Scotland Camping Ban to be Extended

[Pandabean]

Just saw this. Though I am not sure if it is a good thing or bad thing. Good that it may help reduce the litter and vandalisim in the area and bad that this ban could creep into other areas over time and erode our freedom to camp



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-17511003

A camping ban on east Lomondside could be extended to four islands in the loch to tackle "irresponsible behaviour" like vandalism and fire lighting.

 

[Andy BB]

...and so it begins......

 

[lannyman8]

its probably the booz that makes people act a bit silly, and then they dont clear up...

shame a few spoil it for the rest...

i have never had a chance of yet to get to Scotland, maybe i never will????

 

[Shewie]

I've just emailed the CEO of the park, we had a good blether about stuff via email last year, not sure it'll get me anywhere but I've given her my views.

 

[British Red]

Its sad that its necessary, but I would prefer the leisure use curtailed to protect habitats and wildlife

 

[Stringmaker]

It's the classic paradox that annoys us all; eejits despoiling the very environment that they go to enjoy inthe first place.

 

[Jimmy Bojangles]

Like so many laws, it probably won't stop the morons, but it will spoil it for the rest of us.

 

[dwardo]

Would be a shame to close the islands too. Can understand the loch side but you would expect/hope for a little more from water craft people.

 

[rooster]

Like so many laws, it probably won't stop the morons, but it will spoil it for the rest of us.

Jimmy, so true and so sad.

 

[Pandabean]

Like so many laws, it probably won't stop the morons, but it will spoil it for the rest of us.

So true. The few spoil it for the majority.
As has been mentioned before the ban will only push these kind of people to do it illegally or move further and further into the remote areas which then may want the ban put in place there.

 

[Laurentius]

Well it is a very long time since I have been that far up North, however judging by the mess in just about any woodland that the public have access to, from discarded bottles, cans and the damage caused by fires, I tend to support the ban.

Thing is if you behave stealthily no-one is either going to know you are there or if you have been, barring a few pistachio husks that is

 

[mousey]

A ban certianly wouldn't stop me from camping out, altough I do tend to keep a low profile. I do get drunk but I don't make excessive noise or throw my litter around or start fires.

I don't know if the ban would work on the 'correct' people. I hope they are just young and stupid because time usually sort that stuff out, I worry that the people which behave like that are just selfish and have no regard or thought of their actions on the world they live in because that is alot harder mindset to change.

[just felt like ranting abit]

 

[gordonmac]

It's a proposal... nout more at this point. I think it's a good thing, conservation has to come before access.

 

[Highbinder]

It's a proposal... nout more at this point. I think it's a good thing, conservation has to come before access.

"no more at this point" - funny I remember the same comment before the introduction of the lochside ban.

As for conversation before access, sure! But in the article they mention themselves all it has done for the east coast stretch it defer the trouble further along the coast or to other areas. What we need isn't an outright ban but a combination of education and an increase in park ranger/police presence.

 

[gordonmac]

"no more at this point" - funny I remember the same comment before the introduction of the lochside ban.

As for conversation before access, sure! But in the article they mention themselves all it has done for the east coast stretch it defer the trouble further along the coast or to other areas. What we need isn't an outright ban but a combination of education and an increase in park ranger/police presence.

I'd like to hear how people believe this "education" I keep hearing about as an answer to this should be delivered, where it should be delivered, and to whom it should be delivered...

Do you really think the average person, with no real interest in nature is going to give a hoot about this:

To protect capercailliefrom disturbanceduring sensitiveperiods includinglekking and brood rearing.


It shall be an offence for any person without lawful authority between the dates of 1 March and 31 October
in each calendar year (both dates inclusive) to:
(a) set up, use or occupy a tent, wigwam or bivouac;
(b) set up, use or occupy Overnight a form of Shelter; or
© sleep Overnight outdoors or in a beached Vessel;
on any of the SPA Islands.

It really isn't a conspiracy to revoke access to the loch, to me anyway, it's a common sense approach to a problem caused by a massive population visiting an area of natural beauty, in an attempt to keep it that way.

 

[BillyBlade]

I'd prefer to see proper monitoring of the area than a blanket ban. As has been alluded to, blanket bans tend not to stop those at the root cause of the problem, but severly limit to freedom of access of those who actually respect the enviroment they are in.

That latter catagory is, I think, 95%+ of those on this site.

One of the things I enjoyed about Spain when I lived there, was that the park rangers had real power and they used it wisely. If you caused an issue you were dealt with pretty swiftly, otherwise you were free to roam pretty much as you liked.

I'm pretty sure our park rangers could rise to the challenge here also.

 

[gordonmac]

One of the things I enjoyed about Spain when I lived there, was that the park rangers had real power and they used it wisely. If you caused an issue you were dealt with pretty swiftly, otherwise you were free to roam pretty much as you liked.

I'm pretty sure our park rangers could rise to the challenge here also.

Yep, totally agree that park rangers here could definitely do with more power in the UK! I think the US sounds similar to Spain with its Park Ranger Service... I'd vote for that

 

[Scots_Charles_River]

Currently -

The Park Rangers are Special Constables but they rarely enforce existing legislation just now, that's the problem. So now we all get banned.

 

[SCOMAN]

Well part of the problem was the water users going on to the island and in one case literally butchering sheep, not very good. I'm afraid it's location to a major urban area lends itself to easy access to the poorly educated(in relation to how to act in the countryside). Would I like to see more park rangers and greater presence within the area, yes, is there the money to pay for such things, I'm guessing no. A ban may allow it to regenerate over time, I have to say I can't jump up and down about it, it's about preserving the area not about stopping access. There are a multitude of places to camp sensibly. I've camped there and been up and down the lochside watching idiots do stupid things, it's a pretty place but with the aforementioned idiots present it detracted from it's beauty massively.

 

[BillyBlade]

Yep, totally agree that park rangers here could definitely do with more power in the UK! I think the US sounds similar to Spain with its Park Ranger Service... I'd vote for that

As would I. The rangers should have the powers of instant eviction from the site. If they already have them, and aren't using them, then I'd like to know why.

Short of installing football top/ghetto blaster seeking missiles along the loch, it's the rangers who need to be allowed to tackle the problem.