Referring to the thread on the Cairngorm tragedy. I remember that tragedy happening.
I hadn't realised that two shelters/bothies involved were subsequently demolished on the basis that if a shelter is known to be on a mountain for use in an emergency it tempts people to press on in conditions where they really should turn back. If it's not there, then a party will turn back rather than try and probably fail to find it in a white out.
It's an interesting hypothesis, but is it right? I wonder if emergency shelters save more lives than those which are lost through people failing to find them?
There is also the problem that if people know of the existence of an emergency shelter and it gets removed, not everyone will know that, and it's likely that those who haven't heard of it's removal will be at potential risk.
Remember the big controversy when Jean's Hut was demolished? There were still people I met decades afterwards who were unaware that it had gone
Using the same logic that having crash barriers on a mountain road encourages people to drive faster
I definitely view bothies as a "safe point" on a route. I recently rode over the Coireyairack Pass and got caught up by a thunderstorm a couple of miles away from Melgarve bothy. It had been forecast to be fairly wet but the storm wasn't meant to arrive until the next day so I had decided to push on as far as I could.
Finding a padlock on the bothy door provoked a comment of "hmmm, that's not ideal" before I rolled out my tent and started to put it up.
> It's an interesting hypothesis, but is it right?
It was one of the findings of the fatal accident inquiry.
> There is also the problem that if people know of the existence of an emergency shelter and it gets removed, not everyone will know that, and it's likely that those who haven't heard of it's removal will be at potential risk.
> Remember the big controversy when Jean's Hut was demolished? There were still people I met decades afterwards who were unaware that it had gone
In this day and age, when information can be updated and found in seconds, surely it's far less likely to be a problem? I never relied on bothies personally, preferring to camp well away from them in the main, given the antisocial behaviour of a small minority of users.
When was this?
It may indeed be right but still doesn't answer the question re net lives saved.
Unless everytime someone uses the bothy / shelter in an emergency etc., and stays alive as a consequence, is recorded how do we know?
Good point, so it's an impossible question either way, and you are back to what "seems" to be right, or wrong.
From memory The findings of the FAI were slightly more nuanced, in that it was the ‘high’ bothies, rather than bothies in general that acted as a sirens call. In that they drew people onto ground with limited navigational features, and which were more exposed. Thus the consequences of not finding the Bothy might be greater.
Obviously we won’t know if bothies are a net life saver. There are clear arguments each way. Nearly every couple of years there are Bothy parties ‘trapped’ by snowfall and needing rescued in the Cairngorms, whom probably wouldn’t have been there but for the Bothy. There are also regular call outs to the same bothies for walkers having made their way to them with lower leg injuries, whom may or may not have had worse outcomes if they’d been out in the elements. Occasionally the completely lost stumble on a Bothy and survive a night in winter that might otherwise of claimed them (Thinking of the party some years ago that got lost on Cairngorm, walked off the back and down to Faindouran, before trudging downstream all the way to Tomintoul next day).
It would really be for the Braemar/Aberdeen/Cairngorms teams to judge if bothies create more work, or save them effort.
Overall I wouldn’t want any new bothies changing the character of the limited remote hills we have e.g. Fannichs, Torridon, or the head of Mullardoch. And definitely not on an argument of ‘safety’.
By the same logic that emergency shelters should be destroyed, your tent should be confiscated! 😉
The only emergency shelter left I can think of is Ben Nevis summit. Not sure how that one escaped but I would need to be pretty desperate to want to stay in it.
> By the same logic that emergency shelters should be destroyed, your tent should be confiscated! 😉
Or the Shelter Stone dynamited!?
> By the same logic that emergency shelters should be destroyed, your tent should be confiscated! 😉
In fact I'm signed up to be turned into meat pies - damn your inexorable logic!
I wonder how many lives have been saved by the emergency shelter on the summit of the Ben?
Imagine a scenario where you were three-quarters of the way up a route on the north face and the weather went really bad. Yes, you might push on because you know there is the protection of the emergency shelter on the summit. But is pushing on in that scenario the dangerous option? Is it not more dangerous to have to retreat 1000m down the north face to the CIC?
> Or the Shelter Stone dynamited!?
Shelter stone is a howf not an emergency shelter. An old one at that.
> The only emergency shelter left I can think of is Ben Nevis summit. Not sure how that one escaped but I would need to be pretty desperate to want to stay in it.
Garbh Choire Refuge?
Fords of Avon Refuge?
> Garbh Choire Refuge?
Not really an emergency shelter as its off the usual walking routes, I've stayed there a few times but always while climbing
> Fords of Avon Refuge?
stayed here while ski touring once many years ago, what state is it in now ? was pretty basic & very cold
> There are also regular call outs to the same bothies for walkers having made their way to them with lower leg injuries
This is interesting - which bothies are these that get frequent callouts for lower leg injuries?
These historically have been used as howf shelters. There a bit low down to be used as an emergency shelter. You might as well add Jacksonville if were in same category.
Both of these have been rebuilt quite recently.
Heavy has a few photos of the bothy in question with the one of the skiers on top of it showing just how hard it could be to find.
https://heavywhalley.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/follow-up-to-yesterdays-post-...
> It was one of the findings of the fatal accident inquiry.
It was. But that still only makes it a hypothesis.
The Alamein shelter is still there. A bit draughty, but still there. I'm not sure I'd want to try to find it in poor conditions; hard enough to find in good weather.
> Using the same logic that having crash barriers on a mountain road encourages people to drive faster
True.
However most people wouldn't argue against health warnings on cigarette packets but would argue against a 10mph speed limit on all roads.
The interesting debate isn't about whether a measure taken has negative effects in addition to its beneficial effects, it's about where the balance lies in terms of it being considered a net benefit or a net detriment.
There are a couple on the pennine way in the Cheviots.
Vote me down for being unduly cynical, but not every land owner is supportive of the excellent volunteer work of the mountain bothy association or various outdoor user groups. There are plenty of landowners (and Tennant Farmers) who'd rather not have walkers/climbers on the land.
Part of the equation could be that the idea is less walkers/climbers = less liability on the manager of the land, and less strangers on the land. Less bothys = less welcoming? Could be a factor in some cases.
(Although greatest appreciation to those supportive land owners, and the various volunteer groups)
> > It was one of the findings of the fatal accident inquiry.
> It was. But that still only makes it a hypothesis.
> The Alamein shelter is still there. A bit draughty, but still there. I'm not sure I'd want to try to find it in poor conditions; hard enough to find in good weather.
Not least because they built it in the wrong place! I've spotted it from above but not wandered down to have a look.
Thankfully it was built in the wrong place. If built where intended it would be a piss smelling, litter filled midden; assuming it didn’t get removed post FAI.
Note to seekers of the esoteric; take your goretex bivi if intending to stay, and spare a thought to the 51st HD, in whoms memory it was built.
Back in the 70's, 2 friends of mine got a bit delayed on NE Buttress and arrived on the top in the dark. There was a lot of snow that year.They tried to locate the shelter but gave up and started to dig out a large boulder. They quickly realised they were knocking on the wooden door of the shelter. I believe it was not a very comfortable stay
JACKSON VILLE IS A PRIVATE CLUB HUT
Since the thread is about shelters as well as bothies, what do people think about the various shelters marked on the map which turn out to be cross-shaped drystone walls? For example, at Esk Hause.
> Since the thread is about shelters as well as bothies, what do people think about the various shelters marked on the map which turn out to be cross-shaped drystone walls? For example, at Esk Hause.
Anyone setting out into the hills expecting shelter of any sort (apart from what they carry with them) is cruising for a bruising.
Nevertheless, better to bivvy in the appropriate quarter according to wind direction than just in the open air (yet probably better find a bit more stamina and head further down, unless you are in a bad mental state, and in a white-out).
Are you sure about that…..I (and friends) have stayed there many times, and it’s been busy!
> Not least because they built it in the wrong place!
Where was it supposed to have been built?
As club secretary, I think I can safely say yes I am sure
I’m sure Dick will be offering to sending his and friends bed night fees to you, or to a MRT of your choosing…..
It's certainly got history to it. Does it actually belong to the Creag Dhu? I always thought it was built illegally out of a old sheep pen on National trust land. Genuinely interested.
The ville belongs to the CDMC & is on Nts land. Representation was made to the Nts Many years ago re its historical significance and also the fact that it has been used by the Glencoe mrt when on the hill over the years. This representation was accepted, with the ville being allowed to remain, and the club gave a comittment to maintain the hut and its environs without major structural changes
What does Ville mean? I tried to google it but couldn't find anything of sense. Will it be Scots law for carer or other? Like I said Im just curious about its history. I remember passing it in 1983 for the first time with the Ayr KCC and they were a bit like it was out of bounds. Always loved to read of its history.
Ah the danger of gin on a hot evening during annual leave. No worries just wondered if there was a legal case such as deeds or such excluding everyone else. Seems such a shame
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well, it does sit unlocked…..perhaps there is a reason.
It does seem odd why it's not locked. I went in with an irish member a long time ago. It just came across as hovel dose you couldn't even stand up in . But intrgeging from its history
Mick can you tell if there is legal paperwork that the public is barred from its use. Basically is it still your club use exclusively. That's a bit of a shame really.
I suspect there isn’t, and the CDMC have only laid claim to it having committed to maintaining it.
It's not really a difficult concept, we built it, we maintain it, we own it. Is not up for debate. Anyone found using our hut without permission will risk being ejected in the time honoured fashion
I’ve been in that position. We pushed on in part because in the lee of the mountain we hadn’t realised just how bad things had got.
we had a number of options, but the shelter certainly felt the best option at the time.
It was a cold night, but a 1000 times better in the shelter than outside. As it happens the storm was even worse in the morning and we had to crawl on our hands and knees until a way down the zig zags.
This is what we were dealing with. The plan was to be off the mountain hours before it started. It was also much worse than forecast.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2002/jan/29/weather.climatechange
> It's not really a difficult concept, we built it, we maintain it, we own it. Is not up for debate. Anyone found using our hut without permission will risk being ejected in the time honoured fashion
Yeh I had to tell a couple of lads the same in the 70s when they tried to take up residence in ma den. Cheeky buggers.
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...