UKC

David Lintern puts new rules against wild camping in Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park to the test... by breaking them. Three months on, he reflects on the policy and its implications for access in the British countryside.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
"How timid, even complicit, the media have become"

I think the lack of media interest is more likely down to the fact that its a total non issue for the vast majority of people.

I recently saw the ban in action along with some of the inconsistencies in its application.

A family group had camped on a grassy area at the far end of a car park in Strathyre. In the morning the police arrived with a handful of NP literature, had a brief chat and then they packed up and left. Meanwhile, in the same car park there were many campervans who had also spent the night there. The police showed no interest in them.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It's an interesting subject; I can't say I'm too fussed about a by-law prohibiting wild camping round Loch Lomond specifically, on the basis of trying to prevent overcrowding and damage, but the point that it might set a precedent for landowners elsewhere in Scotland is a bit worrying. I wonder how strong the right to walk and camp anywhere is, should someone try to use the LL case as an example of prohibition?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

For more on this and what's happening in the Cairngorm national park see the excellently researched Parks Watch blog at http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I doubt that there will ever be a ban on real wild camping, ie well away from the road and above the intake wall line. Even if some authority wanted to do so, how on earth would it ever be enforced - drones?

However, when it comes to spots like Loch Lomond, Glen Etive and (closer to home for me) Loch Doon, my sympathies are with the powers that be to some extent. Along Loch Doon in particular, families treat it as a free campsite which wouldn't trouble anyone except that many of them leave their litter behind and let their campfires get out of control (which have more than once set fire to the forestry necessitating a lot of firefighting personel, time and expense to bring it under control). Some of the nicer ones actually do bag their rubbish up but then just leave it by the roadside as if there's going to be a bin lorry along every day - unbelievable - it's like those folk who bag their dog poo up and then leave it hanging in a hedge!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Hi David
I would say based on 50 year plus of using the outdoors that the Loch Lomond wild camping abuse was easily the worst I have witnessed. I live near the Loch and actually started to avoid the place in summer. So basically I completely approve of the ban - if it is enforced. Also, this is not a British issue but solely a Scottish one based on the 2003 legislation. If Loch Lomond was in England not only would you not be wild camping but access to the water would be very restricted.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Having seen the trashing of easy-to-reach roadside camping spots in Scotland, I fully support the measures being taken and I hope they are indeed extended.

The arguments presented in the article have nothing to do with 'wild' camping, or stravaiging: nobody is suggesting any limitation on those activities.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
What a piss poor article, no mention of why these restrictions have been put in place, as a last resort really, to try and curb the car campers, trees chopped down for fire wood, rubbish discarded and general anti social behaviour is common. Glasgows close proximity to the park is the main reason for this, it has nothing to do with wild camping or the right to roam, there is nothing stopping you from doing this, referencing the Kinder trespass what utter tosh.

In reply to Andy Clarke1965:


These were already illegal. The new laws affect those who camped without chopping down trees, discarding rubbish, or causing a nuisance. Those who did these things will continue to do so, either in the same area or (more likely) elsewhere, resulting in a spread of the problem and hence the spread of restrictions on the law-abiding.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


How so very sad.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I'm on the cycle path from Balloch to Tarbet regularly, so far this year I've noticed a (complete?) reduction in people leaving caravans & motorhomes in laybys for the duration of the summer. So there aren't the usual tables/chairs/generators/cables to avoid on the path and hopefully there won't be the usual sewage smell later in the year.

People were camping in the authorised areas at Firkin Point, there was a load of litter (barbecue coals, cans etc) left in one of the coves but I guess that's unlikely to have been left by the campers since they would have applied for permits. The permitted camping areas looked fine, apart from the midges.

To be honest, this is a bit of a weird article going on about a 'bourgeois' conspiracy and it seems a bit misguided to expect the 'mainstream media' to cover 4 guys camping out in early March like it's some kind of civil rights event. There is a problem, the new arrangements seem to be doing something to address it and genuine campers like yourself are not being affected.

In reply to Rob Parsons:
Anyone else remember the state of the unofficial camp site at the Linn of Dee just before it was closed (late 70s/early 80s)? Caravans left for weeks on end although only used at weekends, huge fires, litter everywhere & a probable health hazard as there were no toilet facilities. Another case of a minority spoiling something for the majority.

In reply to Doug:
Wasn't aware of problems at Linn of Dee but I can imagine. Glen Etive I know very well and serious issue here too.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

No-one on here wants to see rubbish, tree-chopping and anti-social behaviour. All are depressing, annoying and spoil everyone's enjoyment of the outdoors. They sadly remain a problem within Loch Lomond & The Trossachs.

However, all of them are illegal - and could and should have been tackled by providing campsites (hundreds of paid pitches have been lost from within the NP in recent years) and better enforcing the existing laws. Instead, the park authority has opted to bring in restrictive new legislation, which itself need to be enforced, at considerable cost - and which is likely to cause further honey-potting in other areas just outside the park, where there are less resources to deal with high volumes of campers.

I think the byelaws will result in fewer people enjoying the benefits of the outdoors - particularly people from lower incomes. It is worth reading the comments beneath the authority’s latest Facebook video to get a flavour of the many issues residents and tourists are facing: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1565123610178362&id=1182660...

I loved camping informally, spontaneously and for free by the lochs in the national park - either in my van, hammock, bivvying or in a tent. It was great to see and meet people from all backgrounds and the majority, like me, left no trace and would have supported efforts to better enforce the existing laws. Instead, we're all being punished by an authority that should have been part of the solution - and I hope still could be.

Danny

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

The author comes across as a self-obsessed, entitled tw*t

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I agree with the ban. The used toilet paper scattered everywhere in some areas of Scotland are disgusting. People don't bury or take their waste with them and it's out of control. I don't know what else the park authority could do. Real wild camping cannot be policed and generally up in the wild places the campers are more respectful. It is a bummer for those who do use laybys and leave no trace.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

There is a sense of snobbery and middle class entitlement about this. It is OK for Charles and Henrieta to take darling Tarquin and Olivia away in the range rover camping for the weekend, enjoying a bottle of prosecco and a barbecue whilst singing along to a badly played acoustic guitar.

However if Steve and Kylie take Jamie_Leigh and Charlene away in the transit, drink Buckfast and eat sausages around a bonfire whilst dancing to DJ mad as pants then that is bad.

In reply to 3leggeddog:

Isn't that exactly the point the writer is making with his "bourgeois" comment? Or do you mean the people above in this thread are doing this, with their "it won't affect us real wild campers"?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I was climbing in Glen Nevis recently - picking my way through idyllic fields of loo roll and hidden delights in the undergrowth on my way to Car Park Crag I started to curse all those inconsiderate tourists; but if you create a honey-pot then the bear's going to shit in the obvious place. No-one would dream of opening a tourist attraction in the centre Glasgow without any toilets would they?
Am I suggesting the local authority might be exploiting their natural heritage on the cheap?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

What utter and complete rubbish! Hard to pick out any of this that is a reasoned and justified gripe. Wild camping.......by the side of the road..ffs! The shores of Loch Lomand are some of the most disgusting parts of Scotland and it's high time the authorities got a grip, in spite of isolated freedom fighters!

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:


"I was concerned that our action would be misinterpreted by the mainstream media, but I needn't have worried. I tried to get in touch with several prominent journalists who had covered the issue, but was frustrated by a wall of silence. How timid, even complicit, the media have become."

Yep, because the media having nothing else to be covering right now.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Has any one been on Arran recently, either climbing/walking/biking and tried to use any of the public toilets dotted round the island?

They have all been closed by the Local Authority as a budget saving measure.

Good luck to any climbers/walkers/bikers/general tourists needing the toilet, local hoteliers/publicans are accommodating to a point but the amount of toilet paper and human waste dotted round is increasing greatly.

Not exactly a beacon of forward thinking, much like the banning of "wild" camping in the National Parks will not eradicate the prevalence of fires/bbq's/rubbish left at roadside/honeypot beauty spots. Sigh.

In reply to Brendan:


I think the point was that the media gave the "ban" a lot of coverage prior to its imposition (which it certainly did). It's therefore strange that it largely ignored the subject afterwards (not just "right now", but several months ago, at the time the article is referring to).

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


Perhaps they could have tried enforcing the existing laws that already disallowed this? Rather than creating new ones which only impact the law-abiding. I expect someone (parkswatchscotland perhaps) is monitoring the effect of these by-laws on neighbouring areas. It'll be interesting to see what this is - my expectation is that the problem will not be controlled, but will instead spread to other places.

In reply to Steve Wetton:


Not very adventurous, or pleasant, but the point (as I interpreted the article) is that the law permits camping wherever one can walk, whether on top of a summit or by a road, and that this principle could be contested elsewhere on the basis of what's happening at Loch Lomond.


Quite - the practical reality is what makes the issue tricky. Hopefully there's room for balance, but presumably it's easier for an authority struggling for resources to issue blanket bans than implement case-by-case enforcement.

What's the punishment if you're caught camping in a permit area without a permit?
Presumably a fine but how much?

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

>... presumably it's easier for an authority struggling for resources to issue blanket bans than implement case-by-case enforcement.

I think that's precisely the point. Policing 'anti-social' behaviour in the countryside is an impossible task; the only practical and pragmatic measures here are area-specific bans.

In that respect the (very well-intentioned) 2003 Act fails: it can only work if all people behave reasonably - specifically, (and as mentioned in the Act) if all people adhere to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. But as we've seen, they don't.

There are serious long-term problems regarding land ownership and land management in Scotland which demand our attention. But defending the right of slobs to mess up road-side camping areas isn't one of them.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:


Talking to a NP staff member involved in the decision before the ban was introduced they very much gave the impression that they had little choice; the scale of the anti-social behaviour issue being so large - much more than just overcrowding , vandalism etc - more in the realms of assault, murder and 'serious' drugs related issues.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Nobody is defending those rights. They are defending the rights of the responsible majority to continue causing no problems as they did before.

In reply to Bulls Crack:

I suppose the law may be different in Scotland, but south of the border assault, murder, and drugs, are already illegal

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

And how do you catch somebody coiling one out and leaving paper behind?

In reply to olddirtydoggy:


That person will do that somewhere, regardless of what regulations are in place.

In fact, I'd argue that chasing them around the country with bylaws is only likely to entrench that behaviour. A polite and positive educational campaign to encourage people to use the countryside responsibly is far more likely to produce positive results IMO.

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

using the national DNA database that May will set up when she wins her landslide...

In reply to Ciro:


We've been trying that since 2003 (when the Land Reform Act was passed.) It hasn't worked.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

It's still a huge stretch to claim the media are 'complicit' because they didn't cover four guys neglecting a bylaw.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

On a recent weekend visit to Glen Etive - the first for many years - I was shocked by the amount of 'wild camping' going on and saddened to see the amount of local environmental degredation in and around the popular spots. There must easily have been in excess of 100 tents in the glen. Campers' cars were parked inconsiderately in passing places, completely filling many, leading to difficulty and misery for other road users. There was a big wildfire towards the bottom of the glen and in one place, parked cars on both sides of the road (which clearly belonged to campers) had so narrowed the road that fire engines were unable to get through.

I don't know what the answer is but can see that something needs to be done in such areas. Camping here and along the shores of Loch Lomond surely can't be seriously regarded as 'wild' camping? Contrary to the article's 'message', perhaps we need to seriously consider whether by-law enforced restrictions have a valid and indeed necessary role to play in land management of honeypot areas?

In reply to Dave Williams:


Yes! I was there a few weeks back and it was a right mess. Used to be one of the prettier glens in the highlands but now, or certainly on the Saturday morning I passed through, a canvas and BBQ dotted cesspit.
The good times are over and it's probably time for rules and regulations to move in....

In reply to Dave Williams:

I used to camp in Glen Etive often, but stopped several years ago when it got too popular so the chance of a noisy group was too great. The problem is, if you ban it here, the people abusing the privilege will go somewhere else and ruin some other favourite spots - and roadside camping ends up being banned everywhere.

If only there were an easy answer (other than making everything illegal).

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I still camp around Glen Etive often, mostly midweek And I barely see anyone bar the odd Tent & Camper van..... It's mostly been pretty clean not much rubbish lying about between the 3 good spots I use, other than fire pits that seem to be multiplying.... I've been checked a few times by the Custodians (John muir trust I think) to see if I'm following the rules and a decent sort! they recon they can quickly tell by the Camping Equipment used! Had 2 encounters in about Dozen or so Camps over past 2/3 years 5 min chat & once I as doing Munros a leaflet left on my tent. Great Place to camp and hopefully it'll stay that way

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It's not the ban that bothers me so much as the "You can't camp here unless you buy a permit from us". Call me cynical but I think that someone seen how much the US parks generate from their permit system.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

They clamp down on wild camping, but let camper vans/ caravans extended stays in lay-bys , who block cycle ways, leave litter, and dump waste tanks . ( one caravan was even burned out and abandoned last season)

In reply to Jim C:


Who are 'they'? And what areas of the country are you talking about?

In any case: not dealing immediately with *every* problem (even though that ought to be the aspiration) isn't a reason for not trying to deal with *any* problem - is it?

In reply to Rob Parsons:
The clue is in the Topic


In any case: not dealing immediately with *every* problem (even though that ought to be the aspiration) isn't a reason for not trying to deal with *any* problem - is it?
For those that live and enjoy our recreation in this( Loch Lomond NP) area, these issues are not new , and dealing with the longstanding wild camping issue and not also addressing the longstanding wild caravan/ motor home issue is a missed opportunity.

I cycled the West Loch Lomond cycleway yesterday, there were signs warning off wild campers, but I had just watched a campervan dump several bags of rubbish in a lay-by they had been in, and quickly drive off as I arrived. There was no signage asking the motorhomes/ caravans to use the many commercial sites available nor any NP sites, why not treat both issues together?

In reply to Jim C:


I don't think 'signage' will stop idiots dumping rubbish, unfortunately. The people you spotted evidently knew they were in the wrong - that's presumably why they 'quickly drove off.'

>... why not treat both issues together?

Clearly the type of issue you've highlighted needs attention. Part of the point of my question was to wonder who has jurisdiction: dealing with that might come under the authority of something like the Highways Agency (or equivalent) rather than the NP, mightn't it? (I don't know - but that's why I queried your use of the word 'they'.)

In reply to olddirtydoggy:

A good sense of smell.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I haven't done much wild camping in the last 20 years so I'm dismayed to read that it's become such a problem... or maybe since always I wild camped in places that required an effort to reach I wasn't aware of the growing roadside problem. I do remember coming across the remains of a festival tent (i.e. disposable) in the West Pennines and being shocked to see that whoever had erected it had then abandoned it along with the air beds, sleeping bags and remains of the barbecue, which were scattered around the area by wind and animals. Camping kit is so cheap that it isn't re-usable and just gets thrown away, a sensational waste of resources.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I have worked at the park for a season about 10 years ago (though mainly on footpath repair) now I reguarily work on Ben Lomond and many other hills in throughout the highlands. I have seen many examples of oak trees hacked and mutilated, the green wood burnt using petrol, festival style mess on the lochside (huge piles of burnt rubbish and abandoned gear) The idea that 'the laws are there, so why don't the police enforce them?' is wishful thinking given the tiny number of police in the area (a single policeman in drymen I think) I also used to do a weekly litter pick in Glen Etive (as a volunteer) and came accross one site where there was not enough space in the pick up truck for all the burnt plastic and rubbish(in excess of 20 bin bags full from one camping site) on the same site there was a portable toilet(looking something like a chest freezer) full of shit! I was very sad to hear about the seasonal restrictions to roadside camping and hope they do not spread to other areas, but I do understand why they are in place.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A very poor and unbalanced article which completely skates over the reasons for the ban and gives various spurious and irrelevevant arguments against it. The ban is, in my opinion, long overdue and easily justified by the hideous mess left by drunken morons along lochsides within easy reach of the Cental Belt and as far north as Glen Etive every bank holiday weekend. Those who wish to camp discretely and with no trace can still easily find places to do so.

In reply to westaway:


The new rules are being enforced so the manpower is presumably there. I guess it's easier fining otherwise law abiding folk that it is challenging neds with axes and cans of petrol

In reply to Robert Durran:


It makes no claim to be balanced, and is titled "OPINION".


Glen Etive is currently not banned, but probably soon will be now the precedent has been set.


Until the vandals are forced out of their current sites and start to discover the currently unspoiled ones. Unless challenged, the restrictions will almost certainly become applied to the whole of Scotland - no free camping within x distance of a road.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Would that be so terrible?

In reply to MG:

In areas with a reasonable number of commercial sites available (and with sensible opening times), no it wouldn't. But there are huge areas with no sites , or where you're not allowed to arrive after 9 or 10pm.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
It seems to me wild camping is one of those things that only works when the "density" is low. Otherwise there are inevitable problems with shit, litter, fire, vandalism etc. A reasonable filter to ensure a sufficiently low density is something like a rule of distance x from roads or houses. Not having this almost works in Scotland because there are so few people anyway but in some areas, such as Loch Lomond, Glen Etive etc., it doesn't.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


im guessing it's not the police doing the work now as it would have been before and there is some
income generation from permits to offset the costs.

whilst you are quite correct that laws existed before, it doesnt stop it being a non functioning system and difficult to manage.

and obviously always easier to manage law abiding citizens

In reply to lithos:
The NP have very cleverly positioned their argument that 'if you are against the ban' that you 'are a supporter of anti social camping'.

Which is obviously not the case for many people. Yes the mess on Lomond, Loch Earn, Glen Etive and others is appalling.

However ban is a thin edge of the wedge. It doesn't solve the problem, just moves it on. As a result In the long term I can see both roadside camping and campervaning being banned.

But you also have to ask yourselves why Scottish Land and Estates support the ban........

Because once the public have been 'sold the idea that camping away from formal sites is antisocial' its is small step for the landowners to say I've got problems too....if the local authorities and parks can apply for a ban why can't I?

While I understand and hate the mess and damage, I do have concerns about where this approach will end.

In reply to lithos:

For example I know one Estate with an iconic Corbett with no road access. The estate provide a Bothy and encourage people to use it or camp next to it. The stalker hates it when people wild camp underneath the Corbett at any time of year as he doesn't want it to become popular, which would cause issues during the Stalk. Occasionally people leave litter and have fires. The owner wants to control people on the estate, primarily because he is used to being in control.

They would love to be able to say because there have been issues and because they provide facility, that on their estate you should camp where they say.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Yes, but if it was a half decent opinion piece, it would acknowledge opposing points of view and explain why they are outweighed.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


So how much of Scotland would you allow the vandals to trash before something is done about it? When it spread from the southern lochs to Glen Etive was way too far for me.

My favoured approach would be to build a Trump style wall around Glasgow and lock the weegies in over every bank holiday weekend.

In reply to Robert Durran:


In which case you should fully support all those brand ambassadors and team athlete you loath so much as they must push the price of outdoor equipment up and out of the price range of the lower orders. If everyone thought they MUST have a Hilleberg tent from Tiso, and not a pop up one from Asda just imagine how many people that would stop from going in to the hills!

In reply to Robert Durran:
Glasgow and Dundee voted for independence, and I'm happy to give it to them. With appropriate border controls........one-in-one-out............and we'll start with them all 'in'!

That will cut the Ned behaviour over night.

Alternatively we could choose a sensible border position, being a geologist I'd vote for the Highland Boundary fault. The central belt had more in common with the SE, than the highlands.

In reply to TobyA:


I had assumed there were already competing Asda Smart Price brand ambassador athletes permanently camped out by Loch Lomond, drinking Buckie, playing loud music, burning the trees and crapping all over the grass.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Dear David ,
With regard to your article on wild camping in Loch Lomond.
I live in Glasgow and like you I have wild camped for years and more recently with my kids. So, like you, I don't really like the idea of restrictions but I can see why restrictions came about:
I have been at Milarrochy Bay with my own and other young families when a big group of drunk guys poured petrol over the water and sand and set it on fire.
Camping under the pretty pedestrian bridge at Balmaha was common with abandoned tents, burnt chairs, broken bottles and mountains of rubbish.
Over 20 bags of rubbish spilling out on the east side opposite Inveruglas ( must have come by boat)
Innumerable trees cut down, even 100 year old pine trees.
I have seen people using a chainsaw on an island where the Ospreys nest.
Countless abandoned disposable barbecues .
Toilet paper, nappies, baby wipes and sanitary towels scattered around the ruin on Inchmoan .
Broken glass was everywhere so kids going for a swim or playing in the sand were at real risk. This is still a problem on the islands and walking on the sand barefoot is risky for kids and adults .
From your photos it's clear that you believe in 'leave no trace' /'leave only footprints' and if everyone behaved in the same way there wouldn't be a problem.
Unfortunately , as is often the case, the actions of a few selfish, dirty ,inconsiderate and destructive individuals outweighed the caring attitude of the majority.
Beautiful Loch Lomond had become a place that just wasn't a pleasure to visit any more.
Restrictions were introduced , not for reasons of excessive bureaucracy , but rather as a necessity to protect the environment and the majority of people visiting it from an uncaring minority.
Since the bye laws, families have retuned to Milarrochy bay, tourists can walk the East shore without having to detour around drunken gangs , litter is vastly reduced and trees are regenerating. By contrast the Islands and the West side of the Loch still see a lot of litter, glass, hacked trees and environmental destruction.
I'm not a great fan of rules and regulations but the Bye Laws were introduced because things had gotten so bad that something had to be done to protect this beautiful place and the majority of it's visitors.
Instead of blaming the bureaucrats lets place the blame where it truly lies, with those who have treated and continue to treat beautiful parts of Scotland as their own personal midden.

In reply to kevin crofts:

Everything you say makes sense. But the question is whether these restrictions will work. They'll certainly affect law-abiding campers. And probably stop the abuse in the short term. But will the litterers become clean overnight, or give up camping? Or will they just go somewhere else, spreading the problem, and then resume visiting Loch Lomond in a few years once the initial enforcement of the new rules has lapsed as the money is spent elsewhere?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
I think this is a cracking article.

And the fact that so many so-called "ramblers and freethinkers" are content to see their rights trampled, in the name of tackling the spectre of the uninitiated, immigrant or working-class camper ("all those Polish, leaving their Wurst packets and tinnies around"; "all those drunken louts, listening to loud music"; "all them bloody kids, who don't know their arse from their elbow...") just demonstrates the proto-fascistic spirit of our times.

At its base, this is just another experiment in eroding and marketising the public and I salute Lintern and his friends and give the one finger salute to all those who are more concerned with "this one time I saw loads of toilet paper and it was disgusting" than with protecting our collective rights and freedoms.

In reply to C Witter:


How thoroughly bizarre to introduce the 'Polish' to this subject. You're the first person to do so, as far as I can see.

You win the Godwin's Law prize for this thread. And I claim my five zlotys.