BIVVI TALK
Wind Factories Bias
Dear MCofS
As an SMC member [Editor: MCofS?], I am taken aback at the tone and accuracy of articles about renewable energy in the magazine. Are they intended to imply that the SMC is against renewable energy in general? That is certainly the message.
I live close to Griffin Forest. Whilst I sometimes use the area, it is far from the ‘Jewel’ or precious treasure’ your article suggests. It’s heavily planted with non-native ‘industrial’ sitka. Views are limited and wildlife conservation minimal, as expected in a monoculture. To suggest this place is Perthshire’s ‘spiritual lifeblood’ is laughable.
Contrary to ASWAG’s claim, there are plenty of people in Perthshire who consider Griffin Forest a rather good position for a wind farm. Whilst I don’t wish to see wind farms sited en-mass and indiscriminately, I think there is a more considered view than promoted by your magazine – that wind power can be a useful part of a mixed economy of energy sources.
There is little evidence of positive contribution to climate change debate in your pages. If you are against wind and hydro in general, what solutions do you support?
Good journalism, even of the campaigning sort, requires critical consideration of information, rather than acceptance of one heavily prejudiced interest. The opportunity to walk and cycle in Griffin Forest will not be obliterated by the proposal, the developers have committed themselves to develop recreational paths.
My confidence in SMC’s policies and its standards of critical thought are greatly diminished by your buoyantly ‘anti’ flourishes and implication that all your readers will agree.
Yours
Linda Cracknell, Aberfeldy
Editors Reply: It is important to realise that two of the MCofS constitutional aims are “to protect the mountain environment” and “to promote the views and interests of its members”. Previous debate and consultation with members developed various ‘policies’ (including the ‘Access & Conservation Policy’ [1992], and the ‘Development in the Hills Policy’ [1994] which are widely accepted amongst the membership and which the MCofS staff and volunteers use to inform their work). Linda has only been a member of MCofS since November 2005 and so will not have read or been involved in the previous three years worth of debate initiated by MCofS on this subject: Debate on Renewable Energy at the 2002 AGM with a full report and debate in issue 15, December 2002 with three opinions including information from SNH; Issue 19, August 2003 had a call for further debate, an action groups views and members letters, followed by a second debate at the 2004 AGM linked to a government consultation on landscape issues, which included an unbiased factual appraisal of energy issues by Keith Millar which was reproduced in Issue 23, June 2004. As a result of these consultations and debates with members we produced an agreed “Energy Statement” in 2004 [ Issue 24, September 2004] which MCofS works too alongside our constitutional aims and other relevant policies. All these papers are archived on the website.
The fact that cannot be denied is that large scale wind factory developments on hills change their scenic, landscape, and inherent integrity as ‘natural’ or ‘semi natural’ environments – reasons why the majority of walkers and mountaineers are drawn to them for solace and recreation – to an industrial environment. The MCofS is empowered to ‘protect the mountain environment’ against those developments that are clearly damaging, such as this. However, we do not object to all developments. In our “Statement” we propose better debate and full facts, more investment on off-shore, tidal and micro-renewable development and a greater focus on energy efficiency at all levels.
Every issue of the magazine has factually reported on the debate at government level (political Parties’ visions, energy bills etc). Many of the articles from action groups against wind factories are from walkers and mountaineers who are members and who have a right to have their views reported; I receive no letters supporting the wind developments described therein (this is the first) and Linda gives no evidence to support her claims that Perthshire wind factory proposals have wide support. Indeed our members who attended the local meetings on the subject reported widespread opposition.
Finally, Griffin Forest is indeed mainly monoculture, but MCofS campaigns through debate at many levels to have such forestry changed to more diverse and eco-rich systems (see our ‘Forestry Policy’ [1989/1995]) and Griffin is not as bad as many plantations. The answer to Griffin’s problems is not to cut most of it down and build 30km of tracks and 68x124m turbines that would have a much greater impact on landscape and scenic values for many miles around, but the continuation of our efforts to change forestry practices in Scotland.
Death on Everest:
Dear MCofS
Although I never knew David Sharp, I was moved by Terence Bannons letter in Issue 32. My thoughts on reading ina newspaper in May that 11 people had died on Everest this year,some of whom had been bypassed by other climbers and left to die, werethat it is surely more of an achievement to help someone in need than to summit a mountain. Even if the person is beyond help, to comfort them in their dying hours would be a worthy offering. I agree wholeheartedly with Terences statement that no-one who passed David, or any other dying climber, is a hero. I'm sure Tenzing and Hilary would be appalled.
There is hope. An Australian climber who was believed dead was helped by an American climber and made it down alive, also in May this year. No-one knows what they would do until they've been in this situation themselves. I only hope that I would stop and help, or at the very least provide comfort if there was nothing else I could do.
Julie Black, Forfar, Angus
Arran Helicopters
Dear MCofS
I am writing to express my discontent with the appearance of the advert for helicopter tours sold by Arran Helitours in issue 32 [page 62]. A couple of years ago this same company attempted to offer similar excursions on Skye and the MCofS supported local objectors. I don’t feel we should be supporting this company by allowing advertising in our magazine. There is no need here to spell out the intrusive nature of such tours to our readers – to ourselves, those seeking peace and quiet and the wildlife. This sort of venture risks degrading outdoor experiences in our hills and islands to the level of a Disneyland theme park.
While I would normally support local companies in their efforts to make a living and offer good services to residents and visitors alike, I feel this activity is inappropriate in these locations.
Beryl Leatherland
Ticks
Dear MCofS
Having had a friend infected with Lyme from a tick bite she got on a climbing trip at Dunkeld I can only endorse your decision to spread some tick-awareness through the article in the last SM. In the case mentioned the victim was well aware of the symptoms and a prompt consultation with her GP led to everything soon being cleaned up, which shows how awareness is a good thing.
What my wife (who is, unfortunately, a tick magnet) and I have found is a better means of removal than the tweezers suggested in the article are the plastic hooks made specifically for the job and available from vets' practices. While they were originally intended for use on dogs and cats they work very well on people too, are easier to use than tweezers and give less opportunity to accidentally squeeze the body or tear off the head. Highly recommended, and one lives in our First Aid kit full time now.
Peter Clinch
Taking the P*ss?
Dear MCofS
I almost wet myself in amazement whilst innocently browsing Issue 32 of The Scottish Mountaineer. The ergonomically designed ladies item, the "Shewee" jumped out unashamedly from page 73 making some remarkable claims, not least "travel the world with the comfort of home in your pocket" and "banish bare bottoms". At £5.00 a shot it is a sure winner for all our stocking fillers this Christmas. See for yourself at http://www.shewee.com/ and aim away from your feet!
S. Snorkel, Edinburgh
Fences
Dear MCofS
Recently I took a trip round the 'Above Glen Almond' route from the Pocket Mountains Southern Highlands book. A new, THREE MILES LONG, double, two and three strand, LIVE, electric fence has been laid out starting from about Auchnafree farm coming up onto the moor at Sron Bealaidh and continuing northwards to join the old fence - shown on the OS Explorer 379 1:25,000 - that followed the south-east crags above Glen Lochan. It continues up past Greag Grianain then south easterly to meet the wall below Geal Charn. Where it's going from there I have no idea! Some of the posts have even been dug in on the old path in places.
Andy Crawford