[Closed] Hut style network proposed for Scotland

High Altitude Hut system, what are they going to do. Float them from weather balloons?

Maybe?! 🙄

Conflicted.

Cameron McNeish has a really good piece on [url= http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/news/confused-about-re-wilding-so-am-i/0014056/ ]WalkHighlands[/url] about some of the potential futures for "wild" Scotland. This just seems to add another option to the mix.

On the one hand, it would be fantastic to experience wolves and lynx, then there's the need to retain existing investment and jobs, plus the desire to see some of the glens returned to habitation and multiple land use. Certainly, we need to stop pretending that the current landscape is natural and not the result of man-made desertification.

I suspect we'll see a mix of these options come about. Perhaps someone like the Assynt Crofters Trust might consider a hut or two to see how the experiment pans out.

And the highlands only being accessible to the 20kg rucksack carrying elite is also bllx.

Anyway, its an interesting idea, quite like to see more info about it. Reckon I'd miss the bothy rats tbh.

Edit, follows Scotroutes link

There is actually a very good network huts in Scotland, most have excellent facilities.

All you need to do is join a climbing club.

They're not needed at "altitude", there are insufficient unbroken ranges to warrant it, i.e. you're up and down constantly anyway.

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland's wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that's the price of entry and that's what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place! 🙂

I'm all for inclusive access in Scotland, but it's not that big and the relatively short distances between current accommodation means that this isn't needed IMO.

And the highlands only being accessible to the 20kg rucksack carrying elite is also bllx.

Whilst you obviously don't have to be Ranulph Fiennes to survive a couple of days in bothy's, it is a fact that not everyone wants to be self sufficient or look like a middle aged version of a DoE trip. Even if they are fit and able to carry a bag full of kit. There are hiking trails all over the world where you can set off with little more than a clean pair of pants, but in Scotland you'd have to limit yourself to a 7 mile radius of civilization to do that.

Add to that there are demographics of people who probably don't fancy the idea of sharing a room for the night with dubious strangers for their own safety.

Most of the alpine huts I've been in hospital had shared sleeping areas.

Good point about demographics though we're already supporting walkers who want to experience the Highlands but aren't prepared to carry overnight gear or walk up a reasonably small hill.

Add to that there are demographics of people who probably don't fancy the idea of sharing a room for the night with dubious strangers for their own safety.

My first thought was 'they'll be nedtastic' no thanks.

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland's wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that's the price of entry and that's what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place!

I think in tourism development terms they'd rather people [i]paid[/i] a price for entry rather than earned one 🙂

They seem to be wanting to facilitate access to Scotland's wildest areas to people who are too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent. IMO, that's the price of entry and that's what makes it remote and rewarding in the first place!

I'd tend to agree with this. "Wilderness* areas" and "inclusive" are strange bedfellows IME. I certainly wouldn't want Scotland to go to much towards the Alps (taking it straight to an absurd extreme in true STW fashion 🙂 )

*Yeah, it's not really wilderness etc etc.

I've seen it in action in NZ over the last 15-20 years. It's a pretty impressive tourist drawcard (things like the Milford Track etc). For the purists it doesn't appeal but I don't think the outdoors like that should be exclusively for the Rab wearing outdoorists but should have a multi user base, if they can make it work then go for it. There are some incredible private alpine huts in NZ that you can only fly into.

The more I think about this, if we ended up with what is being suggested, the highlands will just become a really shit version of the Alps.

Shit ski "resorts", shit "alpine" hut network, shit weather and small mountains.

I bloody love it the way it is 🙂

The tourist board should just make a new ad campaign along the lines of "You're never more than a 2 hour walk from a B&B"

too soft to sleep in a bothy or a tent

Cobblers & what sounds like a hint of elitist tosh imho...

I for one love the wilderness & have happily walked for hours/days to get to places way off the beaten track.

But, I also quite like a shower & some hot scoff/comfy bed at the end of the day too. Where's the issue with allowing a degree of that?

We used to have remote hostels (e.g. Craig) but they closed as the market, apparently, changed

But, I also quite like a shower & some hot scoff/comfy bed at the end of the day too. Where's the issue with allowing a degree of that?

That's the point. There are few places in Scotland where you're more than a day away from a comfy bed and shower.

Maybe I'm missing the point in this, but huts are normally needed to join up a route that would otherwise provide insufficient accommodation (i.e. on a route at altitude where it would be impractical to descend and ascend each day, or where the distances between populated areas are vast).

I don't really think that Scotland suffers from those issues, certainly not in those areas which are likely to be popular with the kind of tourists who would want such facilities.

that's the price of entry
+1

the kind of tourists

I think you're missing the point. There's a market aimed at wealthy, aging "adventurers" that would love to walk in Scotlands remote places but who will never consider, or be able to, afford your entry criteria.

Is the idea to also form new long distance trails or will it just be a case of building one on existing routes where you [i]need[/i] an overnight, ie the middle of Knoydart?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm genuinely struggling to come up with that many areas that are inaccessible without a wild camp overnight that would be popular enough to build a hut? You know the highlands far better than me so I'm curious as to where we'd put these things.

I always find that I'm going to a reasonable amount of effort to put together decent multi day trips!

scotroutes - Member

We used to have remote hostels (e.g. Craig) but they closed as the [s]market, apparently, changed[/s]YHA liquidated their assets even if the buildings were used,profitable and had been donated in the first place.
FTFY.

Posted 22 minutes ago #Report-Post

If they can't drum enough support to open the likes of Derry Lodge,or run a bunkhouse in Glen Dessary,I don't see there being a need for it many other places. I "GET" folk may want it,but are the Knoydart trust going to be too keen to see the Cholera infested mouse repostitory that is Sourles being replaced with and eco hut with composting cludgies?

It be good just to keep the ones we have...

Don't go expecting to stay at the Traquair one.

http://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/news-general-item.asp?item_id=803

[quote=duckman ]If they can't drum enough support to open the likes of Derry Lodge, or run a bunkhouse in Glen Dessary, I don't see there being a need for it many other places.Pretty much that. There is the new Affric-Kintail Way though, with nothing available between Cannich and Morvern.

[quote=peterfile ]Is the idea to also form new long distance trails or will it just be a case of building one on existing routes where you need an overnight, ie the middle of Knoydart?

I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm genuinely struggling to come up with that many areas that are inaccessible without a wild camp overnight that would be popular enough to build a hut? You know the highlands far better than me so I'm curious as to where we'd put these things.

I always find that I'm going to a reasonable amount of effort to put together decent multi day trips!But you're young, fit and capable of organising yourself. Think of folk to whom 12 miles would be a massive trek, who aren't willing/able to carry their overnight gear, who need to be spoon-fed a waymarked route. Like it or not, these folk exist and they often have enough money to make their dreams come true. And see above for the Affric-Kintail Way as an example.

Meanwhile, try finding available accommodation in many parts of the Highlands and Islands in the summer months and you'll find it's fully booked (this "summer" season extended well into October).

I think it's a good idea. You never know it might even lead to the creation of more inspiring long distance routes through the more spectacular parts of the highlands.

I think this is elitist crap, for these areas to develop they better accommodation is needed. I for one love the hut networks in the alps and pyranees. I'd love not to have to carry a load of gear, in fact I've given up backpacking in the UK as hate carrying so much crap. It's even worse in the UK as you always have to carry extra clothes as the weather is so rubbish. I see my friends who are hardened backpackers when they get into their fifties who have shifted to b&bs and having their bags portered, they would definitely use these huts.

I'm all for it, Tourism isn't taken seriously enough in Scotland, we really need to invest and maximise what we have.

Tourism is responsible for 42% of employment in the CNP. I'm all for increasing the overall tourist take but would also like to see more diversity rather than it just being MacDisneyland.

I think the key point in the proposal is a NETWORK - a single hut is interesting but in isolation is just an alternative to a B&B/Hostel/Bothy at that location. If you had say over a dozen huts spaced say 15 miles apart in a configuration that allowed you walk/ride several in a loop etc - that would be a compelling proposition. The challenge could be that if you put these in truly remote areas rather than in small towns is it actually increasing tourism spend?

I've made good use of the hut network abroad where it is much more necessary (bigger hills and distances, limited camping). But I think it could also work well in parts of Scotland. Not all tourists are young to middle-aged men capable of comfortably carrying a tent and 3 days food (and even some of these might appreciate hot food and proper shelter, at least some of the year).

Whether it's really viable is another matter. Who is going to pay for it?

Err, the users. Not that I see it being financially viable in other than a couple of locations. Alltbeithe YH seems to work. I assume the SYHA would close it otherwise.

If its making places more accessible to those wanting an easier time, is the north west really the best option.

Perhaps Aviemore to Blair Athol could be a starting point with a 2 huts between Rothie and Athol? Cheaper to supply as well with vehicle access. And already pulling in tourists in decent numbers.

Oh aye, the practicalities.

Find an existing, unused building that can be repurposed or make it a new build with inevitable planning issues.

Landowners responsibilities?

Re-supply and staffing.

Path improvement to cope with the increased usage.

Car parking at route start/End.

Etc etc etc

I reckon all of these are surmountable given similar systems are in place in other countries. Up front cost for an uncertain return might be an issue.

Oh - and I'd like some assurances that this wouldn't result in a reduction in the number of bothies or even more pressure on the right to wild camp.

I love how any suggestion that skills and fitness are needed to access an activity is met with accusations of elitism.

Somethings should be hard work and be kept as hard work. Get the skills, get the fitness, enjoy the hills. Don't bring them down to a lower level in the name of equality.

It will never happen anyway.

I love how any suggestion that skills and fitness are needed to access an activity is met with accusations of elitism.

There are plenty of people with passion for the hills that don't have capacity to experience them as fully as they would like. But that's a bit of a tangent here.
I like the idea but I also think it's already fairly well covered by bunkhouses and hostels. And where it isn't I can't see a viable business being made unless a massive amount of money was thrown into creating the network with new paths being built. That's not going to happen.

On the one hand, it would be fantastic to experience wolves and lynx

I spotted what i thought was a very large fox (previous) last weekend whilst out on the bike with toby (jack russell) up behind the golf course in Kirkcudbright, i only caught a brief glimpse of it before it slunk back into the woods but toby was going absolutely nuts running around the fields following it's scent and yelping excitably when he got to the fence, i thought no more of it as he quite often flushes out foxes from the undergrowth and gives chase but with teeny wee legs he never catches them, I got back home and on speaking to my mum that night i found out that it was an escaped wolf from the local wildlife park, I was back up that area at the weekend and the dog was going nuts again but no sign of the wolf so it must still be in the area.

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/wolf-escapes-galloway-wildlife-park-6862835 ]wolf escaped (apologies for daily record link)[/url]

Somethings should be hard work and be kept as hard work.

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.
I'm more than happy to be self sufficient if I get benighted in an emergency, but I've no desire to hump a heavy pack into the ulo anymore. Been there, done that.

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.

I don't think the outdoors are limited to those prepared to work hard. We actually have pretty good access to most areas. There are actually not that many areas that you couldn't get to see, even if you absolutely cannot sleep in a tent/bothy, with a bit of planning. Regardless of where they put the huts, unless they stick one every mile people are still going to have to walk reasonable distances between them, so you're not talking about facilitating access to those with mobility problems...it's for those who don't want to carry a pack and who want running water. We already have significant coverage by bag carrying services on Scotland's many long distance trails.

I'm conflicted on this. One one hand I want everyone to experience the most beautiful, remote areas of Scotland. On the other, it's already there and has been for a long time and if you want to see it you just have to go. We shouldn't have to build special huts because some people can't enjoy their surroundings unless they've had a shower.

Some of the more remote areas of the country hold a real value to a large number of people who love them because of how unspoilt and remote they are and because part of the reward is in getting there.

If the plan is to build stuff to make remote areas more accessible, I'd get over it but I can't say I would support it. If they just plan on sticking huts in high traffic areas then I don't have a view either way other than it feels a bit pointless.

One thing I think we could all agree on is that there is no doubt a financial incentive to building them (if they can fill them of course).

Building stuff in "wild" areas just because it would be nice is not a great route to go down IMO.

One thing I think we could all agree on is that there is no doubt a financial incentive to building them (if they can fill them of course).

its not clear that there is a financial proposition that works for the "hut owner" at all, but assuming he can make it turn a small profit and this brings a small number of relatively low income jobs who else benefits financially from them existing?

Some B&B, Bunkhouse, Hostel and campsite owners will claim they suffer as a result (this may or may not be true and is impossible to measure with certainty). Some others might benefit before or after a trip (e.g. 1 night in B&B then 3 on the hut trail) but many people will drive up, walk the trail, stay in the huts, drive back. Unless they are in areas with ample local facilities anyway the chances of them popping in to somewhere for lunch or a pint are minimal, the likelihood that they visit a museum or paid visitor attraction is small. I'm not seeing how a hut network directly benefits the local economy?

Sorry poly, it was meant as a tongue in cheek comment. I agree with all your points.

I reckon the estate owners might like it though as it could provide an income.

I'm conflicted on this. One one hand I want everyone to experience the most beautiful, remote areas of Scotland. On the other, it's already there and has been for a long time and if you want to see it you just have to go. We shouldn't have to build special huts because some people can't enjoy their surroundings unless they've had a shower.

I am in the business of encouraging our next generation to get out into the wilds, and I too have reservations about either opening up access that means those with less care for wild places (more care for beer and a big fire) or removing the close contact with wilderness. Both of these are not to restrict access - dirtbagging on a budget is a a huge part of the history of adventure for walking, canoeing, climbing and biking; equally those with disabilities can access wild spaces and places if they are determined enough - but close contact with nature, the hardships and challenges mean that you cannot help but appreciate the place more. See the rise of car camping challenges in the southern highland area - too easy to drive in, light up, drink up and trash the place - you have not 'invested' personally to be there or understand that place.

Agree with Peter.
Most people would love the experience and respect those wild areas,but as soon as you increase the traffic,you get more:-

[img] [/img]

I'm still on the fence with this one, but don't really believe that the sort of behaviour seen in Glen Etive would be encouraged by a network of huts, as people would still need to hike to the huts!

i.e. the arseholes causing that mess up there ^^ aren't going to haul all that crap in any sort of distance (I still think an enforced ban on overnight parking in Glen Etive would solve most of the problems in one fell swoop...)

wanmankylung - Member
I think it's a good idea. You never know it might even lead to the creation of more inspiring long distance routes through the more spectacular parts of the highlands.

And the pressure to widen and sanitise all the paths.

If they want to reintroduce species like wolves, I'd prefer they spent the money on bringing back the native species most recently eradicated from the Highlands. You can see the remains of their shelters all over the so called "wild" lands (that's if they haven't been razed by forestry or used for drystane dykes).

Trying to recreate the past is BS. Which era will we reproduce? 8-10,000 years ago? A couple of thousand metres of ice would work. After that humans were an integral part of the Highland landscape and shaped it right from the end of the Ice Age. Without humans in sufficient numbers doing what they did back then, reintroducing things like wolves etc is just the further Disneyification of the Highlands.

Most of the alpine huts I've been in had shared sleeping areas.

Good point about demographics though we're already supporting walkers who want to experience the Highlands but aren't prepared to carry overnight gear or walk up a reasonably small hill.

My actual thought was young, single women possibly being adverse to spending the night alone with some of the 'characters' you get in bothy's, rather than the old and fat. I doubt the old and fat would want shared sleeping areas anyway.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
My actual thought was young, single women possibly being adverse to spending the night alone with some of the 'characters' you get in bothy's...

That's why we old blokes prefer to sleep rough. We're terrified of what those fit young single women would do to us in those bothies... 🙂

Cracking idea. Let's add lots of forms of civilisation to the wild so that people who don't wasn't wild can pretend they do. Of course it won't be wild then but who cares if we screw up what we have so that a few more people can have what they want rather than what they deserve. Nowadays wevthink we have a right to everything and if it isn't there in the form we want we will damn well make it or more likely pay someone else to do our dirty work for us. If you are not able to walk into the depths of Knoydart or where every then tough luck. Do not down grade it to suit you. Accept that life is what it is not what you want. The idea that every single pretsdon has a right to do everything is complete crap.
Just look at the wear and tear around the popular bothies. That's good is it. I defy anyone to justify the statement that the top of Annoch Mor is better for having the cable car there. It's a mountain. If you want cafes go to a shopping centre.
As has been said the infrastructure is there already. If you don' t like that don't ruin things for others.
Very mild rant that totally fails to express my feelings over.

Of course it won't be wild then but who cares

The best way to describe the highlands, or the Lake district, Peak, Snowdonia or indeed a lot of our 'wild' places, is "post agricultural wasteland". What you see is very little, if anything to do with how it would look if it was wild.

After the F&M outbreak 15 years ago there was a very real worry in the National Trust that a lot of areas where sheep farming was already barely viable would simply revert back to their natural state. Adding mattresses and running water to bothy's won't change that.

The best way to describe the highlands, or the Lake district, Peak, Snowdonia or indeed a lot of our 'wild' places, is "post agricultural wasteland". What you see is very little, if anything to do with how it would look if it was wild.

From a selfish point of view I would like to see some alpine type huts on the way into remote winter climbing venues.

Much of our Highland landscape is what Frank Fraser Darling called "wet desert". The landscape has been managed in an ecologically bankrupt fashion for decades - first with sheep and then for deer and grouse. The extent of the ecological abuse and landscape abuse ( Land Rover tracks) of these wildlands by sporting estates ( all taxed at a zero rate) is massive compared with any proposed hut network. If a network of huts could become financially viable, maybe even more viable than current sporting interests, then we would have a chance of reducing the high deer numbers and the heather burning that is maintaining the wet desert. If that was the case, I would support them.

i.e. the arseholes causing that mess up there ^^ aren't going to haul all that crap in any sort of distance (I still think an enforced ban on overnight parking in Glen Etive would solve most of the problems in one fell swoop...)

...Just look at the wear and tear around the popular bothies. That's good is it.... ...As has been said the infrastructure is there already....

If you want cafes go to a shopping centre.

I think it was Cameron McNeish who did a piece on the Norwegian huts on the Adventure Show a year or so ago. It looked a fantastic system. After a day's hiking he ended up at a very smart wooden chalet (a bit like an old-style youth hostel, but with Scandinavian build quality) with a fully equipped larder of tinned food and other supplies; you simply help yourself with a sort of honesty box payment system. The users seemed to be responsible for tidying up after themselves, although there must be some centralised service to manage re-stocking and rubbish. There seemed to be a very comprehensive network enabling various routes through the mountains.

I'm not sure whether it's a good idea in principal for Scotland, or whether it would actually work in practice. I understand the concerns about "dumbing down" access and building more permanent accommodation in the remote areas, but it seems to work on the continent without spoiling the outdoor experience. I think the practical issues about building and managing a network might be more of a problem. The Norwegians seemed to collectively buy in to the responsibility of looking after the hut network. It appeared to be part of their culture and was obviously very popular. McNeish looked a bit amazed that it all seemed to run so well, and I have to admit my first thought was that something like that here would just get trashed!

I wonder if it would be possible to establish a network that covers a decent area in Scotland, rather than a few huts that just become another long distance footpath? It would take some serious funding and organisation to make it happen.

The best nights camping I have ever had was in Etive during the rut. I spent a couple of days in a glen that was still rarely visited,burst myself by day and lay in the tent with a wee medicinal dram listening to the Stags. I am dreading going back and dispair of the mindset that thinks it is OK to abuse it the way it now is.That would be an undoubted side effect of opening the hut network proposed.

"Just look at the wear and tear around the popular bothies. That's good is it."

"Sounds like the infrastructure is unable to cope with demand!"

Sounds like some ****s cant follow simple rules - Wont be the first time ive gave shit for some **** who feels he can just leave a turd less than 10ft from the bothy and nearby waterways.

Cant drink the water near ryvoan thanks to these people ....... Watch where you drink from at other popular bothys.

I'm more than happy to be self sufficient if I get benighted in an emergency, but I've no desire to hump a heavy pack into the ulo anymore. Been there, done that.

So you want to change the character of the highlands because you'd like to stay overnight and can't be bothered carrying a tent?

As others have pointed out the comparisons with other countries are spurious because a. They have a long tradition of such accommodation and b. They have much larger areas of wilderness that require overnight stays.

I'd happily up MBA membership fee if it resulted in toilets being built. Mainly to get away from the midge.

So long as it doesn't end up like the bog at Mossdale Cottage, dear God I'm glad it was well below zero that day. Literally heaps of the stuff.

So in conclusion the bothy system isn't working because it's too popular with the kind of people who don't bring a spade and rubbish bag?

But the solution is to do nothing rather than change it a bit, go slightly upmarket, charge a few £ and employ a cleaner?

Yes that's 100% it 🙄

I take it you think all those plucky,stout natives will be falling over themselves to take your shilling,clean the shit you can't be bothered bagging/burying then vanish into the mist a la Brigadoon?

But the solution is to do nothing rather than change it a bit, go slightly upmarket, charge a few £ and employ a cleaner?

? isn't that back to yoof hostels, and I **thought** that they had to sell of lots due to lack of demand/use - ?

I sort of half like the idea but I can't get a slight rework of the the 'not the 9 oclock news' (or whoever it was sketch) out of my mind -
'come home to a real fire, build a lot of log cabins in Scotland'

*based on personal bothy visits
- nearest live trees - a strange very,very stumpy breed with no leaves or branches, just a short stout stem with a flat, wide top
- piles of crap (both the excrement and the litter type)
- helpful things left behind in bothy, like empty bottles and tins etc

*edit - and also I prefer wilderness to be that - it sort of defeats the visiting the wilderness plan once it's got facilities - just imho

Yes that's 100% it

Clearly the wild hard men of STW consider the average bothy to be beneath them and full of people who don't deserve to be there.

And clearly everyone else needs a toilet and a rubbish bin.

Definitley think that a number of bothies I have visited could benefit from a properly dug long drop latrine or similar.

As above, this runs the risk of being either a hugely expensive way of providing posh bothies, or a cheap but unsustainable/unprofitable way of providing new youth hostels.

Is there room for something between the two? I think there really is - stayed at a couple of camping barns with proper bathrooms and kitchens over the years and I can see them being really attractive up in the highlands, but I'm still not sure if it amounts to much more than a posh Bothy.

So you want to change the character of the highlands because you'd like to stay overnight and can't be bothered carrying a tent?

In a nutshell, yes.

Quelle probleme?

May I just add that I don't think for one second that the Highlands are going to be turned into a concrete urban wasteland as some here seem to think & would oppose any such thing.

But rather a small network of maybe half a dozen decent huts which are actually worth staying rather than some damp rat infested hovel with piles of excrement left out for me to enjoy.

the solution is to do nothing rather than change it a bit, go slightly upmarket, charge a few £ and employ a cleaner

This would be a far better option imho. Leave the majority of bothies untouched for those who still want that experience, but theres no downside to introducing a bit of comfort into the equation. Trust me, one day you'll agree!

I'm conflicted on this. One one hand I want everyone to experience the most beautiful, remote areas of Scotland. On the other, it's already there and has been for a long time and if you want to see it you just have to go. We shouldn't have to build special huts because some people can't enjoy their surroundings unless they've had a shower.

+1

I don't really get how the hut thing would work. Either they are close enough to "civilisation" for water, electricity, re-stocking etc to be viable in which case they aren't really remote. Or they are remote and the services aren't supplied in which case it's just a bothy.

The vast majority of the highlands can be accessed with a day walk or bike ride so it's hardly exclusive to those who are happy to carry a tent etc.

I also worry about a hut network encouraging those who don't have the skills to be out in that environment. In the 80's (?) several of the bothies in the Cairngorms were destroyed as walkers felt safe walking to them as a safe haven when the blizzards come in. IIRC there were a couple of children killed in a group trying to get to Corrour in a storm. The argument at the time was that the bothies encouraged recklessness and people took risks they wouldn't have taken if the bothies hadn't been there. A hut system could make this worse as it gives the impression of safety when walking between them and if a storm does come in then these people are potentially out with nothing more than a water bottle and a change of pants.

In addition you only have to look at the state of some of the botthies to see that unfortunately a significant minority of people just abuse the facilities. "Free food" as I've forgotten my money for the honesty box. Run out of coal, no matter, we'll burn the mattresses and beds.

I suppose I don't object to the theory, (although I don't really support it), but I just can't see it being viable.

Edit - it was 6 children who died:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12134893.Journey_to_death_mountain_Thirty_years_ago_six_children_left__for_an_adventure_weekend_in_the_Cairngorms__Only_one_came_back/

Maybe something like these camps in West Australia would do the trick.

Open to the weather, so you camp on the lee side, but a roof to keep the wet off. A bit like a Hebridean bus shelter.

That would be sufficient for most current outdoor users, and not encourage unprepared glampers.

[img] ?oh=3382f377275b17e68d68e0405c767317&oe=56B2B78D[/img]

Canny say it bothers me. I've no interest in using a hut style system or bothies.

I've already mentioned it but Alltbeithe YH is off-grid and seems to function OK. I could envisage a few more like that, but a Hut system as we see abroad usually includes catering of some sort so still a slightly different proposition.

If it can work in other countries then it could work in Scotland. I think it's more a question of "do we want it to? "

If it encourages more weegies out to litter the place and turn it into a dump then clearly a very bad thing. Loch Lomond was horrific in places last time I visited. I've never been to a similar type location elsewhere in the UK with so much rubbish dumped.

TBH as we have no culture of huts they are either likely to end up as dumps or the preserve of the well off, with big eroded paths to and from them and the nearest munro.

If people moved to a fast & light mentality then there is little in Scotland you can't do already by just going between B&B's.

But rather a small network of maybe half a dozen decent huts which are actually worth staying rather than some damp rat infested hovel with piles of excrement left out for me to enjoy

😯 What bothies are people staying in?? I've stayed in probably 50% of the MBA bothies and a few non-MBA, I can safely say this reflects none of them.

Re: the definition of 'Wild' for me is 'largely empty of other people' 8) I enjoy meeting a few like-minded souls in a bothy at the end of a big day out, but when I see crowds or tent villages I typically avoid. Selfish or no, making it easier for people to access the 'wild' spaces sort of removes the wild aspect for me. However, the benefit of being a tent wielding masochist is that there are always 'wild' spaces that the huts won't make it to, so a few carefully sited huts wouldn't bother me.

I decided against a four day trek to the the Mount Robson base camp in Canada when I realised that people were booking helicopter flights to the campsite, so instead of being a 'basecamp' at the foot of some spectacular mountain, it had become a sort of retreat for wealthy artists and day-hikers that could afford the cost of a helicopter flight. I don't resent them their luxury, it just meant I went somewhere else instead...

I take it you think all those plucky,stout natives will be falling over themselves to take your shilling,clean the shit you can't be bothered bagging/burying then vanish into the mist a la Brigadoon?

Lol, no. I was thinking more along the lines of a bio disc and soak away.

I'm kinda conflicted on this too. As a resident of Switzerland for a few years, and a biker, sometime hillwalker and also scout leader, the Huttes around here are a phenomenal resource.

One's ability to plan a multi day walking trip, staying in a comfortable dorm each night, with great simple food and beer is truly amazing. Not to mention a toilet.

However, there is no inch of CH that is not carefully managed. There is really very little wild. And that grates.

I think that is worth preserving, and in true fence sitting style suggest there is probably plenty of space for both truly wild Scotland, and something a little more managed and accesible. Its not like the hihglands and northwest are overrun with folk.

Kind of in two minds. On the one hand the traffic on the WHW and the cash it brings to local communities it passes through suggests a market for waymarked walking routes with facilities. On the other hand (prepared to be corrected) I'm not aware of any huge numbers of walkers on the Southern Uplands Way, the Speyside Way etc.

For me the WHW is badly compromised as a route by the amount of time it spends within sight and sound of the A82. If a better route somewhere could be marked and publicised like the WHW using mainly existing tracks, paths and facilities with a few huts to link otherwise big gaps it might be a good thing.

I can see issues with landowners not wanting to encourgage WHW style traffic through what might be currently pretty low traffic areas. Encouraging inexperienced walkers into remote areas with no backup, phone signal, or easy bail out options might be problematic from Dec - March as well. So the huts might have a short season.

I've already mentioned it but Alltbeithe YH is off-grid and seems to function OK

Quite a lot of club huts are off grid too. Water off the hill and through filters to drink, waste into composting or bio and soak.

Bring back gas mantles? Maybe...

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.

I think enjoyment of the outdoors should be open to all. That doesn't mean that all places should be accessible to all people at minimum effort.

Our hills are small and mostly easily accessed. Let's not erode what wild areas we have in the name of widening access or economic development.

Why should enjoyment of the great outdoors be limited to those only prepared to work hard? Sounds a little unfair.

I can't help reading this as "Why should the rewards of a bit of effort only be available to those prepared to put the effort in?"

I appreciate not everyone is able to put the effort in, and it seems a bit harsh to just say "tough luck", but I can't help thinking of the difference between a trip up Snowdon and a trip up a mountain in Knoydart.

I appreciate not everyone is able to put the effort in, and it seems a bit harsh to just say "tough luck", but I can't help thinking of the difference between a trip up Snowdon and a trip up a mountain in Knoydart.

On the other hand landowners are allowed to bullzoze tracks so their clients don't have to walk a few miles for shooting. A definite no for huts everywhere but a few huts as part of a marked route?

Even in the most remote bits, you're barely, if ever, more than a few miles from a farm or steading of some form, so there's no reason that camping barns etc. could not already be in place (potential here for some grants to assist in setting them up) as that way they would have a little more oversight and security.

One thing that does occur to me is that this proposal could be a brilliant tourism concept if it was done with uninhabited islands and inlets to promote sea kayaking etc. Rather than cluttering the mountains.

I think there is room for both the minimalist "wilderness" experience (be it wild camping or rudimentary bothy style accommodation)and more serviced style huts (few in number and in certain well thought out locations, possibly in association with some improved trails). One of the problems as I see it is that existing accommodation (bothies, hostels, bunkhouses and even B&Bs) is often not exactly where the walker/biker needs them to be - they are based in reused existing buildings; Another is quality: some - talking about bunkhouses/independent hostels - are an embarrassment. A better network of valley based accommodation would potentially be a reasonable benefit to the tourist (yes that's us) and the local economy. Comes at a cost though - a lot of us don't like paying much and therefore get what we deserve. Although the tourist summer may have been long this year it often isn't, and many highland tourist businesses live a hand to mouth existence; the winter is long, and only a couple of places get the benefit of a hit or miss ski season.
Whatever it is it has to be economically viable. Organisations like SYHA can cross subsidise places like Ossian and Altbeithe only as long as the will is there, and an off the beaten track newly built "hut" wont be offering a bed for £20 a night - look at continental hut prices.

On the other hand landowners are allowed to bullzoze tracks so their clients don't have to walk a few miles for shooting. A definite no for huts everywhere but a few huts as part of a marked route?

Of course, this all leaves Wales with the opportunity to capitalise on its existing tourist infrastructure - they could put luxury camping pods surrounding the cafe and bar at the top of Snowdon 😀