in southern Scotland, have lots of options, but the more northerly ones have far fewer options.
> Re. Well marked trails, how much will they cost? and who is going to pay for them? There's been some serious investment in the WHW and if it was paying off, then surely there'd be more of an obvious call for further investment in more paths.
There are lots of other long-distance paths in Scotland - it's something of a growth industry, as it's recognised that there is a cohort of outdoor enthusiasts who like these kinds of things.
They vary quite a lot in their user-friendliness with regard to accommodation at convenient stopping points - some, particularly in southern Scotland, have lots of options, but the more northerly ones have far fewer options.
1
In reply to wintertree:
There's a strange mix of hubris & ignorance in this article and in comparing Scotland to, say, Norway, New Zealand or Iceland.
If you look at the geography of each place, much as we might wish it, Scotland does not compare to or enjoy anything near the same extent of wilderness (which would otherwise necessitate such huts, given a lack of centres of population, B&Bs, roads etc. and the ability of the landscape to absorb these without a significant deterioration in the availability of 'wilderness))
Scotland: 30,090 square miles with a pop density of 174 / sm
Iceland: 39,699 with 8.29 /sm
Norway: 148,747 with 35 / sm
New Zealand: 103,483 with 44.4 / sm
So Scotland is the smallest in land area with 4 times the pop density of the next most populated.
Talk of a mountaineering elite is total bullshit (relating to trekking in Scotland) and again, the skills & pack size needed to undertake a multi-day trek into the interior of Norway or Iceland etc. would be far greater than in Scotland. I wild camp without any 'training', as I imagine most of you do as well. I didn't attend the Wild Camp College for the Adventurous Elite. How much skill does it take to pitch a tent? Access, that's there, if you want it
As has already been said, most of the mountains of Scotland can be easily reached in a day and there's already lots of hotels, bunkhouses and B&Bs to cater to punters who don't wish to camp.
There's a strange mix of hubris & ignorance in this article and in comparing Scotland to, say, Norway, New Zealand or Iceland.
If you look at the geography of each place, much as we might wish it, Scotland does not compare to or enjoy anything near the same extent of wilderness (which would otherwise necessitate such huts, given a lack of centres of population, B&Bs, roads etc. and the ability of the landscape to absorb these without a significant deterioration in the availability of 'wilderness))
Scotland: 30,090 square miles with a pop density of 174 / sm
Iceland: 39,699 with 8.29 /sm
Norway: 148,747 with 35 / sm
New Zealand: 103,483 with 44.4 / sm
So Scotland is the smallest in land area with 4 times the pop density of the next most populated.
Talk of a mountaineering elite is total bullshit (relating to trekking in Scotland) and again, the skills & pack size needed to undertake a multi-day trek into the interior of Norway or Iceland etc. would be far greater than in Scotland. I wild camp without any 'training', as I imagine most of you do as well. I didn't attend the Wild Camp College for the Adventurous Elite. How much skill does it take to pitch a tent? Access, that's there, if you want it
As has already been said, most of the mountains of Scotland can be easily reached in a day and there's already lots of hotels, bunkhouses and B&Bs to cater to punters who don't wish to camp.
4
2
In reply to Flinticus:
true for Scotland as a whole but I remember some figures for Europe (or maybe EU) where Highland Region had one of the lowest population densities of any administrative region of similar size - comparable to much of northern Finland from memory.
true for Scotland as a whole but I remember some figures for Europe (or maybe EU) where Highland Region had one of the lowest population densities of any administrative region of similar size - comparable to much of northern Finland from memory.
1
In reply to Doug:
It's disingenuous to select on such a basis. You cannot ignore the fact that the millions who live in the central belt are only a 2-3 hour drive from much of the Highlands. Only the far North West really gives any issues and that's about 6 hours from the Central Belt. A lot less from Aberdeen or Inverness.
Northern Finland does not suffer the same proximity to large urban densities (it's 11 hrs from Helsinki) and it's only one region out of many available to the greater area ( whereas the Highlands are all we have on this small densely populated island). Again the extreme weather and larger physical area come into play.
Finland : 130,600 Sq miles. Pop density 46 / square mile.
It's disingenuous to select on such a basis. You cannot ignore the fact that the millions who live in the central belt are only a 2-3 hour drive from much of the Highlands. Only the far North West really gives any issues and that's about 6 hours from the Central Belt. A lot less from Aberdeen or Inverness.
Northern Finland does not suffer the same proximity to large urban densities (it's 11 hrs from Helsinki) and it's only one region out of many available to the greater area ( whereas the Highlands are all we have on this small densely populated island). Again the extreme weather and larger physical area come into play.
Finland : 130,600 Sq miles. Pop density 46 / square mile.
In reply to Flinticus:
On the other hand, Slovenia (1/4 size of Scotland), with a population density of 262/sm seems to be able to sustain 150+ mountain huts. Granted, quite a proportion of these are accessible by car and I'm not sure there are many similar locations in Scotland where there may be a demand for a roadside hut. However, their Triglav NP is 5.5x smaller than the Cairngorms NP (albeit obviously with higher peaks). Even the interior of the Cairngorms is probably the same size, if not larger than Triglav NP. Based on that, I personally feel that the landscape of the Cairngorms would be able to absorb a small number of huts. Whether it's economically viable is another question though.
On the other hand, Slovenia (1/4 size of Scotland), with a population density of 262/sm seems to be able to sustain 150+ mountain huts. Granted, quite a proportion of these are accessible by car and I'm not sure there are many similar locations in Scotland where there may be a demand for a roadside hut. However, their Triglav NP is 5.5x smaller than the Cairngorms NP (albeit obviously with higher peaks). Even the interior of the Cairngorms is probably the same size, if not larger than Triglav NP. Based on that, I personally feel that the landscape of the Cairngorms would be able to absorb a small number of huts. Whether it's economically viable is another question though.
1
In reply to MG:
Half board yes. By saying 30 euros I was thinking only of accommodation. Last summer I stayed in about a dozen of low altitude (up to 3000m) huts in Alps and most expensive ones were 26 euros. Half board was in the range you mentioned indeed.
YHA 'half board' of dinner (£8.50), breakfast (£5) and bed (£20) is around 45 Euros. Not to mention that food in Alpine huts is way much better compared to YHA.
> You're some way off with both those prices, I think. The range is about 40-65 Euro half board, with club discount, which it is almost always available if you have eg AAC membership. I don't think many (any?) are supplied primarily by mules any more.
Half board yes. By saying 30 euros I was thinking only of accommodation. Last summer I stayed in about a dozen of low altitude (up to 3000m) huts in Alps and most expensive ones were 26 euros. Half board was in the range you mentioned indeed.
YHA 'half board' of dinner (£8.50), breakfast (£5) and bed (£20) is around 45 Euros. Not to mention that food in Alpine huts is way much better compared to YHA.
In reply to Brev:
I'm far from persuaded that the Cairngorms would benefit from huts above and beyond the bothies that already exist. The idea of huts in Cairngorm also brings to my mind the 1971 tragedy when 6 people (5 of whom were schoolchildren) died in the Cairngorms in bad weather. One of the outcomes of the inquiry after the event was the demolition of a number of bothies on and around the Cairngorm plateau. Any move to build huts in the Cairngorms would have that as a backdrop to the decision making.
> Based on that, I personally feel that the landscape of the Cairngorms would be able to absorb a small number of huts. Whether it's economically viable is another question though.
I'm far from persuaded that the Cairngorms would benefit from huts above and beyond the bothies that already exist. The idea of huts in Cairngorm also brings to my mind the 1971 tragedy when 6 people (5 of whom were schoolchildren) died in the Cairngorms in bad weather. One of the outcomes of the inquiry after the event was the demolition of a number of bothies on and around the Cairngorm plateau. Any move to build huts in the Cairngorms would have that as a backdrop to the decision making.
1
In reply to Brev:
"Why?" is the main question, though. Is it really too much of an affront that there are still a few areas of Scotland that you have to be willing to camp or bothy to get to? Can the people who can't put up with the idea of digging a hole to shit in not just go to any of the many wonderful places in Scotland that you can visit in a day walk and comfortably make it home for dinner? And if people want more user-friendly multi-day walks with hot showers after each stage (and fair play to them if they do), then can't they arrange them around those places as well?
> Based on that, I personally feel that the landscape of the Cairngorms would be able to absorb a small number of huts. Whether it's economically viable is another question though.
"Why?" is the main question, though. Is it really too much of an affront that there are still a few areas of Scotland that you have to be willing to camp or bothy to get to? Can the people who can't put up with the idea of digging a hole to shit in not just go to any of the many wonderful places in Scotland that you can visit in a day walk and comfortably make it home for dinner? And if people want more user-friendly multi-day walks with hot showers after each stage (and fair play to them if they do), then can't they arrange them around those places as well?
A good "why" is that it would develop economic value in land that isn't just based on stalking and forestry.
It's pretty predictable that if you ask a forum packed with people who wild-camp and bothy whether anything should change they all say no.
Post edited at 12:33
2
In reply to tony:
Would that happen today in an era of cheap GPS and of much better weather forecasts?
Not sure anyone is suggesting huts on the plateau anyway.
> The idea of huts in Cairngorm also brings to my mind the 1971 tragedy when 6 people (5 of whom were schoolchildren) died in the Cairngorms in bad weather.
Would that happen today in an era of cheap GPS and of much better weather forecasts?
Not sure anyone is suggesting huts on the plateau anyway.
In reply to Dogwatch:
"A good "why" is that it would develop economic value in land that isn't just based on stalking and forestry."
Which overlooks the "economic value" of not doing it. The value of the land isn't just stalking and forestry. The value of the land as it is, is considerable to the surrounding areas (existing B&B's. hotels, food outlets, etc).
"A good "why" is that it would develop economic value in land that isn't just based on stalking and forestry."
Which overlooks the "economic value" of not doing it. The value of the land isn't just stalking and forestry. The value of the land as it is, is considerable to the surrounding areas (existing B&B's. hotels, food outlets, etc).
1
In reply to Dogwatch:
No idea, but even with cheap GPS and better forecasts, people will still get caught out in conditions they can't cope with.
> Would that happen today in an era of cheap GPS and of much better weather forecasts?
No idea, but even with cheap GPS and better forecasts, people will still get caught out in conditions they can't cope with.
In reply to Dogwatch:
Does that make our opinions any less valid? Is the price of our love and use of the outdoors the exclusion of our opinion in such debates?
Does that make our opinions any less valid? Is the price of our love and use of the outdoors the exclusion of our opinion in such debates?
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I think you are missing the point about long distance paths occasionally needing somewhere to stay overnight which is not close to existing settlements if they are to be feasible for a wide range of people. You really are shutting out a lot of people from an activity they could enjoy if you have some kind of moral criterion that prescribes no access without camping or bothying.
One of the nice things about long distance paths is that they are best done with public transport to the start and finish point. It's arguably a lot more environmentally friendly and better for the local economy than a munro-bagger day trip with more time spent in the car than walking and all the money going on fuel.
> "Why?" is the main question, though. Is it really too much of an affront that there are still a few areas of Scotland that you have to be willing to camp or bothy to get to?
I think you are missing the point about long distance paths occasionally needing somewhere to stay overnight which is not close to existing settlements if they are to be feasible for a wide range of people. You really are shutting out a lot of people from an activity they could enjoy if you have some kind of moral criterion that prescribes no access without camping or bothying.
One of the nice things about long distance paths is that they are best done with public transport to the start and finish point. It's arguably a lot more environmentally friendly and better for the local economy than a munro-bagger day trip with more time spent in the car than walking and all the money going on fuel.
In reply to wintertree:
Surely the key phrase in this is "high altitude". In the Alps and Norway, the huts are at high altitude. It is neither feasible nor desirable to drop to the valley every evening, and the whole point of the huts is to allow people to avoid doing this. Scotland isn't at high altitude, it is usually perfectly feasible to return to the valley, where there is often a range of accommodation to be found.
There are a handful of places where this isn't possible, but their remoteness and the need for self-reliance is part of what makes them special. Elsewhere, there must be plenty of opportunities for those unwilling or unable to camp or use bothies to explore the wilds without needing additional accommodation provided for them. Besides, I wonder whether there are enough of these people to make such huts economically viable?
Surely the key phrase in this is "high altitude". In the Alps and Norway, the huts are at high altitude. It is neither feasible nor desirable to drop to the valley every evening, and the whole point of the huts is to allow people to avoid doing this. Scotland isn't at high altitude, it is usually perfectly feasible to return to the valley, where there is often a range of accommodation to be found.
There are a handful of places where this isn't possible, but their remoteness and the need for self-reliance is part of what makes them special. Elsewhere, there must be plenty of opportunities for those unwilling or unable to camp or use bothies to explore the wilds without needing additional accommodation provided for them. Besides, I wonder whether there are enough of these people to make such huts economically viable?
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I get that it's about long distance paths, but I don't see many places where a long distance path would actually need huts in "wilderness" areas at a long distance from a road. From a cursory look, the two examples you gave (Skye Trail and Southern Upland Way) could both be done with some number of extra bits of roadside accommodation. And while you couldn't always go everywhere on that basis, it's not a wild enough country that there aren't a lot of options.
Edit: and as I said above, I wouldn't totally rule things out. I've got no problem with the existence of Glen Affric SYHA, for instance, so if someone pointed out that the only missing link in an amazing North West Highlands Way was a manned hut somewhere obscure in Easter Ross then I'd not have a massive problem with it. But I do feel that that sort of thing should be done on a basis of "how can we come up with a good route while preserving the nature of places that are exciting for being hard to get to" rather than "where do we want to go and where would be the convenient places for huts along the way".
> I think you are missing the point about long distance paths occasionally needing somewhere to stay overnight which is not close to existing settlements if they are to be feasible for a wide range of people. You really are shutting out a lot of people from an activity they could enjoy if you have some kind of moral criterion that prescribes no access without camping or bothying.
I get that it's about long distance paths, but I don't see many places where a long distance path would actually need huts in "wilderness" areas at a long distance from a road. From a cursory look, the two examples you gave (Skye Trail and Southern Upland Way) could both be done with some number of extra bits of roadside accommodation. And while you couldn't always go everywhere on that basis, it's not a wild enough country that there aren't a lot of options.
Edit: and as I said above, I wouldn't totally rule things out. I've got no problem with the existence of Glen Affric SYHA, for instance, so if someone pointed out that the only missing link in an amazing North West Highlands Way was a manned hut somewhere obscure in Easter Ross then I'd not have a massive problem with it. But I do feel that that sort of thing should be done on a basis of "how can we come up with a good route while preserving the nature of places that are exciting for being hard to get to" rather than "where do we want to go and where would be the convenient places for huts along the way".
Post edited at 14:17
1
In reply to Howard J:
Which areas in Norway are you thinking about?
The scale of the Norwegian hills is actually pretty similar to Scotland. And many huts there are in the valleys.
> Surely the key phrase in this is "high altitude". In the Alps and Norway, the huts are at high altitude
Which areas in Norway are you thinking about?
The scale of the Norwegian hills is actually pretty similar to Scotland. And many huts there are in the valleys.
In reply to Howard J:
Picking up on high-altitude …
An observation I’ve had with ALL existing Scottish long-distance trails is similar to a point made be others: they all run along existing *low-level* routes shared with roads/rail or traditional drove routes for obvious reasons.
I’ve often thought that if a long-distance alpine style route were to fit in here - it would cross straight from east to west. From Stonehaven to Fort William. Keeping to the heights and only descending (relatively speaking) for somewhere to stay.
The impact of adding new infrastructure would be minimal. Existing roads cross-cut all along such a route at 20-25KM points: the slug, loch muick, glen shee, glen tilt, glen bruar, dalwhinne, corrour, kinlochleven. Huts could be easily built and supplied not far from all these points. Remote from most existing habitation.
This is all already there. And, fundamentally, the true wilderness of more remote regions of Scotland such as in the NW would then be left well alone.
Yes, Scotland is a different case. So perhaps something different is required. But this could be made to work to allow access to the hills in a way for all, based on what is extant and so bring further tourism to Scotland (even more crucial in light of failing oil and green industry subsidies slashed).
Definitely worth some more thought and debate.
Picking up on high-altitude …
An observation I’ve had with ALL existing Scottish long-distance trails is similar to a point made be others: they all run along existing *low-level* routes shared with roads/rail or traditional drove routes for obvious reasons.
I’ve often thought that if a long-distance alpine style route were to fit in here - it would cross straight from east to west. From Stonehaven to Fort William. Keeping to the heights and only descending (relatively speaking) for somewhere to stay.
The impact of adding new infrastructure would be minimal. Existing roads cross-cut all along such a route at 20-25KM points: the slug, loch muick, glen shee, glen tilt, glen bruar, dalwhinne, corrour, kinlochleven. Huts could be easily built and supplied not far from all these points. Remote from most existing habitation.
This is all already there. And, fundamentally, the true wilderness of more remote regions of Scotland such as in the NW would then be left well alone.
Yes, Scotland is a different case. So perhaps something different is required. But this could be made to work to allow access to the hills in a way for all, based on what is extant and so bring further tourism to Scotland (even more crucial in light of failing oil and green industry subsidies slashed).
Definitely worth some more thought and debate.
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
And many huts in the Alps, Vosges & Jura are roadside (although often roads not kept open in winter)
And many huts in the Alps, Vosges & Jura are roadside (although often roads not kept open in winter)
In reply to Flinticus:
No. What is means is the contrary view is barely being aired because those likely to hold it don't come here.
> Does that make our opinions any less valid? Is the price of our love and use of the outdoors the exclusion of our opinion in such debates?
No. What is means is the contrary view is barely being aired because those likely to hold it don't come here.
In reply to wintertree:
If anyone is carrying 20kg+ they have plenty gear for two other people to stay overnight. So we don't need huts, only porters. There is hardly anywhere in Scotland that is more than 2-3 hours from 'civilisation', ie roads etc, with a daypack and a slow jog, especially using valley bottom tracks. That may be 'elite', but walking 15 miles on a path with a daypack doesn't take long.
If anyone is carrying 20kg+ they have plenty gear for two other people to stay overnight. So we don't need huts, only porters. There is hardly anywhere in Scotland that is more than 2-3 hours from 'civilisation', ie roads etc, with a daypack and a slow jog, especially using valley bottom tracks. That may be 'elite', but walking 15 miles on a path with a daypack doesn't take long.
In reply to IainL:
A very practical approach if you are the Duke of the Abruzzi.
> If anyone is carrying 20kg+ they have plenty gear for two other people to stay overnight. So we don't need huts, only porters.
A very practical approach if you are the Duke of the Abruzzi.
In reply to Rob Parsons:
The original article carries a picture of Fannaråkhytta which is at 2028m (6784 ft). Admittedly that is the highest hut in northern Europe, but much of Norway is significantly higher (and even more remote) than Scotland. Perhaps not "high altitude" compared with the Alps, but I remember it took significant effort to get up to it (and even more getting back down, but we were carrying one of my mates with acute appendicitis, lashed to wooden ladder).
The problem with a remote hut is not so much that the building itself is an intrusion into the landscape (it may be, but there are many used and unused buildings and ruins in remote areas) but that, unlike a bothy, it will need to be stocked and supplied. Do we want helicopter supply runs as they do in the Alps? Or fleets of quadbikes?
This seems to be promoted by commercial interests who are trying to sell easy trekking to clients, rather than actual demand. Rather than the Alpine approach of chains of huts, a less intrusive solution would be a Himalayan approach using porters to carry the gear, establish camp and cater for the clients.
> Which areas in Norway are you thinking about?
> The scale of the Norwegian hills is actually pretty similar to Scotland. And many huts there are in the valleys.
The original article carries a picture of Fannaråkhytta which is at 2028m (6784 ft). Admittedly that is the highest hut in northern Europe, but much of Norway is significantly higher (and even more remote) than Scotland. Perhaps not "high altitude" compared with the Alps, but I remember it took significant effort to get up to it (and even more getting back down, but we were carrying one of my mates with acute appendicitis, lashed to wooden ladder).
The problem with a remote hut is not so much that the building itself is an intrusion into the landscape (it may be, but there are many used and unused buildings and ruins in remote areas) but that, unlike a bothy, it will need to be stocked and supplied. Do we want helicopter supply runs as they do in the Alps? Or fleets of quadbikes?
This seems to be promoted by commercial interests who are trying to sell easy trekking to clients, rather than actual demand. Rather than the Alpine approach of chains of huts, a less intrusive solution would be a Himalayan approach using porters to carry the gear, establish camp and cater for the clients.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...