UKH

Had a great four days around Ossian and into the east Mamores over the weekend, but blimey, they are hammered by the estates providing shooting opportunities for punters. A maze of new rough roads and catterpillar tracks going up the hill sides. Now and again I came across some trees, usually in stream valleys. Wonderful autumn colours. I don't we have got any rights over trying to persuade the Brazilians not to fell the Amazon whilst we treat a large part of the highlands as we do. The potential for increasing the biodiversith of fauna and flora is huge. This could be tied in with job creation and some repopulation. Apparently the Lodge at Corrour is owned by the inlaws of the tetra pack entrepreneurs. Just seems such an abuse of the free market.

In reply to Phil1919: I've noticed these access tracks and roads are springing up everywhere. Take a look at the previously wild ring of mountains north of Glenfinnan - new bulldozed tracks right into the heart of the valleys. Same with the peaks around Bridge Of Orchy/Tyndrum. Just two examples

In reply to Phil1919: I'll also add, that if the aim is to control deer numbers, they're not doing a very good job! Every time I head out into the Scottish hills now I see deer, often in gaggles of more than a hundred. Not that many years ago, I would see very few. Anyone else noticed the increase in numbers?

In reply to Jamie Hageman: How do they get planning permission for these roads? Yep, around Stonaig bothy where I spent a couple of nights there were loads. Apparently the rent from Ossian hostel is sent out to their account in the Cayman islands.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

When I was driving past Achnasheen on the way to Torridon a couple of weekends ago, I noticed the bulldozed track above Ledgowan Lodge.

I did wonder if it had always been there, and I'd just never noticed it before, or whether it was new. It certainly looked new.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

Nail on the head! Yes, there is some substance in the argument that there is a need to cull as there are no natural predators, but there is a much stronger economic requirement to bring in revenue for these estates, so we have a chicken and egg situation. Many more deer = many more fee paying guns.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

And funnily enough, now you mention it, that long stretch of road after Ledgowan Lodge on the way south towards Achnashellach is one of the worst places I know for red deer on the road.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
Wind farm? I've been up there a few times this year and its definitely new.

In reply to Phil1919:

I think part of the problem is that they don't need planning permission - such tracks are considered to be 'permitted development'. There was a consultation and campaign earlier this year to change this - not sure what the outcome has been. It may be that if landowners thought they were going to be restricted in the future, they're making the most of the lax laws while they can.

In reply to Mike_Watson_99:

That would make sense - it looks like a proper heavy-duty access road.

In reply to Trangia:

That argument is a red herring anyway. Numbers are kept artificially high by the estates outwith stalking season.

In reply to Phil1919:

Tracks are no subject to planning currently if I remember correctly. The MCofS is trying to get this changed.

Deer numbers are too high as they are kept that way.

Land can be bought and sold and you can do pretty much what you would like.

The Tories will never reform the land laws. Labour has done a wee bit which was good. SNP, remains to be seen but they have some kind of working group on it. That said, independence is so resisted by the establishment as it will take away a whole cornerstone of the British Stage overnight - that of ownership of the land by the few.

In reply to Phil1919:
There seems to be a rapid increase in the laying down of tracks, presumably as the estates compete with each other for business? I've noticed it a fair bit recently while out mountain biking. In some areas, where you see a path marked, it is now a freshly created landrover track, with a surface that the roads department of most cities would be extremely grateful for.

One of the most notable examples relatively local to me, is Glen Esk/Tarfside has numerous new tracks on both sides of the glen, including the resurfacing of the Fungle/Firmounth roads. Maybe the fresh surface with weather in time, but they really stand out.

In reply to Phil1919: Think about it...

Say there wasn't shooting...


What then...

The owners leave the land for walkers.. or mass farming, forestry, wind farms or other developments..

Come on... just for a moment engage the noggin...

In reply to Saor Alba:


Andy Wightman, who knows a thing or two about Land Reform, doesn't seem to hold out much hope:
http://www.andywightman.com/?p=1279

In reply to IainRUK:

Oooh.. Mr Condescension. Don't think anyone's said that there should be no shooting. Do you think it's OK for estates with absentee landlords to be run purely for profit and to, for instance, bulldoze motorway-width tracks everywhere?

It doesn't say much for today's "sportsmen" that they need to be driven to within six inches of a deer to shoot it.

I can (just) see the attraction of actually stalking and putting in some physical effort to shoot something but not blasting away from a landrover. However, animal welfare aside, unless what you are shooting might actually eat you given the chance(e.g. tiger or bears), the whole thing seems pretty pathetic.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Bit confused here. The land IS owned by "the people," it wasn't given to them, they bought it. How would anyone redistribute that? Would it be resold, in which case they could by it again? Or would it be given, but then who to?

The owners are a relation to someone that makes plastic boxes makes what difference? The amount of non-local Scots around the highlands who have moved there because they like the area is huge, so why is this any different?

In one hand you are all complaining about new roads for access to some parts, in the other you are suggesting that somehow the land is split up and more use is made from it. That would suggest many, many more roads, houses, other infrastructure and change that would change the way these places are at the moment. What do you want?

What's wrong with high deer numbers? Any other way that will generate income will change the biodiversity of the land somehow, why is it deer that is wrong?

What is wrong with the idea that you can buy land and own land? So a few rich people have bought a lot of land, less rich people have also bought less land, is that to be redistributed? If not why not?

What do you actually want? I don't understand how the system can be fairer and it plays into our hands because the land is largely left alone for us to enjoy our easy access to it.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Yes I saw that but I don wonder if that is because he wasn't asked to be on the group which is what I have heard from a few other land campaigners.

In reply to Douglas Griffin: I first spotted this in July 2011. I suspect it was created a few months before. While it is quite large, it is appalingly made, and looks like a speculative effort by the local estate rather than one built by a windfarm developer.

There are no planning applications for a windfarm as yet, other than this rather bizarre one for a single turbine right behind the Ledgowan Lodge hotel:
http://www.scottishhills.com/html/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopi...
Doesn't mean one isn't coming though. Not sure what I think of that. The ones further east are OK but this is getting rather close to Torridon and Coulin.

In reply to IainRUK: You should get out and about more.

In reply to Phil1919: Hill tracks are currently 'permitted development', which is basically a loophole that allows a planning-free free-for-all. The consequences are visible everywhere.

On the plus side, and this comes straight from the MCofS website: "the Scottish Government has been consulting with interested parties over the last 12 months with the aim of improving protection for the landscape through the introduction of changes to planning regulations. The consultation is known as the ‘Consultation on the General Permitted Development Amendment Order 2012’ "

We reported the consultation on UKH: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/item.php?id=67129

And we will continue to cover the issue as and when developments arise.

On your wider points, I'd struggle to massively disagree with anything you've said.

In reply to billy no-mates:

It depends how you define ownership I suppose. You or I could buy what we wanted if we had the money and it was for sale.

This is nothing to do with who the people are, it's about what they do and what controls should be in place.

I don't want any nationalisation but I do want controls such as the need to have a proper deer management plan, a biodiversity plan and other controls such as the accommodation nut being subject to employment.

The land is not left alone, it is intesively managed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2012/mar/02/deer-study-...

In reply to malky_c:

Interesting, thanks Malky.

In reply to Saor Alba:

But if the land use changed to farming, or forestry, then the change in biodiversity would be immense. Or is the intention that the land cannot be used by what the owners want, but by what some other group decide is best for the land?
Aye, but the intensive management means that the land remains fairly unchanged, as it has always been managed in a similar way. My memories have always been of shooting estates in the highlands and that is what I have grown to like (nothing to do with the shooting, it's the easy access and views, etc..)

In reply to billy no-mates:

I'm not sure anyone is suggesting changing land use to farming. In much of the Highlands, much of the soil is too poor to permit very much really productive farming. I'm not sure many people think that current levels of deer populations are good for the environment - they over-graze and prevent growth of a range of flora. You only have to look at sides of hills with deer-fences to see the difference. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to develop a deer management plan that allows some level of shooting without the same levels of damage being done to the environment. Unfortunately, at the moment, it seems that high deer populations are preferable to a less damaged environment.

In reply to billy no-mates:

Scotland was heavily forested until the 19th century when the Victorians cleared the highlands for shooting. The natural habitat for red deer is forest, but those pesky trees made them too hard to shoot. So land you describe as being "fairly unchanged" has actually only looked as you have "grown to like" for the blink of an eye (in evolutionary terms). It is as massively changed as if it had been ploughed up and planted with cabbages, and the effect on biodiversity is similar.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:
The report on the consultation is now available:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/09/3943/downloads

A quick scan suggests the landowners were well prepared and stood up for their interests.

In reply to Phil1919: aye 4000 miles a year.. rarely get out..

In reply to billy no-mates:

I don't think we are talking about the same things. No one I am aware of is saying that intensive farming is the way forward. I'd be fairly happy if the deer numbers were halved. Then trees could grow along with all the biodiversity that comes with them.

In reply to Pekkie: Environmentally I don't think these tracks are an issue..

Visually.. sure..

Bigger picture.. no.. deforestation of the highlands, artificial sub climax vegetation.. sure.. will it change.. no..

In reply to Alyson:

Not really.. English nature now maintain moors and graze cattle on them to prevent trees establishing..

In reply to Alyson:

Not strictly true. Deforsetation of the Highlands was already happening due to high population levels (before the clearances)and the main economic driver to the clearances and deforestation was sheep.

In reply to Alyson:

That's not quite right. For a start, in many places the deer took the place of the sheep, which had been introduced in industrial scales in the Clearances, at the end of the 18th and start of the 19th centuries.

It's also the case in some areas, deforestation took place a long before the 19th century with wood being a valued fuel source and raw material in charcoal making. Victorian landowners may have much to answer for, but deforestation isn't top of the list.

In reply to IainRUK: ....as you like to tell us.

In reply to IainRUK: Which bit are you disagreeing with? Upland moors managed for hunting are pretty barren places for wildlife.

Lowland heath is a much rarer habitat and grazing can be used to manage it for species like nightjars, but comparing that habitat to shooting moors is disingenuous.

In reply to Alyson:

The decline of the trees actually started about 3000 years ago and was made worse by grazing and human practices. That is history though. Trees can grow very well if they are allowed to but the numbers of deer prevent that.

In reply to Phil1919: I just get out more than 99% of people on here..

In reply to Alyson: Its been this way for a long long time.. not 100-200 years..

And no.. upland heath is maintained..

In reply to Saor Alba:


You just need to look at areas that have been fenced off to allow regeneration (for example, Coille na Glas Leitir at Beinn Eighe) to see that this is true.

In reply to Alyson: I believe most of the natural tree cover had gone quite some time earlier than the 19th C Alyson, as a combination of deforestation (in which deer stalking only latterly plays a part, in historic terms) and general climate change. But today's vastly excessive deer population is certainly limiting regrowth. And that is entirely the fault of the stalking industry.

In reply to Saor Alba:

Ah, but if the people that own the land are allowed to do what they want to earn money from it, farming may be one of the areas they look at in more depth along with a host of other types of land use, all of which would mean the highlands change.

Halving deer numbers means less profit and more chance of landowners choosing alternative land use, likely to be to our detriment. Increased trees, while natural if the deer kept off and more in with the lands natural look (and I like to see the changes made to Creag Meagaidh when I visit,) are not going to make more money for the landowner.

If the land was wild it would be nice to see it in it's natural shape, but it isn't and expecting it to be managed for reasons that aren't in keeping with the landowners wishes are like asking someone in a town to not mow their lawn to create natural biodiversity (I'm actually doing this, though more through laziness....)

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com:

I've never seen the highlands with this "regrowth," and imagine there'd be a lot more trees around the place (like the road north of Stac Pollaidh.) As I said in the post above, it would eb the natural look, but what it looks like at the moment is pretty amazing and I'd rather it stayed that way.

In reply to billy no-mates:

Really?

I see your point.. access is easier.. compare and contrast with say New Zealand.. you need paths because the bush is just not penetrable..

But we'd be wandering through caledonian pine forests.. capercaille's crossing our path.. shelter from the wind..

And fire wood..

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: climate change?

Not so sure on that.. I think the underlying reason for the lack of forests in Scotland is people.. deforestation for farming, hunting from day dot..

In reply to IainRUK:

But it's someone's land! Someone owns it and will have plans for what they want to do with it. If it isn't used for stalking, it will be used for something else and it's the else that they will do that probably doesn't include capercaille's, pine marten's, wild cat's and eagle's.

In reply to billy no-mates: I totally agree.. I'd like it to be native pine forests but that's not going to happen..

In reply to billy no-mates: It needn't be seen as an either-or. I suspect the best the regrowthers can expect is probably nice new woodland areas in a few enlightened estates and community-owned bits and bobs while the bulk stays treeless. A Glen Affric here and there maybe, but never everywhere. I think easy walking progress and open views (i like them too) aren't going to be threatened any time soon.

In reply to IainRUK: Not according to the seminal book Hostile Habitats. That's my main source; I know nothing about it myself.

In reply to IainRUK:


I'm fairly sure that I've read somewhere (possibly in the SMC publication Hostile Habitats) that historic climate change played a role in the decline of the Scots pine distribution. We're talking several thousand year ago here though, when the population of Scotland was a fraction of what it is now.

In reply to IainRUK: This book also refutes the myth of total tree cover. It reckons there were always plenty of open areas, bog, moor or whatever (as I say, I'm no expert)

In reply to Douglas Griffin: interesting.. didn't know that.. I thought it was all clearances.

I would have thought even if you get shift in species you maintain similar ecotypes..

In reply to IainRUK:


It's both. There have been some abrupt and not fully understood climate changes that led to substantial changes in flora. There have also been waves of man-made change. Trust me - I have spent many hours working as a general dogs-body in freezing peat bogs in the name of science to add to this knowledge!!

In reply to IainRUK:

I think doing what you suggest to somewhere like, say west of Torridon, or the Fisherfield forest, or Knoydart would be amazing. But owners would have to be bought out, it would be a nature reserve (not national park,) and when I was in Costa Rica and visited a nature reserve I found you could only get access to 10% of it, because it was meant to be natural: no humans, so we wouldn't get to see it anyway.

In reply to billy no-mates:


When considering how best land ought to be managed, maybe we should consider factors other than the wishes of recreational users such as ourselves?

In reply to billy no-mates:

With the greatest of respect I think you need to look at certain areas of the Highlands and do some reading on this. Have a look at "The Great Wood" by Jim Crumley and look into the debates had about the Mar Lodge deer management strategy as well as looking at organisations such as Trees for Life and others. Land buy outs are also relevant. I am surprised there is no book about the man but the work that Finlay Macrae did for the Forestry Commission in Glen Affric is an inspiration.

Indeed there was a meeting just last night in the Bays area of Harris where the vast majority of the population would like to go for a buy out. Yes I know, that is another discussion......

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: Thanks.. may try and get a copy seems interesting.. I'm not a terrestrial biologist but assumed from the bog wood you see that trees were in most habitats.

In reply to billy no-mates:

You seem to be suggesting that it's either deer-stalking or it's capercailles, pine martens, wild cats and eagles. That's not necessarily the case. It's possible for deer-stalking to take place on estates that are managed for a wider biodiversity.

You also talk about farming. In general, and land that is suitable for farming is already being used for farming - mostly grazing for sheep and hairy coos. Stalking generally takes places at higher levels on land that is not suitable for farming.

In reply to Phil1919: While we're on the subject of tree cover, here's a news piece on a habitat restoration project up in the Flow Country: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/item.php?id=67513

Now there's a place that could do with far fewer (of the wrong type of) trees.

In reply to Saor Alba:

I'd rather you made a point based on your reading of those books so I don't have to!!

In reply to tony:
Good points, Tony, and Assynt Foundation - one of the community buy-out estates - is a really good example which blends biodiversity regeneration and socio-economic development while maintaining stalking/ fishing. Of course, there are examples too (Knoydart springs to mind).

Picking up on some earlier posts about Andy Wightman's work... His current initiative Land Action Scotland http://www.landaction.org.uk is really interesting. To me, it seems to open a chance for a different flavour of land reform in the rural areas of Scotland from the kinds we've already seen. While there may be criticism of Wightman's approach on this, to me it is an interesting way which might create freedom for locals to become members of the companies which run their estates. I'm watching, fascinated, to see how this develops.

In reply to Saor Alba:

re: deer numbers

I remember there being a TV series within the last year or two where they were looking at Scottish landscapes and the subject of deer numbers came up. I think they went to one of the western Cairngorm estates, might have been Glen Feshie but can't be sure, where previously they had a very dense population of red deer. After culling they reduced it to something in the region of one or two per square km. I can't remember the exact figures but there was a couple of orders of magnitude difference between before and after.

The estate owner also talked about the quality of the shots coming on stalks, basically people who had never fired a gun but who thought that it would be a good laugh to have a drunken weekend and let off a few rounds.

It's interesting to see the difference between estates like Fisherfield where they still use ponies to remove the carcasses and those estates who offer convenience stalking. A lot of these new tracks are poorly constructed and many are getting washed out within a few years. Compare this with the old stalking paths which, even on estates that no longer use them, are still in pretty decent repair.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

Good post. I have nothing against these estates or shooting deer. However, I think it reasonable to expect some kind of enlightened management practices in the 21st century where the affect of high deer numbers is recognised. Currently the debate can't be had as some appear to feel that if the high numbers and their effect is acknowledged then that counts as an admission of failure for the whole practice. It doesn't.

I'd be quite happy with a law, I think a legal framework is required, where any estate being purchased over a certain size is obliged to take certain measures on biodiversity and communities.

In reply to Saor Alba: Recent spate of eagle killings does suggest management isn't quite ethical..

No doubt some are.

In reply to Saor Alba:

You've already mentioned Crumley's "The Great Wood". I think he make a lot of pertinent points and writes well on the subject. Folk would also do well reading "The Last Wolf", his preceding book.

I wonder how long it'll take for attitudes to change and for wolves to be returned to the Highlands? It'd solve the deer problem and help restore a healthier mix of flora and fauna.

In reply to Dan Bailey - UKHillwalking.com: Yes, I cycled up through Sutherland for the first time in April and the spruce plantations were just laughable. Whoever allowed or encouraged those! Inplaces where they had been cut down it was like the night after an airraid.

In reply to a lakeland climber:
In Glen Shiel last week they were carrying dead stags out by helicopter, dangling on a long rope. There's a way of avoiding the need for boggy tracks, if only for the most well heeled of estates.

I don't think anybody is realistically saying that deer stalking must stop. However the OPs point related to the runaway growth of ill considered and badly made tracks. The fact that there has been a recent growth in these tends of itself to indicate that estates used to manage alright without them.

I suspect (and stand to be corrected) that absentee landlords with a view to profit and little else are responsible for this.

Maybe the answer is to ban vehicular transport from designated areas?

In reply to Craig Mc:

A long time I think. Crumley's books are good but very porrly researched in some cases. His interpretation of place-names is often plain wrong and I question some of his conclusions regarding woods. Overall though very good.

We don't need wolves to solve a deer problem. We need proper management.

In reply to Siward: as far as I know, the local landowner has a helicopter and personal pilot.......it's a job I've got my eye on lol.

In reply to Saor Alba:


I don't think waiting for purchase is needed or sensible - I imagine some won't be sold for decades if not centuries. But you are right, it can't be that hard to develop a better legal or tax framework to encourage better management. The estate owners I have met are very sensitive to the tax environment - for example being desperate to establish that trees (of whatever kind at whatever time in whatever climate) once grew on their land as apparently this gives them tax breaks for planting conifers. Change this to tax breaks for biodiversity and I think you would see rapid changes.

In reply to Phil1919:
I don't know how you would create the culture to support it but I've thought for years that it is a shame we can't have make it easier for us peasants to shoot deer ourselves. In rural parts of NZ and the US that I have visited seemingly everyone has a rifle and hunts. They are rife here, cause loads of accidents and damage a lot of property. Clearly whoever is managing them isn't doing a great job.Safer roads and a cheap source of quality meat - win win!

In reply to MG:

Correct but whilst it would be great to apply such measures across the board I don't think it would happen as it would be too big a step. Maybe for all new purchases and then within 5 years for existing estates might work. This should of course apply to community buyouts also.

Good idea on the tax breaks for biodiversity.

In reply to IainRUK:

The increase recently has been awful to see!

In reply to Saor Alba:

Various areas in the north of England used to get tax breaks/grants under the "Environmentally Sensitive Area" scheme - basically trying to encourage biodiversity but without being too overbearing in regulations as I remember it. So farmers couldn't cut hay until July to encourage flower meadows, they had to repair a certain amount of dry stone walls per year; etc.

Not sure if the scheme is still running or it ever ran in Scotland.

ALC

In reply to a lakeland climber:

I believe it's still the case in the Highlands and Islands that some landowning conservation organisations, e.g. the RSPB, pay their tenant crofters to carry out their harvesting operations at particular times of the year.

In reply to a lakeland climber:

There are, or certainly have been, similar schemes in Scotland, although I'm not sure if they're statutory or voluntary schemes. For example, farmers on some of the islands delay cutting hay until after the corncrakes have fledged. I was on Islay in August and we heard corncrakes in a wee triangle of wild flower meadow, fenced off from the rest of the surrounding fields which were open grazing land.

In reply to nw: Yes, if you are going to eat meat, then it should be venison!

In reply to tony:

I heard a corncrake in Lewis this summer, near Uig - which surprised me as I didn't expect to encounter them that far north.

While I was in the Hebrides I finally got round to reading Ian Mitchell's Isles of the West. It's a wee bit dated (written about 12 years ago) and the content is fairly opinionated but I got a lot out of the book; it certainly challenged some of the ideas I had about the activities of the conservation bodies in the Highlands and Islands. The corncrake features heavily in this book!

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

RSPB own a few farms in Islay and have locals working on them with bird friendly practices.

In reply to Douglas Griffin:
We heard them on Lewis a few years ago, a bit further north from Uig, at Siabost.


I'll look out for that.

In reply to Saor Alba: They should start a fund to buy out the Corrour estate.

In reply to Phil1919:

I'm suprised that no one has yet pointed out that some estates are now feeding their deer during the winter implying that the number they are maintaining on their land is artificialy high. I'm not sure when this started but I don't believe it was any earlier than a decade ago. Another point of information is that in the past cattle grazed the uplands before deer made economic sense. Think of the numebers of corries with the the word "laoch" [sp] or "lui" in their names; the two words both mean calf and refer baqck to times when the locals took their cattle into those places during the summer for the grazing.

I guess if I were a landowner I could argue that there should be no reason why I should not farm my land in the same way that a lowland farmer farms their land. Why should the a Highland estate not be allowed to intensively farm it's land at the expense of biodversity and aesthetics just like an arable farm in midlothian? A fair question.

I think there must some sort of balance that needs to be drawn. The Highlands cannot be left as a pristine wilderness if the poeple who live there are to have a future but at the same time there must be some limits to what the landowner, be it a rich foreigner or a local community, can do with it.

In reply to Removed User:


This is one of the issues that Ian Mitchell raises, though at a crofting rather than an estate level.

Taking corncrakes as an example. These birds were at one time widespread across Britain; they are now restricted to the extreme north-west fringes as a result of agri-business in more heavily-populated regions further south and east. Why should crofters in the islands be the ones who are required to modify their practices? Moreover, aren't traditional crofting practices precisely those which have led to the creation of the ecosystems that the RSPB (for example) are seeking to preserve?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

Subjectively because they own the bits of land people want to preserve in a certain form. Since land ownership is held to be less than absolute, the country at large can influence what is allowed.

Objectively because they add little to the economy whereas, like it or not, intensive farming is fairly central to being able to eat for most people. Also there are quite a lot of restrictions on what is allowed in intensively farmed areas too.

In reply to Removed User: estates have been feeding deer for at least 2 decades, I can remember it being an issue on some estates in the Cairngorms back in the 1980s

In reply to Removed User:

Interesting post Eric. The Highlands are neither pristine or a wilderness. There was actually a talk about this from Prof Richard Oram the other night. But leaving that to one side, I think you are right on the feeding practice. I was at Loch Cuaich two weeks ago (renamed from Loch Quoich) where there were multiple deer feeders.

I can maybe search the OS master map data later for cattle and deer place-names.

In reply to Saor Alba:


There's also àirigh, of course - evidence of the transhumance practices that Eric referred to.

In reply to MG:


Yes, perhaps. But does the RSPB represent "the country at large"?

In reply to Douglas Griffin:

I was meaning more generally - the government, representing "us", lays down rules about what can and can't be done on land

In reply to Removed User:

There are limits and planning permission, EIA's, etc... is required once you reach them.

To be honest, the roads described in the OP won't last more than a couple of years as nature will rapidly reclaim them, as for "increasing the biodiversity of flora and fauna," try telling a lowland farm to do it, or better still do it in London. What is the difference between those places and the highlands? They are still places where people live, work and are owned by someone. Why is it that Clint86 feels the highlands should act as the balance to Amazonian rainforest clearance? What is wrong with his own street? As for job creation and re-population, has he asked the locals whether they want more people they don't know around, or are they happy as is?

The assumption that people on UKC have any say in the matter is quite arrogant.

In reply to billy no-mates:


To be honest, you are talking bollocks. These are often major bulldozed tracks that will be around until the next ice-age in many cases.


as for "increasing the biodiversity of flora and fauna," try telling a lowland farm to do it, or better still do it in London. What is the difference between those places and the highlands?

You can't see difference between London and the highlands? Eric9points made this point much better above.



Not really. We are all members of a society that exercises some control over how land is used, which is why we have planning laws, environmental laws and so on. All that is being discussed is some changes and extensions to these.

In reply to MG:


Of course, but they're not the only ones!

In reply to billy no-mates:

I think you have identified you issue higher up - you can't be bothered to read anything on this.

In reply to MG:

Are you interested in discussion, or just repeating the same stuff I didn't understand the first time round? Simply, it seems that you want more trees on shooting estates, is that right?
They will be covered in a few years, if you could offer roads that can be simply bulldozed and last to the next ice-age you would have a booming business.


No he doesn't he says that the comparison for controls of land usage is a "fair question."

I don't understand why you feel that you can tell anyone what to do with their land?

In reply to Saor Alba:

???? You mean I asked for you to summarise some information that you recommended and you ignored me? If you want me to recommend something for you to read it would be this: http://www.scientific-journals.co.uk/web_documents/quote_unquote.pdf then hopefully you wouldn't feel the need to recommend someone "look into," debates and organisations and read a book to hopefully find the point you were trying to make in your post? If you make the point then back it up with a quote from the book it would be far more useful then all would know what you are talking about.

In reply to billy no-mates:

No, I mean that with such a complex issue as landownership and land management in Scotland to gain a decent understand one has to invest some time and effort availing oneself of the various debates, facts and legal and historical situations.

In reply to billy no-mates:

No, not simply that. I want the land to be better managed for biodiversity and not turned in to ecological desert. I want to see a legal and tax framework, for example, that makes it not in owners' interests to shoot golden eagles, but also for them to support lots of less iconic species.




Well we will both be dead by then so won't know who is right but take a look at the parallel "roads" in Glen Roy that were left at the end of the last ice-age. They are still clearly visible and of comparable size to today's bulldozed tracks, that will be visible for millennia.


Yes, I was agreeing, it is a fair question. He just put it much better than you.



As above society doesn't regard land ownership as absolute. It is generally accepted in the UK that owning land doesn't give someone carte blanche to do what they want with, just to have certain, albeit quite extensive, rights over it. The reason for this is that it is a shared and limited resource that we all have an interest in maintaining in certain ways. It is different from owning say a book that you can do anything you like with.

In reply to billy no-mates:
But, going back to the original point, hill tracks don't need any planning permission.


I doubt that very much. A lot of the tracks I see will be around for a long time - they're big fat bulldozed tracks which have ripped up much of the soil structure. Nature will eventually reclaim them, but remember that these tracks are in places where nature moves slowly and growing seasons are short. Even when these kind of tracks aren't used often, they'll remain as a feature for many many years.


You still seem to be stuck with the idea that it's an either/or situation. It's not. It is the case that there can be environmental management schemes which promote biodiversity and which also allow continued deer-stalking. As has been said a number of times, no-one is suggesting that stalking should not be continued.


There are people on UKC who are local to the areas concerned, and I think everyone who uses the Highlands, for whatever reason, has the right to express opinions on the good and bad of different management schemes. What would be wrong would be for one group to ride roughshod over the views of every other user.

In reply to Saor Alba:

So instead of actually putting any information down you just disqualify people from the debate? That makes as much sense as you having a say in what happens to the highlands in the first place!

In reply to MG:

If it isn't an ecological desert already it won't change more. Or is it the present appearance that you want changed? It already is illegal to shoot golden eagles.
I will be alive in 5 years, which is what it'll take for an unused track to grow over. The parallel roads were formed from a lake that was there for 1000 years, so I don't know why you think this bulldozing will be so successful.

In reply to billy no-mates:

Many areas are approaching this

Or is it the present appearance that you want changed?

Not particularly, although if that happens as a consequence, fine.

It already is illegal to shoot golden eagles.

Yes but it is still clearly in people's interest to do so, which is what I want to change. I assume you are now deliberately missing the point, so I will stop.

In reply to billy no-mates:

Again, I doubt that very much. Bulldozing is very good at creating tracks. I regularly run on bulldozed tracks and I'm very sure they have a life span considerably longer than the 5 years you suggest. There's lot more involved than simply "growing over" - some of these tracks carve deep gouges into hillsides, which don't simply grow over - they're substantial pieces of road engineering.

In reply to billy no-mates: I think you're just overeacting. Good things should start at home, in gardens, streets, parks, lowland farms. There is some good stuff going on. Why do you assume I din't think so. I was making the whimsical point that how can we preach about the rainforests being saved when we treat our own 'wilderness' so badly. The point about the owners, tetrapack, is, in my opinion, you can't leave land management to the free market. Corrour is testament to that. I guess you've seen for yourself these tracks that will heal in a few years?

When I got off the train there was a guy from Chiswick with me, with a suitcase. Only the second time he'd been north of Glasgow. The effect of the highlands on him and the silence was palpable. He was quite overcome by it. It showed me just how important it is that we should be part of the outdoors and not ride roughshod over it.

In reply to tony: Lots of good points, thanks all.

In reply to billy no-mates:
Here's an article about tracks being overgrown. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2403058?seq=11

They reckon regrowth does take place, but very very slowly at high altitude. For example in the Cairngorms, they estimate 10-20 years before lichen starts to cover exposed rock. Return of soil, and consequently other vegetation clearly will take rather longer.

Perhaps that's why Mar Lodge estate had a policy of actively turfing over many of the high altitude vehicle tracks around Beinn a'Bhuird when NTS took over - the timescales involved are substantially longer than 5 years for unused tracks to grow over.

In reply to Phil1919:
the reason that most of these tracks are going in is due to the fact that there is a lot of talk that planning permission will be needed for farm/ estate and forestry tracks in the future.

The tracks will be there for general estate use and with out them there would not be no estates as we currently know them. and as most people seem to forget the current Scottish countryside is a completely man made landscape. It used to annoy me at uni when every one think that it should all remain as it was. With the grand idea of granny pines all over the place, where as the reason that they remain is that they were not worth cutting down when we harvested the rest of the trees.

rant over

In reply to forester:
I have been told that the main reason for the tracks is that in the old days the shot deer would be butchered on the hill , the venison packed out & the guts , skin , bones etc left to rot on the hill. Now estates are legally obliged to remove the entire carcass from the hill , why ? your guess is as good as mine , probably some suit in government deciding a law designed to prevent rats in cities needs to be enforced half way up a hill. Very few estates can afford a helicopter , why not just go back to the old way.....

In reply to Phil1919:

I agree with Clint that there has been a negative visual impact on some parts of the Highlands with new estate tracks, but this is as nothing compared to the impact of so-called 'sustainable' energy, especially the proliferation of unsightly windfarms and the massive environmental impact of the Beauly to Denny power line.

Perhaps he should do his homework a little better before finding fault with land management on Highland estates. Shooting and stalking on estates like Corrour bring in a total considerably in excess of £25,000,000 pa to the Scottish economy and support over 2,500 jobs, in rural areas where alternative employment opportunities are very scarce. In addition, the estates are largely responsible for maintaining a generally good and reasonably rich biodiversity balance, considering, as we must the harshness of the mountain environment. I recommend he reads 'Managing Scotland's Environment', by Charles R. Warren (Edinburgh University Press, 2002). I hasten to add that although I live in the Highlands, I have nothing whatever to do with any estates and, like Clint, visit them only as a birdwatcher and hill walker.

In reply to johnstuartross:

I think one of the main points is that employment and housing is very scare because of the shooting estates.

The evidence doesn't support purely sporting estates being good for biodiversity when compared with non-shooting estates. Think of the west end of Loch Monar, Loch Cuaich, Inchnadamph area etc.