Pitch In

How long is a Long Walk In? By Richard Spencer (MCofS Board member)

How long is a bit of string? But, really, how long should the ‘Long Walk In’ (LWI) be? All decent people would despise a so-called ‘Munro-Bagger’ who drove his Chelsea Tractor up the well built track from Glenlochsie Lodge to its nearest point to the Deeside Munro, Glas Tulaichean, and quickly nipped up to the cairn and back? If, however, I'm heading for the Grey Corries, I admit that I'll drive on 2km or so, after the tarmac ends, to the forest gate, and not think the worse of myself for doing so. Indeed, approaching Beinn Fhada, it is generally understood that FCS tacitly allows one to drive in and park where the path leaves the track, thus saving about 2km. MCofS published an updated Position Statement (PS) after consultation with members earlier this year. It can be read in full at www.mcofs.org.uk/access-position-statements.asp However, the issue comes back for reconsideration, because of several cases, otherwise similar to, but not as long as, the Glen Strathfarrar road that MCofS negotiated access along. (And yes, I admit that this 21km road is ‘different’ because it is tarmac, and was built, if that matters, with the then Hydro Board's public money!) Can the MCofS (which, remember is not a judge eternal, but merely the sum total of it's members) properly, and honestly maintain the above PS, but hold, for issue to members, or even a sub-set of members, such as ‘ice climbers, but not ordinary walkers’, the combination which will allow them to open a locked gate to give motorised access further in to this or that hill or climbing face? There appears to be at least one instance where ‘controlled’ motorised access may be acceded to, for all, or part of the year for some, up hard quality engineered tracks. Does the above PS need amending? Or does it already allow of individual, one-off shortenings of the LWI? Or do we stick to the view that the LWI starts on a black tarmac public highway, and that anyone who goes further ‘in’ to shorten his LWI is somehow cheating and should not be supported by MCofS?

Where, Why, How and What are the Implications? By Hebe Carus

The MCofS has been approached with reference to access along a number of Government-owned tracks; one in the north-west (Beinn Dearg), and five in the south-west (Galloway area). However, we cannot actively pursue opening up new vehicle access based on our Position Statement (PS). The relevant sections of the PS are: 1. “principle of a long-walk-in is an effective protection mechanism” i.e. the more concentrated the foot (or off-road bike) the greater the erosion 2. “Construction or upgrading of vehicular tracks should be avoided in remote areas” i.e. including widening to provide car parking 3. “unnecessary tracks should be removed” i.e. unnecessary for their original purpose

Two Existing Examples: • Glen Strathfarrar (www.mcofs.org.uk/strathfarrar-access.asp): plenty of parking; enables otherwise impossible mountaineering days; MCofS does not monitor / enforce; road is tarmac • Ben Nevis: with sufficient insurance you can buy a key for £200/year; little / no monitoring; enforcement has taken place; MCofS has no direct involvement

Pros and Cons: • Mountain and crag accessibility – vehicle access would enable use of more mountains or crags, or make access much easier, increasing choices • Parking - there may be very little! Either : 1. numbers may be severely restricted e.g. Beinn Dearg has space for 2/3 cars and vehicle access would be restricted to winter climbers. Does this raise an issue of equity? or 2. a parking area would need to be constructed, but who would pay and how would this sit with our position on no track development? • Resource costs – MCofS may need to find staff time and resources to run it (e.g. Strathfarrar). This would be a condition of vehicle access to the Beinn Dearg track for instance. How would this be paid for? Is this a priority if we could find more resources? • Erosion – concentrated erosion may increase in new locations • Any other issues we are missing?

So what do you think the MCofS position statement should say? Please contribute – MCofS needs to know your views in order to represent them, especially if you are the silent majority! Send comments to Hebe before 15th December

A long walk in can be too b****y long – especially if it involves walking miles along a perfectly good forestry track!

Until the other day, I had no idea that the MC of S had a “policy statement” on how long a walk in should be and whether use of a vehicle on an unmetalled track when approaching a crag constituted cheating in some way. The whole idea immediately bought to mind an image of a Monty Pythonesque group of characters all asking themselves repeatedly “What have Landrover tracks ever done for us?” and discounting out of hand every positive thing they can think of. I only found out about it because it seems that in my own area of expertise, the Galloway Hills, there is the faint possibility that vehicular access for the public to the Backhill of Bush Bothy may at last be allowed and I had enquired about getting a letter of support for the notion.

For those who don’t know the area, there exists less than an hour’s walk from the bothy the fine south-facing granite buttresses of the Dungeon of Buchan, with routes up to four pitches long, the biggest crag in Scotland south of Glasgow outwith the Isle of Arran. And in the hills accessed from the same track lie other smaller but no less fine crags, Memorial Crag and the Point of the Snibe on Craignaw. All these venues provide fantastic climbing on sound quick drying granite in majestic surroundings, whilst in winter the east face of Craignaw sports the best grade II/III ice climb it has ever been my pleasure to do, in the shape of the magnificent Dow Spout, or Doo Spoot, if you hail from those parts. Yet a glance at the first ascents list for the Galloway Hills for the last fifteen years will show that virtually the only names that appear are the same few over and over again. Are those few tougher and hardier than all the other climbers living within easy reach of the M74? Keen on mountain biking with huge rucksacks or immune to midges perhaps? Are they b*****y! Without revealing any trade secrets I can say that in each party at least one of the climbers had (legitimately) acquired a set of forestry gate keys. Without such vehicle access, all the crags mentioned above would take around three hours to walk to, which would no doubt have dampened their enthusiasm considerably. And though admittedly this can be cut down to two hours by use of a bike, we're members of the MC of S, not the Scottish Cycling Union.

Now whilst we’re pleased to have had these fine crags to ourselves for the last decade we’re saddened to see that some great lines are in danger of becoming unclimbable due to lack of traffic (we’re talking two and three star classics here) and also feel that it would be a shame if other climbers didn’t get to enjoy the delights of this marvellous area in the same way that we have done, particularly now that we have just about exhausted the new route possibilities. Moreover there is a certain democratic part of me that feels a distinct unease at the idea that some climbers are more deserving than others, best seen in the Ben Nevis access situation where the blessed in the shape of instructors and their clients can gain an hour’s start on the hoi polloi (you and me) simply by driving further up the forest track than we are permitted to. I would feel a lot more comfortable if we were all allowed to, or none of us were. Likewise the Beinn Dearg approach, where an acquaintance of mine circumvented Forestry regulations by the simple expedient of replacing one on the links in the gate chain with a maillon. This lasted for many years and indeed may still be in situ for all I know. Hats off to his cunning but I’d feel happier if access was allowed for all and the car park enlarged.

And when it comes to upgrading tracks and making more space for cars, there is plenty of grant money available in the name of better access. At least that is certainly the case in the Galloway Hills. All I have to do is persuade the doubters in the Forestry (and they are not all doubters) that it is worth a trial run and to do that I need to convince them that it would actually get used and to do that I need positive letters of support from interested bodies… like the MC of S. Which is where I started. So please MC of S, no more mission statements. I’ve looked at your “Strategic Plan” and wished that Churchill had still been around to growl “one side of paper” at you, before screwing it up and hurling it at the nearest bin. If you’ve got time for that sort of blather then we’re paying you too much in subs. Lets have some pragmatism, taking each scenario as it comes and not trying to formulate one set of rules to apply to everything from Dumbarton to Knoydart or Clifton to Foinaven. And let’s have some fairness. The idea that a particular track should only be only usable by instructors, or ice-climbers, or, as in the case of the Galloway Hills, anglers is ridiculous. I see that in the case of the Ben Nevis track the “MC of S has no direct involvement”. Maybe it’s time you did.

My view is that we should protect the long walk in; though I include cycling access in this. If we start opening up tracks to vehicular access we risk denigrating what little wilderness we have left; that's something a bit nebulous but widely respected as a unique feature of our mountains, across Europe. Walking back down a glen may be a bit if a chore to some but it's peaceful, quiet and a welcome respite from daily life. It's about fundamental reasons for going to the hills as well; there are enough opportunities for quick fix experiences and plenty of roadside Munros. I know it's hypocritical in some ways; I go mountain biking and paraglding etc but still relish the very different and valuable experience of walking in for a good day out in the hills. Right now we have opportunities in Scotland for a whole range of mountaineering and walking experiences; let's leave it that way so that there is still a sense of wilderness for people to experience.

Definitely no vehicular access!

One of the wonderful things about Scotland are its tracts of "wild" empty countryside. These areas are great to experience, primarily because of the solitude, peace and the general atmosphere of these localities.

I believe we should preserve such areas. Human interference tends to be destructive, even when done in the best of intentions. If these areas are left alone, in time they will be truly wild.

Vehicular access will increase the number of visitors, increase erosion, create scars on the landscape, and result in well worn "paths" on the hills. We would loose the sense of remoteness and the very quality of the areas concerned would be destroyed, lost, and gone forever.

My vote in this debate is a most definite NO to vehicular access.

Lets take the Beinn Dearg track as an individual case as each will vary as to its merits. The initial three miles up from Inverlael is now criss-crossed by FC roads, there is a new hydro-scheme, the whole area is being 'landscaped'. It has as much afinity to 'wild land' as Sauchiehall Street. The existing roads are all FC Catagory A 38-tonners and in good condition. The walk in winter takes about an hour to reach the end of the FC road where there is limited parking for up to 4 cars, possibly more if parked carefully. The end of the road is marked by a gate which gives access to the Gleann na Squaib track that leads to Beinn Dearg and other Munros. In winter this track rises from 120m above msl to over 600m and to reach the crags above Gleann na Squaib or Beinn Dearg will take two to three hours, excluding the time taken to walk the FC road. It should be obvious even with a car the access to these hills is long by any standard. The climbs on both the main crags include some of the finest climbs in Scotland; Penguin, Emerald, Fenian Gullies, The Ice Hose and a host of others.

In an ideal world all winter mountaineers should be allowed up via vehicle to the end of the FC road (built with public money incidently) and the car park enlarged. The FC road due to its low starting and finishing altitude rarely snows over or ices up but is used from time to time by extraction vehicles by the FC or maintenance to the new hydro scheme. However, there is more than one road that can be used and in meetings with the Golspie based North Forest District,vehicular access is being currently considered.

Access would be via a combination lock, similar to that at Strathfarrar, the combination number released from the MCofS office in Perth. Initially 'winter climbers' would be allowed access and this may be expanded (though the definition of winter mountaineering is broad remember), dependant on the currently limited parking.

Historically the road always used to be unofficially open but this has changed since 'locals' stole wood. The concept of re-opening on a limited, winter, basis has considerable support as it is seen as a pragmatic solution to an already short winter day for a remote area. Please give it your consideration and support.

I am for opening up FCS tracks to vehicles and I am for using vehicles to get close to the hills. It is a nonsense that these publicly owned assets are closed off. They are there, lets use them. It will require common sense and management but thats fine. I hope that this is part of a wider discussion within FCS about opening up all their tracks ? - Owning up to a vested interest - I'm a hillwalker and a land-rover owner.

Two major factors in my enjoyment of a summit are the difficulty of ascent, and the resulting exclusivity. The walk in counts as ascent in that regard.

I enjoy time on Scotland's hills because of the challenge of effort and navigation, and the distance from roads, cars and even other people. Hills that are furthest from access are more precious in this regard; desolation and isolation are significant facets of their beauty.

I hope that the MCoS will oppose the opening of new or existing tracks.

I have been a climber for 25 years + but due to injuries I am no longer able to climb some of the hills/mountains that I want to. This is due to distance of the sustained walk in. I am sure there are others out there with similar disabilities that would welcome the chance to get nearer to their objective. I am not advocating mass construction of tracks or advertising/signage of any tracks as I believe this would lead to new 'tourist' roads. Knowledge of any access tracks should be kept within the climbing community.

While this access discussion is directed at mountaineers there are several other leisure activity groups who will also be affected by any outcome. I refer to those who wish greater access to the nations forestry road system,to old drove roads and the hydro access tracks etc for mountain biking,canyoning and kayaking, for car rallying,for hill running and orienteering competitions, for 4x4 driving, and for wild camping and amenity reasons.

If these roads are to be opened to one interest group, it is very hard to argue that they should remain closed to those active with other pass-times.

There is no simple answer. It is obvious that providing better access to hard to reach crags and mountain areas will reduce the pressure on other popular access points, and car parks by the simple expedient of increasing the number of access points. This could perhaps lead to a reduction in erosion and damage in some areas...but must increase the number of ecological at risk areas by encouraging greater access to hitherto pristine regions.

The outcome of this discussion will be of huge relevance to all involved in outdoor pursuits throughout Scotland ....not just to Hill walkers and Mountaineers. If the relaxation of access conditions is to be extended, then it can not simply be those who walk the hills and climb cliffs that derive benefit.

Are we getting lazy or is there some idea afoot that climbing mountains is just about being on top of the mountain or simply summit bagging ?. The walk in is as much part of the mountain experience as is the actual ascent. It always has been and always should be. I see no problem in transporting disadvantaged individuals to the foot of the mountain and would in fact encourage it so that they can share the experience with the rest of us. However, for those of you who are able and would like to call themselves a " mountaineer" you can learn a lot and see as much wildlife on the walk in as you might on the ascent. If,like some, you don't like walking on Forestry roads, simply find another route if one is available.

Whats the use of saying we love the remoteness of the mountains if we are prepared to turn them into merry go rounds where the approach to the mountain becomes as dangerous as a drive down the A9.

I'm for longer walk ins. Scotland is small enough with lots of outdoor users. These places, even dank forests in Galloway are better when they are inaccessible. To be frank, I'm disappointed MCOS think this is an issue were the answer can be to open up tracks to vehicles.

If you're too lazy to walk (or MTB), don't go there. I remember a visit to Backhill of Bush when it was occupied by about 10 neds and two depressed craggers. The problems caused by vehicle access to bothies in Galloway is well publicised and the solution is to gate forest fire roads to all.

My opinion extends to places like Sutherland. More outdoors folk like to escape to quiet places than want to lug big racks into remote places. That's the key.

Tom Weir and the Govan hard men will be turning in their graves at the thought of opening-up the tracks to cars - what nonsense! If you are in such a hurry, bung a bike on the back of the car and cycle the 'walk-in'. I am reminded of the line by William Henry Davies...'What is this life if full of care, we have no time to stand and stare'.... We'll be advocating indoor climbing next!!!

I support the current policy and the maintenance of the long walk-in. There are plenty of accessible hills / crags for those who don't like long approaches. Let's keep the remoter, less accessible places as they are for those who prefer the wilder experience.

I don't have specific experience of the Galloway track mentioned but would definitely be against allowing cars up the Beinn Dearg approach. Also, if the track is only usable by pre-booked winter climbers, I feel this would detract from the experience of others on the hill to find that an elite few could drive in.

17 users on walkhighlands forum and news sections have commented on this story and all 17 wanted to keep the long walk-in. (I'm sure there may be many climbers with the opposite view)

Is it April 1st already? If there must be a policy(WHY?), then i vote for the closing of all existing tracks, not opening them up.

A couple of observations, from an occasional hill-walker:

1) It is quite hard to find this page. The long-walk-in debate is mentioned on the BBC News website but the link is wrong so many folks would give up at that point. 2) It is clear there is a shortage of decent hills accessible for day walks. Take Lochnager for example: the Glen Muick car park is full to overflowing at weekends. If you had to walk in from Ballatar it would be a very different hill - some might say improved - but the sum of human happiness would definitely be diminished!

I have enjoyed long walks in and camping in remote glens but a few more "popular" hills would not hurt at all. It's all about fairness, choice, and supporting the local economy. Last time I checked there was no shortage of remote hills.

I for one enjoy the LWI, often not at the time, i admit, but in principle.

I probably don't need to speak about the environmental concerns caused by the widening tracks and the building of carparks. The impact of fragmenting natural habitats, direct deposition of air pollutants and the endless accumulated rubbish that motoring provides, as i'm sure it will be considered by others. I want to personally comment on the spiritual aspect of the LWI.

I am a walker, scrambler and less often a climber of scotlands classic trad routes; i do not seek crags and therefore offer no opinion on that aspect.

The LWI to me creates the air of remoteness that one learns to love about the scottish hills, mountains and coasts. Growing up in the Lake District, access to any hill was straight forward as the LWI doesn't exist. As a consequence you never feel truely remote or in the wilderness, and thus for me removes the essence of being out in the hills.

Yes there are perfectly driveable tracks out there, but why drive them? To get up and down quickly... whats then the point of being out? The pleasure of having a bivvy in your sack and taking the time it takes provides the feeling of freedom, escapism even from the day-to-day living is what most of us seek.

Personally, the forestry and estate tracks in particular are perfect mountain bike territory. Often making no time difference on outward ascents (i largely resort to pushing up any kind of gradient), the pleasure on reaching your bike on the return leg, and subsequent exhilaration as you speed your way back down the descent, adds another dimension to often already memorable days!

In a car you get non of this, if your preference rather than reward is a warm heater and a comfy car seat, then mountaineering is probably the wrong hobby for you.

In my opinion the forestry road towards Beinn Dearg has been totally degraded by clear felling and industrial development of water and hydro schemes. It is now of little interest and adds considerably to the length of day required to access these hills. I think that both walkers and climbers should be able to drive up this track (as used to be the case). It would be iniquitous to limit access to climbers. Some long walking days are accessible from this approach, and if walkers are ascending some of the more remote peaks such as Seana Bhraigh or Am Faochgach they will be short of daylight in mid-winter. In any case, there is no good reason to have to walk up or down this interminable forest road at the beginning or end of a long day, when it could be possible to drive. There is space for several cars to be parked at the end of the road and there are further options for parking slightly lower down if the top area is full (probably unlikely in the winter).

Part of the appeal of hillwalking is the variety in our mountains. And having the odd long walk in/out is part of that appeal. If they start building roads to the more remote mountains then sooner or later that will mean houses, carparks, holiday homes, etc.

I'm for keeping Britain's last wilderness wild.

Copy of email sent to Hebe Carus on Friday.

I read with interest the comments on the "Long Walk In", LWI, in Issue 45 of the Scottish Mountaineer. While I agree in general that there should be no new roads built and other major developments in the hills, I don't see the logic in having a stance against driving along existing roads. I do think it surprising that the MCofS should have a "national" policy on this, when clearly local circumstances can be very different due to different levels of usage. I would argue that the LWI just concentrates modern mountaineers in certain areas causing environmental problems. Coire Sneachda and Aonach Mor are not the busiest winter corries in Scotland because of the quality of the climbing - it's because of the short walk-ins.

My local Galloway Hills are almost empty of climbers and walkers, and I'm pretty sure numbers have been declining in recent years, while already busy areas with short walk-ins seem to have got busier. I'm sure many are put off by the long trudge along monotonous forestry roads necessary in much of Galloway to get anywhere really interesting. Opening up roads here in Galloway and in other under-used areas would surely encourage visitors, probably removing some pressure from already very busy areas like Arrochar, Glencoe and the (English) Lake District.

Galloway is the poorest rural region in Scotland and anything that increases local tourism here would be a benefit. While it is hard to put numbers on these things I guess that better (i.e vehicle) access to parts of the Galloway Forest Park could easily double the number of climbers and walkers visiting. Along with Stephen Reid, Andrew Fraser and others! I've been developing many excellent crags in the Galloway Hills; there is a wealth of very good climbing both summer and winter, it's just currently a bit remote for most tastes.

Hopefully I am part of the silent and lazy majority, who can't be bothered with the long walk-in but equally can't usually be bothered writing and making their views known. It would be interesting to conduct a poll of all climbers and walkers, rather than just activists.

Keep the long walk in. If some hills are difficult to reach - so be it. Leave them to their isolation. I've used a bike up Glen Tilt and others and been glad of it. But that's enough. No special pleading, no special interests.

The Long Walk-In Principle must be maintained.

Every vehicle that heads up a track to deliver climbers has to be parked somewhere and there is a distict issue on the amount of baggage brought in and left lying around when a sport is being pursued.

Taking a leaf from the book of the cyclists who ride to tour rather than climb, there is a clear ethos of travelling light, driven rather obviously by the fact that whatever you take with you adds to the effort required to propel the bike. Hence a great deal of experience in travelling with a well planned complement of tools, and other gear and an efficiency which I suspect many classic-style climbers will appreciate.

Cycling in does seem to be a reasonable compromise in many cases - the bike is a vehicle which can carry up to 20 times its own weight - rather the inverse of the motor vehicle - and can use the most basic of tracks and paths with no more damage than the boots of a well laden walker. Bikes can pass - even on singletrack paths without breaking down verges or extended reversing and 'parking' does not require any hardstanding or levelled off ground. the speed of cycling on a reasonable track is little different from that of sensible driving, possibly slightly faster.

So please keep the presumption to stop driving where the tarmac ends, and even then to consider ways to get in or out without littering the scene with parked cars.

It might be remembered too that the climbing clubs in the 1930's often got out of Glasgow and other cities by train and then caught a bus, a taxi, cycled or walked for their day's sport, so why is it necessary to drive all the way?.

One inspired rail user (Paul Bakker) compiled a comprehensive listing of taxi operators to call for onward travel from the 2500 rail stations in the UK. Would it be too far fetched to consider that MCoS through their access to a wide resource of local knowledge, might similarly collate a listing of taxi operators and standard fares for popular climbs from the nearest rail or coach stops. Then how well promoted is the fact that the morning coach from Glasgow drops you in Glencoe before 10.00 and the last coach back passes through after 18.00. Who knows if this gets popular a relief coach for the traffic between Glencos and Glasgow might even be viable.

So please keep walking or cycling in and look at some of the other ways to get there which will rid the roadside verges of the A82 of the mess of parked up cars - and incidentally reduced the prime crime magnet of vehicles parked in remote locations with no owners around for several hours - anyone got the crime figures?

Open up tracks in Galloway to cars? Excellent idea. Then we can legally drive to the bothies with our ghetto blaster, chainsaw, rifles and 2 dozen crates of super strength lager for an all weekend rave ........

Okay, it's possible that Backhill may end up having to be closed as an open bothy anyway due to constant misuse. But efforts to prevent vehicular access to some other bothies in the area seem to be working. I'm afraid that these days the 'long walk in' is the best defence many bothies have against vandalism and abuse. Not just in Galloway, but anywhere else too. There is more than just access to crags for climbers at stake here.

As a walker rather than a climber I am against increased access to the hills by car.Having a long walk in helps to maintain the remoteness of these areas which I believe is vital. We have so very few really remote areas left. I would like to keep them that way. I am sure we can find more worthwhile projects to spend money on than these.

Which angling club do I need to join to get a set of keys then?

I spend one or two weeks hill walking in Scotland mainly in the NW. Some of the hills do have long walk in. I do not feel that vehicles should be allowed on these tracks. Invariably the tracks are damaged by traffic and then car parks, passing points and turning places will also be necessary.

The whole point of walking in wild places is to get away from traffic and noise. I use my mountain bike to get along these tracks to get to the hills. Environmentally friendly to the countryside and less disturbance to wildlife.

I'd like to see more bike tracks, as long as they are properly constructed so as to minimise erosion, but I'd be against opening up the mountains to public cars.

I believe that we should continue to have long walk ins as that is part of the mystery and magic of the remote mountains.

I would be very much against the idea of opening up tracks for vehicle access. The hills should be kept for the peaceful enjoyment of those prepared to make the effort to get there, particularly the more remote ones. Bikes can always be used anyway. The MCofS would do well in my view to adopt as a principle two of Unna's Rules -see eg p115 in "A Century of Scottish Mountaineering" published for the SMC by the Scottish Mountaineering Trust, 1988 ISBN 0-907251-21-5 "That the mountains should not be made easier or safer to climb" "That no facilities should be introduced for mechanical transport" I am an MCof S member, compleat Munroist and regular hillwalker.

Vehicular access to remote locations should always be denied.We enjoy an environment which is increasingly unique in Western Europe. Keep it the way it is! The Beinn Dearg access route is a good case in point. This is a long walk from the edge of the Inverlael forest. Vehicular access to that point would save around no more than 30 minutes in a walk of some 4hours to the summit of Beinn Dearg and usually considerably more if any of the nearby peaks are climbed at the same time. For that matter, a bike can easily be taken up to the edge of the forest. Perhaps MCoS should be pro-active in this debate and suggest bicycle-use on forestry/hydro roads . Keep cars out!

As a lifelong hill walker and mountaineer, I am shocked to read that there is a proposal to allow private vehicles on to the hills to stop climbers having to walk too far. I have always found the walk in and walk out a very interesting part if the climb. May I suggest that if this proposal is accepted just to help the lazy walkers, we in Scotland may as well run a road to the summit of each hill where the drivers can tick off munroes without having to leave their cars. Hill walking and mountaineering is meant to be and is a challenge so please let it remain so.

Straightforward answer - no - if there's a long walk-in, so what? It takes longer to ascend and descend, deal with it - either camp or get up earlier.

If you open up the tracks, what comes next? A call to have a burger joint on every summit? wheelchair access to every mountaintop?

Open the tracks and some people will turn up, "wild camp" (code for the "wrong sort" quaffing gallons of 'bucky') and get every responsible walker/climber a bad name.

I'm not a landowner, just a regular guy who takes his family out into the great Scottish Outdoors as often as life permits - and if that means we have to take a tent, then we take a tent.

Speaking as an older mountaineer - just over 60 - I find the MCofS position distinctly "ageist". There are hills I would like to climb, and areas I would like to visit, but they are currently unavailable to me because of the length of walking day that would be required to visit them. 1. “principle of a long-walk-in is an effective protection mechanism” i.e. the more concentrated the foot (or off-road bike) the greater the erosion

I would counter this principle by arguing that providing easier access to remote mountains would spread walker numbers out over a larger number of hills, thus helping to reduce erosion on the hills that are currently easily accessible. In my years of hill-walking in the Northern HIghlands, I have observed walker numbers on the easily accessible hills in decline rather than on the increase. And certainly, most mountaineering clubs seem to be experiencing difficulty in attracting younger members. The youth of today have so many sporting and leisure opportunities on offer that the majority of them do not become single-minded pursuers of any one single activity. 2. “Construction or upgrading of vehicular tracks should be avoided in remote areas” i.e. including widening to provide car parking

I do not advocate the construction of vehicle tracks where they have not previously been. However, where vehicle tracks are already there but inaccessible to car drivers due to poor surfaces or locked gates, I would advocate upgrading and opening up these tracks and creating parking areas at the end. Locked gates do not, in any case, prevent access by any mountain-biker capable of lifting his bike off the ground! So by allowing cyclists in but not car drivers, your position discriminates against the car driver. I live in Inverness-shire and have used the Glenstrathfarrar track on many occasions (and don't arrive particularly early). I have never been unable to enter due to the permitted daily number of cars having been exceeded, and have rarely seen more than one other party on my chosen route. So despite the access track, visitor numbers are relatively low. 3. “unnecessary tracks should be removed” i.e. unnecessary for their original purpose An insane idea! Who would pay this this? Apart from any other considerations, such tracks make mountain rescue operations easier, so for that reason alone they should be retained.

Regarding your post on Scottish Climbs, I’d like to put on record my own views. I’m an individual member (no. 2213).

My view has always been that in what has been a difficult area, the MCofS approach has been generally correct this far and I would not like to see a radical change of approach. I’m intrigued by the wording of your post, which suggests that the MCofS would like to support opening up vehicular access in these cases, they cannot due to their own policies. Maybe I am interpreting it wrongly?

I’m also curious to know more about the Beinn Dearg track – is it the Munro near Ullapool or the Corbett near Torridon? Can you let me know? (http://www.munromagic.com/MountainResults.cfm?Criteria=beinn+dearg&MTNFilter=All ).

If it is the Munro, I hope it is not the track that runs into the glen to the north-east that runs between Beinn dearg, Meall nan Ceaprichean and Con’a’Mheall. My memory of that track is that is little more than a footpath, and I have fond memories of the day I spent on those hills with my dad. I would hate to think it became a land rover track, as the upgrade would be substantial.

My general principles are that access to the more remote areas should be for the few, as that is how you keep them what they are: remote. We should not seek to change the nature of the landscape around us. The only circumstances where I believe upgrading paths are necessary are a) carefully selected commercial reasons, and b) where the existing path is unable to cope with the traffic around it and requires upgrading to cope with further deterioration.

To expand on these two points:

a) carefully selected commercial reasons is harder to explain so I will take my time. Perhaps ‘where the demands of the local micro-economy require’ it would be more appropriate. Essentially, we cannot prevent, nor should we try to, those who live locally from earning a living, or the result will be that the depopulation of areas of Scotland will increase. Therefore where tracks are required for part of a project (be it forestry work, fish farms, wind farms, or any other), the MCofS should look at the whole, rather than the road/track, and judge whether it can support the project and respond accordingly. Does that make sense?

b) To prevent further deterioration: a good example of what I mean would be the path on Schiehallion – upgrading the path was necessary as the wear on the path was beyond what the path could cope with and so damaging the landscape and environment around it.

I am absolutely clear about the long walk in debate. I go mountaineering, hill-walking and climbing because I want to appreciate the remoteness, peace and beauty of Scotland’s mountains. Allowing people to drive in as far as possible will turn our fantastic wild places into little more than a tourist stop off. Want to add another Munro to your list? That’s fine – with a track and a car park you can pop in after work and tick another one off on your list. In fact, why not put a visitor centre, shop and café there to cater for the coaches while you’re at it?

REAL mountaineers and climbers relish the long walk in, the feeling of adventure, the planning it requires, and the sense of achievement after a hard but satisfying expedition. If you can’t hack a long walk in, you shouldn’t be in the mountains.

I am horrified that the MCofS can even be thinking of condoning the opening up of remote mountain tracks. I will strongly oppose any change in your policy statement.

I might be going against popular opinion here but I feel strongly enough to email about this. I completely and thoroughly support the opening of vehicular access on any suitable tracks (or even unsuitable ones - I've got my car up things any sensible person wouldn't!).

Firstly I do not believe in any principle that a long walk-in is an essential part of a climbing experience. Climbing is climbing and walking is walking. There is brilliant and fascinating climbing on road-side crags and unless the road is particularly busy (unlikely to be a feature of the tracks in question), the road has little or no detraction to the climbing experience. There are plenty of crags with roads nearby where the climbing and overall atmosphere is unparalleled. Sea-cliffs or similar in particular - take Diabeg or Sheigra - are they any less stunning because of the road end 5 mins away??

Secondly there are a vast number of hills and mountains in Scotland that will never have a road nor vehicle track anywhere near. There can't be a thin end of the wedge in this situation as the wedge can't get any thicker, there just don't exist the tracks for it to do so. Take the Buchaille, or Creag Nam Shormalie, or The Cobbler, or...etc etc. Most major cliffs and entire areas would be completely unaffected by the proposal. So those who do, for whatever reason, value a long walk-in, will still have many opportunities available.

Thirdly long walk-ins can be quite unpleasant, impractical, or simply impossible for some people. I climb fairly well but I have never been fit for long walk-ins - they have put me off climbing at many cliffs as they would be detrimental to my climbing day (I know other people like this too). Now my situation is even more clear cut - due to injury, although I can climb okay, I simply cannot walk long distances, particularly up hills. Opening up vehicular access on tracks would thus open up possbilities which are otherwise denied to my due to simple misfortune.

I agree with the MCofS approach. Vehicular access would bring considerable erosion to mountain tracks and spoil access to walkers. Paths in the Cairngorms are eroding with the current "weight of numbers" of walkers. Adding vehicles would churn up the paths. Even responsible 4 wheel driving would cause havoc. I always leave my Land Rover at the car park when going to the hills. I know the mess it would make of tracks if I attempted to knock even a couple of hundred yards off my walk. Long walk in principle by far the best approach. Only reservation - something should be done in this day and age for disabled access. The new buggies used by the disabled are really robust now and access should be considered for them, certainly at low level.

A walker in the Scottish Mountains for 44 years

I read with interest the comments on the "Long Walk In", LWI, in Issue 45 of the Scottish Mountaineer. While I agree in general that there should be no new roads built and other major developments in the hills, I don't see the logic in having a stance against driving along existing roads. I do think it surprising that the MCofS should have a "national" policy on this, when clearly local circumstances can be very different due to different levels of usage. I would argue that the LWI just concentrates modern mountaineers in certain areas causing environmental problems. Coire Sneachda and Aonach Mor are not the busiest winter corries in Scotland because of the quality of the climbing - it's because of the short walk-ins.

My local Galloway Hills are almost empty of climbers and walkers, and I'm pretty sure numbers have been declining in recent years, while already busy areas with short walk-ins seem to have got busier. I'm sure many are put off by the long trudge along monotonous forestry roads necessary in much of Galloway to get anywhere really interesting. Opening up roads here in Galloway and in other under-used areas would surely encourage visitors, probably removing some pressure from already very busy areas like Arrochar, Glencoe and the (English) Lake District.

Galloway is the poorest rural region in Scotland and anything that increases local tourism here would be a benefit. While it is hard to put numbers on these things I guess that better (i.e vehicle) access to parts of the Galloway Forest Park could easily double the number of climbers and walkers visiting. Along with Stephen Reid, Andrew Fraser and others! I've been developing many excellent crags in the Galloway Hills; there is a wealth of very good climbing both summer and winter, it's just currently a bit remote for most tastes.

Hopefully I am part of the silent and lazy majority, who can't be bothered with the long walk-in but equally can't usually be bothered writing and making their views known. It would be interesting to conduct a poll of all climbers and walkers, rather than just activists.

With reference to your "The Long Walk-in Principle Debate" pitch-in post, that is, I support the principle of the long walk-in as I believe it helps control erosion and further in part reflects a core part of the outdoor experience in Scotland.

I believe firmly in the long walk in principle in order to maintain our wild areas. I have no knowledge of the Galloway area and other than confirming my adherence to the principle have no further comment to make. I do know the Beinn Dearg area and would be very much against opening up the track to vehicles. As with most other mountain areas there are frequently cars parked at the road end. All that would happen would be that these cars would be parked up at the top of the track. In addition there would be other vehicles for those who are attracted by the greater ease of access. This then leads to bigger car park, more erosion on the hills and the permanent loss of wild areas. I am strongly against opening up the Beinn Dearg track.

I totally agree that we should protect the last of our wilderness areas and not allow vehicular access. If people aren't fit enough to make the effort to reach the far away areas then they should stick to the well trodden easy routes.

We should follow the example we experienced while backpacking in the high sierras in California with stricter protection of wilderness areas, restricting numbers on routes, and discouraging camping and going to the toilet near waterways.

It's hard to find true wilderness in the UK and I vote for having more!

I am against the opening of any tracks for vehicular access. Part of the lure of the Scottish mountains are that they are remote. They are the only area in the UK offering a place where you can go and be a days walk away from a road. Or to tackle your chosen peak or climb, you have to camp wild. That is why the Scottish Mountains are special. Opening tracks to vehicles (even if done on a limited basis initially) will remove the special place the Scottish Mountains rightly have in all our lives. The fact that many are hard to get to is important. They pose a real challenge to those determined to go there - and that is why they are valued. If a track opened up, then it would devalue the achievement of those who have climbed before and remove the challenge for those to come. Further, and this is important, it would encourage people to own 4x4s. It would give them a reason to have these inefficient vehicles and so not only to go to the mountains but to take the kids to school. Finally, it is special that there are places you can go where there is virtually no traffic noise and few visitors. To have walked for hours (days) to get to a mountain, it really distracts from the beauty and peace if a car arrives and shatters the peace, or even if you see one at the foot of the hill. There are enough roads. Access has to be hard. Do not open up any tracks.

With regard to the long walk-in debate, I only wish to comment on Beinn Dearg access since it is in my locality. I am against car access. The reason is simply that I don’t want to see Beinn Dearg end up like Ben Wyvis, with a stair case up to the top. Where there is the opportunity, I would like the mountains to preserve their remoteness – it is what makes them special.

I am against any further opening up of the hills for vehicles. I think that we have the right balance at the moment of areas with little access and others where tracks have been there for many many years and are part of the landscape. I support the initiatives of NTS in removing some higher tracks - I once saw a group drive to the very top of Ben a' Bhuird in a Land Rover and was appalled - That track has now been removed. What does concern me a lot is the use of 4 or 6 wheeled or tracked buggies by estates. Where these are used a lot, they create a track of sorts and can be unsightly. I admit that I use them myself because the heather is flattened and you know that if a buggy can get down it, there are not going to be any surprise arrivals at the top of steeper ground. But there are places where the buggy tracks are destroying the old stalker's paths - the side shoots of Glen Affric are very bad for this for this type of damage. Another concern I have is that some estates are not maintaining their ancient paths - and are allowing water to run and destroy them. Knoydart is quite bad for this type of neglect but so are other areas. I support the Unna rules - "That the mountains should not be made easier or safer to climb" "That no facilities should be introduced for mechanical transport"

I am an MCof S member through the Stocket Walking Club of Aberdeen, compleat Munroist and regular hillwalker.

personally do NOT support the 'long walk in', but equally would not wish to see roads built to the top of mountains, with car parks as are found in France (e.g. Mt Ventoux). Quite frankly having read all the Position Statements (PS), I am in considerable doubt as to what the policy of MCofS actually is at present. In one PS there seems to be a view that car parks and roads should be shut and in a later one that they should be developed/re-opened. These PSs all seem very dated and don't recognise the new access code and legislation too. We need to recognise modern developments - Google Earth, mobile phones, GPS, internet, openstreetmap. Tourist Boards and guides are the least of the issues. I don't think the problem is as bad as it used to be. On Saturday - sunny, calm, snowy down to 800 m there were only a handful of cars at Glenfeshie (Achlean car park). Only saw one other person on the hill. Anyway I think we need to really find out what members want - not just the AGM few and revise policies accordingly. I certainly have found no-one who wants to confine 'Cairngorm Mountain' car-park use to the ski development, but it sure would reduce the numbers on the plateau! We also need to take account of modern equality policies - in particular cater for the increasing numbers of older and disabled people who want to enjoy the hills. My personal view is that car parks and well made tracks (as at Stac Pollaidh, Cairngorm) are a good thing reducing environmental impact and most mountaineers want to use them (for climbing, ski-mountaineering, hill-walking). The worst of all position (as it undermines the status of the MCofS as the national representative body), is to have written policies which the membership does not agree with, and no-one at all seeks to implement, or enforce.

I write this in a personal capacity not as a statement from our club.

I have read the MCofS article on UKC (and the responses to the related thread). Here is my own opinion:

definitely NO vehicle access to any leisure users.

I have walked the track to Beinn Dearg and also many of the forestry tracks in Galloway and appreciated the quiet and lack of traffic noise. If climbers are allowed then any leisure user group must also have a valid claim and that means 4WD and trail bike users who have already severely damaged many tracks. The calls from folks "not as young as they used to be" for having easier access to climb on remote crags is laughable. If they value the atmosphere and remote qualities that drew them their in their younger days how can they even consider this? When I can no longer walk to the big hills and crags I will not whine for an easier life and demand that things be brought down to my level rather I will accept the inevitable and lower my sights. Incidentally, in Galloway it appears that several bothies are being abused anyway by folks accessing them on motorbikes along forestry tracks - certainly saw tire damage by the White Laggan bothy last year.

I'm not a MCofS member but am in a BMC-affiliated club (Lancashire Caving & Climbing Club). Been walking (mainly) and climbing in Scotland since 1981.

No to Vehicles. Mountaineering is not about "bagging" as many peaks as you can with as little effort as possible. Forestry Commission roads or not. There are few places left in europe with real wilderness, and it will slowly only disappear over time. Would you like ski lifts up to the top for you all? Unfortunately I am of the opinion that if you are incapable of making it there then maybe you should not be trying to get there.

Leave the wilderness wild!

I won't deny it. When I met a group of RAF bods on the top of Eididh nan Clach Geala traversing to Seana Bhraigh who gave me the keys to their Land Rover asking me to drive it to the road end at Inverlael, I was overjoyed. The thought of that long walk out being foreshortened to a roll down the hill in was a welcome relief after traversing the 4 Munros nearby.

However, I had set out from Inverlael intending to walk the FC track in and out. The land rover was a bonus.

I've read most of the posts above and to be honest I can't see what benefit would be gained from opening this track to vehicles. In response to Lord Mackenzie, (who is in favour), what happens when more than 4 vehicles reach the top car park? Is there going to be an electronic sign at Inverlael flashing FULL or SPACES? If the MCofS are going to control the access through the combination lock number, what happens when this is spread by word of mouth? (like getting a key cut for the Ben track!). It would be posted online within days. Would the grades of the climbs on Beinn Dearg have to be re-assessed due to the proximity of vehicular access - perhaps on a par with the Northern Corries?

Don't get me wrong...if I turned up at Inverlael intending to climb on Beinn Dearg and discovered I could drive up the track, I would do so but I won't be campaigning for it to be opened.

First off I am a member of the MCofS and just wanted to add my tuppence on the latest access discussions which seem to be rearing their head. To be brief, I am against any sort of: increased accessibility by means of upgrading existing tracks to allow vehicle access. opening up of remote existing access tracks to shorten the walk in. I heartily support your current Position Statement with regard to: 1. “Principle of a long-walk-in is an effective protection mechanism” i.e. the more concentrated the foot traffic (or off-road bike) the greater the erosion and the greater impact the more people, which usually means the more accessible by transport 2. “Construction or upgrading of vehicular tracks should be avoided in remote areas” i.e. including widening to provide car parking and often tracks have little or no parking area which would mean restricting numbers somehow 3. “Unnecessary tracks should be removed” i.e. unnecessary for their original purpose, but some developers have used recreational use as a reason to build / retain tracks that have a negative impact on the landscape The example given of Beinn Dearg up near Ullapool is a nonsense. This already has excellent footpath access and is hardly a remote mountain by any means. I would be abhorred if vehicular access was extended in this instance. Indeed, last time I was up this hill I walked in from the Inverlael at midnight and arrived at the summit about 4am without the need for a headtorch, so good was the path. Thanks for listening.

While I can understand the temptation to think it might be nice to be able to drive up forest tracks to avoid a lengthy walk-in, I don't think the existing access policy should be altered. Part of the attraction of Scotland's very remote hills is just that - their remoteness. I also think that making the ascent of remote peaks less challenging would reduce the sense of achievement in gaining their summits. As it is, Munro and Corbett bagging today is already so much easier than in Sir Hugh's day - guidebooks, paths, equipment and technology are all there to help us. I also don't fancy the idea of traditionalists of the future having to constantly step off the track to allow yet another 4x4 past. There is also the environmental impact. In addition, the negotiations between outdoor enthusiasts and landowners which have resulted in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code seem to me to have produced a workable agreement which is fair to both parties. To now attempt to move the goalposts seems unfair, and might jeopardise the present state of affairs - we might see more temporary access closures for spurious reasons. Exceptions? Well possibly the tarmac road down the side of Loch Ericht, which is already used by quite a lot of traffic. And what about Linn of Dee to White Bridge? But that's purely a selfish view, as An Sgarsoch and Carn an Fhidhleir are two of our remaining forty-eight Munros! Seriously, my wife and I continue to enjoy the challenge of finding workable plans to tackle remote hills. These plans have included long walk-ins, camps, canoeing, and me teaching her to mountain bike. She now is able to go downhill at a fair lick, not bad for a Granny! Let's keep our wilderness wild.

I would be strongly opposed to any increase in off-road access for motor vehicles in mountain areas. For many of us, path and track walking in glen and forest and moorland is part of the experience; we go there in order to get away from traffic and exhaust fumes.

Increasingly, especially in forest approaches, we’re already being buzzed by illegal trials bike, quad-bike and mini-moto use. The experience of being in these places would be diminished further if the more petrol-headed Munro-baggers, who simply cannot bear to be parted too long from their vehicles, are allowed to take them where they wish. Hillwalking and climbing are already too much of a drive-in activity for many. And as for car parks in the wilds – please! It should not even be considered.

Climbers and walkers who want to push for these rights are already members of the AA or RAC. It is for these bodies to push for motorists’ issues, not the MCofS.

Off-road tracks should remain, except for residents and essential users, the preserve of walkers, cyclists and riders.

I agree with the MCofS's current PS. The LWI should be preserved where it currently exists. In general I also support moves to reinstate the LWI where it has become the norm to drive motor vehicles off-road to access remote areas more quickly. Nevertheless, I do support to the use of bicycles on established tracks. I support the creation of small new road-side car parks where there is inadequate parking provision at present, or where the existing parking area is more than ~500m from the point that a popular path meets the road.

In summary, the LWI on a path or track should be maintained but walkers should not have to endure a LWI that covers any significant amount of tarmac.

Rgds

Scottish and resident in Scotland .

Please no vehicular access, have you seen the sides of Loch Tay, Glen Clunie etc etc. The great British public has no respect. Bonfires everywhere, litter, booze, confine them to loch Lomond side and preserve the rest.

I have often wished I could have driven as I trudge back, knackered! The Beinn Dearg track being a case in point I suppose. Then once it is done, the expediency and potential laziness wains. What would Seana Bhraig et al be like if you could drive to Magoo's? No, we must continue to maintain the position. I must admit to wondering on occasion whether a telephoned permission process might be one possibility, but realism says that even if it wasn't abused, the estates would not be happy to manage it, and why should they? Resident of Stirling & MCoS member

I write concerning your dilemma over possible public vehicular use of Government owned tracks and your current Position Statement on access (Scottish Mountaineer No 45). I support the principle of LWI and oppose any measures to make access easier to our mountains. While not being particularly familiar with the Galloway Hills, I have visited Gleann na Squaib & Beinn Dearg on a number of occasions since the 1960s, both to climb & walk, summer & winter. The notion that vehicular access should be available for one type of recreational user and not to others is elitist and quite unacceptable. If the FC track is to be open to the public (again) it should be open for all. Of course, therein lies the problem - the huge increase in the number of people now seeking access to our wild land. For the sake of Beinn Dearg, its great crags & its neighbouring hills, the roadside gate should remain locked. Young people will accept this as normal, only those who were able to drive up in the past (myself included) will have to get up an hour earlier. This subject was discussed briefly at last weekend's AGM of the Scottish Mountaineering Club where it was found that the majority of those present voted against providing easier access to our mountains.

How Long is a Long Walk In?

Richard Spencer poses that question in the November Issue of TSM – but, perhaps not surprisingly, fails to answer it - although he does admit to driving to the forest gate when approaching the Grey Corries. Ok Richard I’ll own up too!

In general terms most of us who care for our wild and remote places would agree with the MCofS position statement regarding access tracks. That position, summarised by Hebe Carus, encourages the long walk in and the removal of existing tracks and discourages the construction or upgrading of existing tracks.

A common thread in work begun in the 70’s by Robert Aitkin and extended in recent times by Steve Carver and others from Leeds University by the use of digital mapping and GIS techniques has used the distance from vehicular tracks as one measure of mapping wild land. Their approach gives some scientific basis to the MCofS position statement. The science backs up what intuitively we know to be correct. The proliferation of vehicular access tracks reduces the quality of wild land.

A real concern must be the increasing number of access tracks required to service wind turbines located in remote places. Indeed in some areas tracks seem to be constructed pre-empting a possible planning application for such a structure. An example of this is the appalling track to the north of Carn na Saobhaidhe.

However its worth pointing out that access tracks aren’t a prerequisite for vehicular access. When I was last on the Feshie hills there were multiple 4 wheel drive tracks all across the plateau - presumably vehicles used by, so called, sportsmen. The most bizarre case I saw last summer was two garishly clad motor cyclists on the summit of Beinn a’Chleibh.