ARTICLE: Opinion: Why Scotland Needs Alpine Style Huts

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKH Articles 11 Mar 2016
Huts montage, 4 kbWith Scottish elections looming Ramblers Scotland are promoting the idea of building alpine-style huts in wild parts of the country. What are the benefits, and how might it work?

Read more
1
 JohnBson 11 Mar 2016
In reply to UKH Articles:

I suppose they could be of benefit if located correctly, the CIC hut on the Ben is good and works well providing easy access to the surrounding climbing. From a weekend climbers point of view having a place to stay nearer a crag is a big plus, particularly if there's a long walk in. On the other hand there are few locations where this is really the biggest issue, maybe Torridon, and often going to these locations is about being in the wild with no buildings as far as the eye can see.

I would rather see some higher bothies similar to the bivouacs in the alps, un-catered, few bunks, fairly well hidden and located close to popular ascents and descents. These could be used as emergency shelters by those caught out.

Maybe I'm stingy but I wouldn't pay the price of the alps as taking overnight food in Scotland is less problematic with altitude being lower, however leaving a tent behind and staying high I can see as a real plus.

I can imagine for groups this would be a real plus and could work similar to the Tour du Mont Blanc. Maybe this is a good way to bring more people into the activities we all love. A difficult debate with lots of positives and negatives to be discussed.
1
In reply to JohnBson:

I thought this was a reasonable idea until you mentioned the CIC hut.

denismollison 11 Mar 2016
In reply to UKH Articles:

Sorry, Helen, but in the British context aren't you essentially talking about remote youth hostels? Where suitable buildings exist, they are a good idea. Alltbeithe (Glen Affric) and Black Sail (Ennerdale) are great facilities. But they're barely financially viable these days. The trend is in the other direction: Craig YH in Torridon is now a bothy maintained by the MBA.

But if you're talking about new-built huts in our wildest places, and the motorised vehicles that would presumably be used to service them, they certainly would reduce these areas' remoteness and I'm dead against them. After all, there's no mountain in Britain that can't be climbed from a public road well within the length of a summer day. Bothies, using existing buildings with all their history, and wild camping are far less intrusive

While I'm at it, what on earth do you want a National Park in Harris for? There are several community trusts doing an excellent job of looking after that wonderful wild area. We should be taking a more holistic approach, bringing joined-up management to all our wild areas, involving recreationalists, conservationists, private owners and communities. To turn every Deer Management Group into a Living Landscape Partnership would be my aim.
1
fairhsa 22 Mar 2016
In reply to UKH Articles:

I've lived and hiked extensively in New Zealand, which has an incredible range of back-country huts ranging from a roof and a bunk slab through to the kind of huts you see on the great walks, with toilets, running water, stoves etc. Almost none of these have any form of road built to them and they do nothing to remove the feeling of being wild. Most of them are invisible until you get really close. Most of the comments I read above seem utterly uninformed as to the purpose of huts. The comment about youth hostels implies that only people who stay at youth hostels would stay at a hut. Well I would not be seen dead in a youth hostel if there was a proper hotel available but still happy to stay in a hut because that's all there is available. It enables you to hike without a tent and thus saves weight and allows more people to enjoy the outside.
I've also hiked extensively in Europe - mainly Switzerland, Italy and Austria - which also have fabulous mountain refugees. Many of these also have no road access (but some do). Again, these range from a hotel in the mountains through to a dorm room with outside toilets and everything in between. Compared to the NZ huts, they are luxurious (none of the NZ backcountry huts have anything like showers, for example... but often are close to streams).
You need to decide what you are trying to achieve before deciding what kind of accommodation makes most sense. For increasing tourisms, the Alpine style huts attract people who don't really want to sleep in their clothes or go without washing for a week. But to make the wilderness easier for more basic hikers, basic huts are all that is required.
Overall, it sounds like a great debate to be having and I, for one, would be much more likely to hike in Scotland if something comes of it.
In reply to UKH Articles:

Anything that makes Scotland smaller should be resisted. We just don't have enough wild country to be making holes in it with easier access of any sort. You can already make delightful wild country expeditions (and I do) using youth hostels (SYHA and independent), ancient inns, remote B&Bs, – and of course camping/bivvying out/bothies. If there were a proposal today to build the CIC hut I'm sure I wouldn't be the only person fiercely resisting it. It's there, and it's traditional, and I'm certainly not advocating burning it down. But there shouldn't be any more.
Where were you thinking of anyway? Loch Avon? The Corrie of Lochnagar? Coire Mhic Fhearchair of Beinn Eighe?
1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...