UKH

A recent opinion piece against the contentious wild camping ban in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs National Park sparked lively discussion. There are two sides to the story, so here the Park's Chief Exec Gordon Watson responds.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Those with an interest in the implementation of the byelaws in LLATNP can read a detailed alternative interpretation here :
www.parkswatchscotland.co.uk

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

For more information on the Loch Lomond Camping Byelaws, and the current situation on the ground, rather than the 'PR' given in this article it is informative to read:

http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/tag/camping/

In my view the mess wasn't acceptable, however nor is the LLTNP 'current' 'solution'.

It would be good if UKC invited David Kemp for an opinion piece...................

In reply to ScraggyGoat:


What would your solution be?

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I assume that they've been actively monitoring areas outside the restricted zone to see whether the problem is just being displaced. Can they share their findings on this?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Judging by the photo at the top of the article, I suspect the problem is mainly lazy people who are unlikely to be displaced.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:
Gordon Watson is incorrect. The original byelaw was introduced as a temporary measure designed to protect the significant investment in infrastructure at Sallochy Bay on East Loch Lomond that, when completed, was part of the management plan that was already successfully and significantly reducing anti social behaviour along this loch side. When the partnership agreed to the bylaw it was still within the context that enforcement could only ever be a sticking plaster and that to better resolve the very real problems faced by local communities and visitors the only sustainable long-term solution would come from a joined up partnership that was based on improved infrastructure, real joined up management across the partnership and targeted education of those visiting the area. The latter was especially important as there was a recognition of the dangers of criminalising the innocent who were likely to be unaware of the impact they were having, whilst the real culprits would remain difficult to catch as they would know to avoid detection. Prior to this bylaw on East Loch Lomond better joined up management and education had already reduced the asb by over 60% and to suggest that it was the camping bylaw that was responsible for the reduction would be both disingenuous and disrespectful of the partners, especially local community and elected members, who were already making the real difference (and it ignores the fact that a public ban on alcohol consumption, proposed by the local community, was introduced at the same time to address a key aspect of the problem). Kevin Findlater MBE

In reply to Toerag:

You may be right, and I hope you are. Or they may cope with an extra 20 minutes in the car and mess up another place instead.

This is on the assumption that the first picture bears more resemblance to reality than the second picture does...

In reply to Dunverig:
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, sadly the 'targeted education of those visiting the area' is not going to work out. The minority of careless people who are the core of the problem are the least receptive to such an approach. I back the Land Reform Act, but the wellbeing of the natural environment has to be the priority.

In reply to andyjohnson0:

Ban drunken neds from going camping.

In reply to steve7734:

Hi Steve, I entirely agree with you and should, perhaps, explained better that enforcement with respect the real problematic minority was a key aspect of the strategy I outlined (and originally proposed). The problem of an approach that is based mainly on enforcement rather than prevention is that irrespective of any persons caught you are still left with victims (the tree will still remain cut down and the peace of the majority will still have been shattered) so that is one of the main reasons for the preventative aspects. The other key reason that was proposed and actively pursued using traditional laws that were already in place was that by removing or at least reducing significantly the policing demands associated with managing the innocent then it was much better placed and therefore far more effective at targeting the 'bad behaviour' minority who fully deserved the firm policing that was and no doubt still is carried out. I should add that in terms of the 'enforcement' side the NP were excellent in their active and full support of the joined up, intelligence led patrolling model that delivered success. Whilst carrying out such focuses policing the police and Rangers would also provide education material and reassurance to the majority who were there to enjoy the area without any wish to damage or to disturb others. As I said, the bylaw, for which I understand there had been no successful prosecutions, was not by any means the key factor in the successful reduction in asb; but the preventative approach takes real joined up commitment for the long haul rather than a 1, 2 to hell with it 10 enforcement driven approach that criminalises the naive innocent.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I agree something needed doing, it was getting out of hand - The problem is that it would appear to me from recent visits that Glen Etive et al are getting busier now with similar types of folks, so as someone said above, is this just displacing the problem?

Not sure I have a solution, so good luck to all involved with your experiments