No overnight wild camping on part of Dartmoor, doe this affect dark sky access?

[saac]

The effects of over tourism are not restricted to the wild places. Edinburgh city has been leading the debate here in Scotland re the benefits and conflicts that come with a very buoyant tourist scene. Most recently, we have had debates around the Edinburgh festival and the conflict wrought when huge numbers of visitors arrive from July through to September -  accommodation, in terms of availability and cost, is becoming a limiting factor.  Some are complaining that the Edinburgh festival itself has become too successful; last week a high profile act declared they were calling it a day citing production costs.  The city council is looking at restrictions that they may be able to apply to the Airbnb scene to prevent local people being locked out of city centre housing due to the number of holiday lets.  The tourism tax - local visitor levy - would be good if the money raised was guaranteed to go back into alleviating some of these problems, we can only hope. 

Jim 

Local Visitor - Tourism Levy

Tourism, Ignorance Are Damaging Scotland's Munros

Tourism Levy - Scotland

[Mr H in Yorkshire]

9 hours ago, saac said:

The effects of over tourism are not restricted to the wild places

There is an extension of that issue too, that has to do simply with crowding rather than accommodation and which arises from development. We used to enjoy visiting York regularly but for many years now have avoided it except in winter. Even in some of the widest streets one is literally jostling elbow to elbow. The tourism scene in York is partly responsible, but so is the scale of satellite development, 1000's of houses at a time that is happening. I have friends who live there who will not step out of doors at the weekend.

[GrumpiusMaximus]

11 hours ago, pipnina said:

Sadly I think it's true. While I wish this not to be misconstrued, I do believe humans have managed to violently overpopulate and we would have been better off ecologically plateauing about 5BN people ago, which lines up roughly with what our planet could have provided for us without the use of fertilisers (originally bird poo scooped from islands and mined in a manner most irresponsible which would have led to the famine of billions if not for the discovery of synthesized fertilisers prior to WW1).

As a teenager about 20 years ago I went to see a lecture by Richard Dawkins on human genetic history with my Dad - specifically to do with the X and Y chromosone mutations in evolutionary history.

One of the most startling things that he said is that you can roughly estimate the 'natural' population of a species based upon its size.  The smaller the organism, the more prolific and the inverse is also true.  According to the data modelling, the extant human population should be around two million.  We have a population now of around 8 billion.  When I was born in 1988, it was around 5 billion.

Astonishing.

 

[scarp15]

21 hours ago, saac said:

The effects of over tourism are not restricted to the wild places. Edinburgh city has been leading the debate here in Scotland re the benefits and conflicts that come with a very buoyant tourist scene. Most recently, we have had debates around the Edinburgh festival and the conflict wrought when huge numbers of visitors arrive from July through to September -  accommodation, in terms of availability and cost, is becoming a limiting factor.  Some are complaining that the Edinburgh festival itself has become too successful; last week a high profile act declared they were calling it a day citing production costs.  The city council is looking at restrictions that they may be able to apply to the Airbnb scene to prevent local people being locked out of city centre housing due to the number of holiday lets.  The tourism tax - local visitor levy - would be good if the money raised was guaranteed to go back into alleviating some of these problems, we can only hope. 

Jim 

Local Visitor - Tourism Levy

Tourism, Ignorance Are Damaging Scotland's Munros

Tourism Levy - Scotland

I get that concerning the article by Cameron McNeish. He is very outspoken on many subjects often political and I have followed his writings, for well decades, his hill walking routes still bear an influence in planning. It is also worth noting that he is an outspoken critic and campaigner on the ill oft illegal practices on grouse moor estates, particularly illegal persecution of raptors of all kinds from eagles to sparrow hawks. This is an ongoing problem of course right across the UK, but Scotland does have a bad history of this such practice as in this recent article which is common.  Scottish gamekeeper charged with killing Sparrowhawk on a grouse moor – new court hearing – Raptor Persecution UK

Concerning hillwalkers, yes of course there are very popular routes just as in England and Wales and yes the Munros do attract more people than say many of the other classifications such as the Corbetts, Donalds and Grahams. Not all Munros of course, just mainly the more accessible. Yes reviving the Funicular is a dreadful mistake. Yes also there is a bit of a mess around certain bothies, many are kept well maintained others less so. However the hills and wild places are and should be for everyone, in reconnecting with nature and for physical and mental wellbeing. There ought to be more educational awareness, since the pandemic some places such as around Loch Morlich are I believe in a fairly poor way, then there is the over busy North Coast 500, which attracts way too many caravaners.  

There is though room for everyone, whether on a bike or on a hike, with space and solitude if that is what you seek and a top tip; travel by train! Nature to also has space with conservation programmes, to thrive.

 

A footnote to the campaign groups; The Stars are for Everyone and Right To Roam; there is a private members bill going through Parliament; National Parks (Camping) Bill. National Parks (Camping) Bill - Parliamentary Bills - UK Parliament

[scarp15]

To follow on from the recent peaceful Dartmoor protest, there is to be; Starry Starry Fortnight Campaign.

Quote; " we urge the public to join this peaceful nationwide festival of dissent and direct action under the stars".  

Read about it here Dartmoor ruling sparks new wild camp protest in fight to change law - Devon Live

 

 

 

 

[Alkaid]

The outdoors is actually my other hobby and wildcamping forms a good part of it, been a walker / camper since teenage years.    It is very true that there has been an explosion of people venturing into the hills, mostly since the relaxation of Covid rules some time back.   During Covid, I think that many people stuck at home re-evaluated their lives and 'found' the outdoors as soon as it became openly available once more.  I am hugely supportive of this, as walking, camping etc is tremendously good for you.

The issue was that as soon as people started venturing into the hills again (or even for the first time) they inevitably wanted to share their experiences on social media.  Many "Wild Camping" forums sprang up on Facebook.  The outdoors became the new thing on Instagram.  Drone sales increased from You-Tubers wanting to increase their views and likes.  Now this is all very well and the majority of people who do all this are good responsible people who follow the Leave No Trace code accepted by many wildcampers.   But the social media explosion, plus the sudden restriction free movement after Covid unfortunately attracts the small percentage of people who do not know how to behave themselves.

Litter.   Fires.  Alcohol.  Large groups.

The above is not what wildcamping is about and is exactly the reason the landowner wanted it to stop.   Even as a wild-camper myself, I actually find myself in favour if it protects the countryside from abuse   It's happened before.  The camping restrictions on the banks of Loch Lomond are another good example and that area is now much better off than it was before in terms of litter and fire scars.

 

 

[scarp15]

4 hours ago, Alkaid said:

Litter.   Fires.  Alcohol.  Large groups.

The above is not what wildcamping is about and is exactly the reason the landowner wanted it to stop.   Even as a wild-camper myself, I actually find myself in favour if it protects the countryside from abuse   It's happened before.  The camping restrictions on the banks of Loch Lomond are another good example and that area is now much better off than it was before in terms of litter and fire scars.

 

 

This is entirely misunderstood. This landowner has no interest what so ever in protection for the environment. The estate is oversubscribed with deer and non native pheasants, which degrades both native vegetation and rare species of invertebrates; a sporting estate for wealthy clients that's it. They; him and his wife had previous to this purchase bought an estate in Sutherland - north east Scotland. A river runs through this estate and was popular with people panning for gold, a tradition held for generations. When Darwall took over he immediately enforced a daily (at the time) £10 fee, which was also very controversial and led to challenges and protests. 

This high court ruling is a significant step backwards and puts the financial interest of one person above the fundamental access rights that have been hard fought for and provided for in law. This also goes beyond just Dartmoor and could put at risk rights and protection for National Parks, including the right the roam.  

Access to nature is a matter of social justice. It is essential for a healthy life, good mental well being and able to participate in activities such as swimming, camping, climbing, walking, birdwatching and stargazing. Too much of England and Wales is already off limits. 

[saac]

On 13/02/2023 at 13:08, Alkaid said:

The outdoors is actually my other hobby and wildcamping forms a good part of it, been a walker / camper since teenage years.    It is very true that there has been an explosion of people venturing into the hills, mostly since the relaxation of Covid rules some time back.   During Covid, I think that many people stuck at home re-evaluated their lives and 'found' the outdoors as soon as it became openly available once more.  I am hugely supportive of this, as walking, camping etc is tremendously good for you.

The issue was that as soon as people started venturing into the hills again (or even for the first time) they inevitably wanted to share their experiences on social media.  Many "Wild Camping" forums sprang up on Facebook.  The outdoors became the new thing on Instagram.  Drone sales increased from You-Tubers wanting to increase their views and likes.  Now this is all very well and the majority of people who do all this are good responsible people who follow the Leave No Trace code accepted by many wildcampers.   But the social media explosion, plus the sudden restriction free movement after Covid unfortunately attracts the small percentage of people who do not know how to behave themselves.

Litter.   Fires.  Alcohol.  Large groups.

The above is not what wildcamping is about and is exactly the reason the landowner wanted it to stop.   Even as a wild-camper myself, I actually find myself in favour if it protects the countryside from abuse   It's happened before.  The camping restrictions on the banks of Loch Lomond are another good example and that area is now much better off than it was before in terms of litter and fire scars.

 

 

Could not agree more. Too many people with too much money (wealthy enough to leave whole camping sets behind), trampling on too little space. What has been allowed to happen on Skye is utterly depressing with locations such as the fairy pools and The Old man of Stor being ruined by idiots chasing the next selfie for their profiles.  The treatment of mountain bothies is heartbreaking and actually putting lives at risk. I spent a few season as a volunteer with mountain rescue when I was in the RAF and I still keep in touch with the community. The reports that I'm hearing just confirm the contemptuous "I don't give a damn" and "it's my right" mentality - bothies left trashed with rubbish, tents, and human excrement - society in the 21 century!!  I cannot see a time when I will climb or walk the likes of Ben Lomond, Ben Nevis again; there is absolutely little enjoyment to be had trekking heel to toe when bus load after bus load is disgorged onto the hills for yet another selfie moment.  Like I've said before, I have yet to see a deer, stag or grouse leave behind a full camping set on a hill top!  Thankfully, the penny is starting to drop and voices of reason are now being heard; a call to limit walkers on some of the more over used routes together with a levy (voluntary) on mountain access is being discussed.  City councils (notably Edinburgh, Inverness, Perth) are also waking up to the damage over tourism is doing and are starting at last to get creative on how the tourist industry can contribute to funding restorative activity.  I'm dreading to think what this summer season will bring;  hill walking for me is now almost exclusively an out of season activity, just a few fellow walkers and a few deer, and the odd mountain makes a joyful day. 

https://outdoorsmagic.com/article/scotlands-highest-mountain-treated-like-garbage/

https://www.muchbetteradventures.com/magazine/bothies-scotland-2019/

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/are_bothies_being_commercialised_to_death-10284

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/02/24/vandal-problems-force-charity-out-of-bothies

 

Jim 

Edited February 19, 2023 by saac

[scarp15]

There is too much social media attention and youtubers promoting certain locations and it has increasingly become a growing trend certainly.

Bad practice such as fire pits, discarded litter and louts leaving behind cheap tents etc, has emerged particularly since the pandemic period. The solution is through education and investment in national park and countryside rangers. These people are in the minority.

The issue around bothies is varied, many of these shelters are maintained in good order some are abused - this is fundamentally not a new concern, I have used bothies for decades and occasional idiot groups visiting for a drinking session and abusing the premises has occurred back in the early 90's to. 

Yet these bothies are vital in remote country as a safety measure should you get into difficulty such as adverse bad weather in remote mountain country. The MBA which I used to be a member of does a terrific job at fixing and maintaining these premises and has recently introduced a new bothy in the Cairngorms, which I had the pleasure of walking past a couple of years ago when it was being renovated.  Bothies are collectively maintained by ordinary folk passionate about venturing into the hills and the alliance between estates and this charity is both unique that one that should be celebrated. 

Implying that access restrictions should be enforceable is extremely draconian. My daughter is a member of a University walking society. They go out most weekends often to popular hill walking locations. She is experiencing what I began to back in the early 1980's. Our access to nature is a matter of social justice. 

Too much of our land is in the ownership of a scant few, whom consider their estates as an asset in wealth creation and entitlement, just like owning a football club. A model of collective ownership such as in Norway would be a positive asset and in which greater protections to wildlife and the environment can be implemented.

There ought to be an expansion of national parks within the British Isles. The recent court case is a threat to all national parks, in the issue concerning this thread, it is hoped that Dartmoor National Park can bring a successful case back to the courts.

 

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by scarp15
typo

[saac]

Certainly a polarised issue.  The abuse pre dates the covid restrictions and later relaxations by some margin.  The issue of over tourism has been decades in the making. Access restrictions are already happening by default as high tariff trails are closed off for remediation.  Seems the land is telling us it does not give a hoot for what we  perceive to be "our rights" - when it is damaged it is damaged.  Yes the debate is certainly polarised. 

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/are_bothies_being_commercialised_to_death-10284

https://www.grough.co.uk/magazine/2010/02/24/vandal-problems-force-charity-out-of-bothies

Jim 

Edited February 20, 2023 by saac

[scarp15]

Not really Jim

There is consensus; the You Tube phenomena self interest driven rivalry for subscriptions has driven the numbers of people going to the hills exponentially. Hopefully this trend wont last, but popular hill walking locations are and will remain popular. Levying fees (who reaps the benefit of that the estate owners?) or restricting access is a controlling and very retrograde step. More access needs to be opened up, particularly within our waterways, coastal areas. In England only 3% of our waterways are actually publicly accessible, can you imagine if this was the case in Scotland. 

Then what is actually creating the most damage to our environments and wildlife;

Number one: Climate change - in Scotland there is a decline in the number of Capercaillie, Snow Bunting and Artic Hares (which thank goodness the Scottish Parliament has now at least made illegal to shoot). There are indications that the small remaining patches of Caledonian Pine forest is also being detrimentally effected by climate change. 

Number two: over grazing -  First by sheep that were initially introduced on an industrial scale following the appalling forced evictions; Highland Clearances. The surviving pockets of Caledonian Pine had no chance for regenerating. When sheep were less needed there emerged the large Victorian shooting estates and red deer populations exploded. How many birds (such as the Sea Eagle, Golden Eagle) were made extinct during that period, when just about anything that flew or ran on four legs was shot. OK so they are now reintroduced and protected but the old shooting estates still continue. Deer incidentally used to die of starvation during severe Scottish winters (since they no longer had natural predators such as the Lynx or Wolf) Therefore culling was and is humanly necessary. Of course now with climate change and more fickle Scottish winters, deer numbers are again disproportionally too high.

Number three: inappropriate developments. New Hydro schemes such as in Glen Etive, power supply infrastructure etc. But at least Scotland still has retained public ownership with its water supply. In England, deregulation is permitting private water companies to dump raw sewage at will into our rivers and water courses, unchecked by the environment agency (not least due to cut backs).  

There are brilliant and thriving places to visit such as Glen Affric and I look forward to my forthcoming trip via the train (Corrour) in March. 

However one aspect we may agree on is this; good news concerning Beavers.  Beavers nearing return to Cairngorms after absence of 400 years (strathspey-herald.co.uk)

[saac]

Without a shadow of a doubt scarp, without a shadow of doubt it is people/over tourism and not wildlife, estate management nor land ownership that it causing the damage.  Nor is this a YouTube, post covid , causal link; that bogey man would be just too convenient - this trend has been decades in the making.  Conflating estate management/ land ownership as a causal link is again another convenient argument that in my experience on this debate is politically motivated.  As for restricting access and applying controlled  voluntary access levies - these are certainties which will happen.  We will inevitably follow models which already exist in Switzerland and Canada who have experienced similar issues with over tourism damaging their fragile environments.  As for people's willingness to pay - well I was walking a few weeks ago (Mamores) and you would have been hard pressed to find a sub £30K car in the car park and folk wearing and carrying short of a grand or two of clothing and equipment!   Most people who love the hills would think nothing of making a voluntary donation to help maintain, preserve and remediate damage.  Commercial tour companies who bring thousands to these remote fragile places on day trips I am equally convinced would wish to show their environmental credentials by dipping into their profits to help feed the golden goose!   As for the estates, land management, land ownership well that is a debate which somebody else can have , way too political for me.  Like I said, a polarised issue. 

Hope they have briefed the beavers about the otters!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-64666850

Jim 

Edited February 20, 2023 by saac

[scarp15]

My last visit to Scotland starting at Dalwinnie was late summer last year. I hiked for four days through the mountains. Over that period (which crossed over a weekend), I must had encountered hundreds of frogs and yes met two people (summiting a munro). I got what I wanted; solitude and I know that I will get that again. I also had the peace of mind that I was not committing any offence civil or otherwise when wild camping; that I did not have to technically seek the permission of the Landowner and of course was appropriately leave no trace, minimal impact across my journey.  

National Parks and countryside management is multifaceted in funding through taxation, or at least it should be. Tourism benefits rural economics and people of all backgrounds not just the supposive posh 30K car owners go to these places for recreation. Grants towards funding much needed work such as path maintenance (though sadly not from the EU anymore) are sourced for. The comments are not politically motivated and that is not allowed rightly here anyway.  

Anyhow this is meant to be about Dartmoor and the denial of access rights by one estate owner, so enough deviation. It will be interesting to learn as to what you say concerning Switzerland and Canada, having hiked through Switzerland although quite a few years ago and not being personally aware of that.  

[saac]

20 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

It will be interesting to learn as to what you say concerning Switzerland and Canada, having hiked through Switzerland although quite a few years ago and not being personally aware of that.  

Here you go from Iceland, New Zealand, USA, Canada, Italy, Thailand, Peru, Hawaii looks like good ideas catch on; hopefully Scotland will soon appear in the same group of enlightened countries!

National Geographic  - Should some of the world’s endangered places be off-limits to tourists

Jim 

"We have many examples of visitor management systems that work to limit visitation in vulnerable places,” says Greg Klassen, a tourism strategist based in Vancouver. “For example, many national parks have areas open to visitors by first-come, first-served, lottery systems!

 

"Iceland’s Fjaðrárgljúfur Canyon, in the country’s southeast, was overrun by tourists after appearing in Justin Bieber’s video “I’ll Show You” in 2015. With more foot traffic causing serious damage to the surrounding vegetation, government officials often close the area to allow it to heal.!

 

 

[scarp15]

Iceland as for example has multiple national parks and they are within the custodian of public ownership and are formally protected.  https://www.government.is/topics/environment-climate-and-nature-protection/national-parks-and-protected-areas/

Scotland is sectioned up into private estates. How then is this manageable, which body public  / private will be responsible for management? If there are levies who receives the payment? Will funds go into improving the eco system?

The current circumstance in Dartmoor is that Defra has agreed to pay the estates to permit wild camping to continue. This is wrong, if National Parks within the UK were within Public ownership as the examples you refer to, then various schemes could realistically be implemented that would have collective benefits to the environment yet recognise the aspirations towards participating in various outdoor activities.

[jetstream]

Over here, with a few exceptions you can camp anywhere you want on public land for 20 days in a row (Ontario). No camping near boat launches or other "easy" places that might restrict access to the launches etc. Most actual tourists stay at tourist camps- many of which are truly wild ie "outpost camps" where they drop you off from a floatplane to stay in a shack for as long as you pay for.

Some Parks have a reservation system such as Rushing River, by Sioux Narrows.

I'll say this-  here campers respect the land and leave little behind, maybe a circle of stones from a fire ring. I'm not talking about the Parks near major cities, I'm talking about true wild campers that respect the land and water using the vast Canadian wilderness.

I really dont think the "trending type camper" as referenced in the thread would last a night or two out here...

Btw, in our exploring today on the sleds we came across a wolf kill and saw a few timberwolves running nearby.

I suggest any trendy camper might want to try hiking across the ice to see this type of thing for themselves... the trend just might fade away. IMHO.

[saac]

21 hours ago, scarp15 said:

Iceland as for example has multiple national parks and they are within the custodian of public ownership and are formally protected.  https://www.government.is/topics/environment-climate-and-nature-protection/national-parks-and-protected-areas/

Scotland is sectioned up into private estates. How then is this manageable, which body public  / private will be responsible for management? If there are levies who receives the payment? Will funds go into improving the eco system?

The current circumstance in Dartmoor is that Defra has agreed to pay the estates to permit wild camping to continue. This is wrong, if National Parks within the UK were within Public ownership as the examples you refer to, then various schemes could realistically be implemented that would have collective benefits to the environment yet recognise the aspirations towards participating in various outdoor activities.

To be honest when the environment is being damaged I'm not sure it really cares about how, what or who does the administration.  Similar to climate change we can talk about "process" until the cows come home all the while the damage just goes on. Paralysis by analysis, does not sound like a viable plan.  One does wonder how the rest of the world manages.  The how is process scarp and that is politics, as before something I'm not really interested in is politics; we can leave that for the politicians and law makers to sort out, they get paid well enough. 

Jim 

Edited February 21, 2023 by saac

[saac]

21 hours ago, jetstream said:

Over here, with a few exceptions you can camp anywhere you want on public land for 20 days in a row (Ontario). No camping near boat launches or other "easy" places that might restrict access to the launches etc. Most actual tourists stay at tourist camps- many of which are truly wild ie "outpost camps" where they drop you off from a floatplane to stay in a shack for as long as you pay for.

Some Parks have a reservation system such as Rushing River, by Sioux Narrows.

I'll say this-  here campers respect the land and leave little behind, maybe a circle of stones from a fire ring. I'm not talking about the Parks near major cities, I'm talking about true wild campers that respect the land and water using the vast Canadian wilderness.

I really dont think the "trending type camper" as referenced in the thread would last a night or two out here...

Btw, in our exploring today on the sleds we came across a wolf kill and saw a few timberwolves running nearby.

I suggest any trendy camper might want to try hiking across the ice to see this type of thing for themselves... the trend just might fade away. IMHO.

Jetstream I suspect those who have made the determined effort to travel to the Canadian wilderness would be pre disposed to respect the environment. The trouble here is that we have a much smaller area of land with a higher population density, easy access and people who know no better or simply do not care. Oh and they are an entitled bunch, all to ready to quote their "rights" but a little more ignorant on their "responsibilities". 

Jim 

Edited February 21, 2023 by saac

[jetstream]

34 minutes ago, saac said:

Jetstream I suspect those who have made the determined effort to travel to the Canadian wilderness would be pre disposed to respect the environment.

I agree.

Also,our local culture here is one of respect for the land and water and I was raised this way. It is a big sin here to leave garbage and be destructive etc and the locals will tell anybody to smarten up in no uncertain terms, this has happened.

I hope the landowners in question over there arent using the camper issue as an excuse to get exclusive rights to the land.

Anyone abusing the land should be dealt progressively and culminating in a ban of the mentioned areas. In my opinion respect for nature is a cultural thing and if its lost it must be regained somehow hopefully before the land is wrecked.

Good luck to you there, Gerry

[icpn]

It is important to reiterate that they are not banning access but wild camping which are two different things. If you followed the stories in the media about the destruction to wild places during and after the pandemic from the yobs that would normally go to Spain you would perhaps be more sympathetic to their cause. Somebody has to pick up the mess and the fouled land aftre these people and somebody has to be paid to do that. Unfortunately in the UK people are not taught to respect other peopels property, something I found when coming the the UK from Canada, although I suspect things are probably changing there now as well.

[Mandy D]

38 minutes ago, icpn said:

It is important to reiterate that they are not banning access but wild camping which are two different things. If you followed the stories in the media about the destruction to wild places during and after the pandemic from the yobs that would normally go to Spain you would perhaps be more sympathetic to their cause. Somebody has to pick up the mess and the fouled land aftre these people and somebody has to be paid to do that. Unfortunately in the UK people are not taught to respect other peopels property, something I found when coming the the UK from Canada, although I suspect things are probably changing there now as well.

It is the same in the Derbyshire Peak District National Park. All the oiks discovered it during covid and now walk their furry friends there. I went to one car park at a beauty spot, from which I have done some observing in the past, opened my car door to step out and then spotted some of the (literally) thousands of bags of dog waste scattered around the car park. I guess what is happening is that these people are keen to be seen picking up after their dogs, but are not prepared to take it home to dispose of it, so disceetly drop it out of the door before driving off!

[scarp15]

The nuisance offenders are in the minority and largely emerged between covid lockdown periods. This was also mostly roadside.  Do not tarnish all hill walkers with the same brush, the majority are responsible and out to enjoy a day or period in the mountains. 

Darwell with whom it has been mentioned, took this as an opportunity to supress wild camping which had been a common law. An ulterior motive; the abuse to this landscape is through excessive deer numbers and non native pheasant populations to serve his shooting business. To be clear the abuse to landscape can often be bad estate management, the practice of  Muirburn- the burning of heather and peat practice on grouse moors; a monoculture of nature this type of conduct should be resided to the past. 

19 hours ago, saac said:

 Oh and they are an entitled bunch, all to ready to quote their "rights" but a little more ignorant on their "responsibilities". 

Jim 

Who exactly are you referring to?  

 

[saac]

12 minutes ago, scarp15 said:

Who exactly are you referring to?  

 

Well certainly not the deer or pheasant nor the peat or heather burners.  Rather the masses who cause the damage without any care, thought, or remorse and come back to do it again and again. and again.  I'll go out on a  limb here and suggest that amongst this group are to be found those who desecrate bothies by fouling inside them leaving tents, camping gear and packing them full of rubbish.  No doubt they also count amongst their number those who abandon their cars on single track roads preventing passage of local traffic and emergency vehicles while they are off enjoying their rights and a day of solitude on the hills.  And no, they did not emerge between the lockdown period. Perhaps that was the situation down south,  but here in Scotland I've watched first hand how over tourism and the environmental harms it brings has been a decade in the making.   Doesn't take a lot of intellectual capital to reason that you can't keep pouring thousands of people into small, remote, fragile areas and expect the environment to remain unharmed.  Scotland isn't Canada, we are simply too small a country to absorb busload after busload after busload into these remote places all in the name of the tourist economy and personal freedoms. Even the urban environment is not immune;  Edinburgh,  Perth, Inverness councils are coming to the same conclusion and are now actively seeking to apply active tourism management strategies; step in the right direction but they are somewhat late to the party.  We are not going to close the gap between our understanding here scarp. 

Jim 

[scarp15]

Ok therefore within that context this would also include referring to people who go and visit the hills for their recreation, whether that be hillwalkers, climbers, cyclists. Yet the burning of moorland for grouse shooting, extreme populations of deer and pheasants purely for shooting and lets include fox hunting, fine no harm done there then.

It is not to say that there are not problems arising from certain areas with visitor numbers and misuse of some bothies that ought to be addressed, yet as far as I am concerned I am not ignorant to Scotland, you over exaggerate.

Edited February 22, 2023 by scarp15

[scarp15]

Save Dartmoor Backpack Camping - Appeal Fundraiser (Official) - JustGiving