You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hmm... first attempt at posting this got lost to the ether, can't quite be bothered retyping.
Basically a landowner is attempting to block access to an established long distance trail on the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Have donated to help the legal funds
I'm intrigued by this one - from memory that's near the castle, but there's a couple of tracks past a sawmill? I'm assuming it's that Southern end (I've not done the through walk) as I don't think there's much other than hillside and woods at the north/beach end?
I'm also intrigued that Ramblers are funding an action, not local authority access officer enforcing rights.
Is there a link to more information?
Donated.
Have a read of this article
I also thought it seemed very odd that the RA were the ones taking this action, and i see Scotways are supportive of them, but not leading the action.
I've no idea of the situation and never been there, but OA rights don't normally exist through working farms yards etc which a sawmill is likely considered to be. Obviously if it is considered a PROW (meets the criteria) or a core path exists that's a different matter that is above general access rights and more clearly defined/enforced.
Regardless of the exact detail of the sawmill area all the locked gates across the estate show a worrying attitude for sure. Sadly it's not that unusual and not just with big estates. The last 2 years with Covid fears and high numbers of less knowledgeable/responsible access takers has riled quite a few land managers who have normally been quite accepting of access rights.
Cheers Matt, cross posted, that answers some of the other questions.
I wouldn't give the Ramblers money until they change their stance on access for cyclists.
In Scotland in such situation access rights would be available to cyclists too. There is no real footpath/bridleway/byway hierarchy as in England and Wales, though a route might not be particularly practical for some cyclists.
PROW may record specific rights such as vehicular rights, but the LRA and SOAC don't differentiate between non motorised modes of use.
I wouldn’t give the Ramblers money until they change their stance on access for cyclists.
In this instance, I think you’re picking the wrong hill to die on.
Times carrying story too.
In this instance, I think you’re picking the wrong hill to die on.
1. I'm sure they'll manage without any meagre funds I can give them. 2. Why would I give money to an organisation who's stated policy is to restrict my access to the countryside because of the method I choose to do that?
If the ramblers want my help, than they have to help me in return.
I’m also intrigued that Ramblers are funding an action, not local authority access officer enforcing rights.
Moab - whilst described that way they’ve “joined” an action alongside the council. So there were already court proceedings to determine if the land was access land or not, and establish if there is a right of way over it. Ramblers have decided to sit on the same side of the table as the council, and having been permitted to do so by the Sheriff their lawyers will now be able to raise legal points, bring or cross examine witnesses etc. I’m not sure what the merits of doing so are rather than just letting the council access officer get on with it. One possible reason is it stops the council being able to back out / settle without the ramblers agreement (although the way the LRA works, as I understand it the council have to be parties to the proceedings and so you could now end up with a real mess if they think a sensible compromise is agreed and ramblers don’t!). Being cynical, I wonder if there’s a wee bit of a political game with the membership too - why become a member of the RA in Scotland if they don’t seem to do very much, this is a relatively high profile way to show that the RA are fighting for the rights of its members; and it may help them get a little more respect from both land owners and access officers where there is a matter in dispute, since they are clearly willing to put their money where their mouth is when necessary.
My understanding is the owner is anti access generally and is using the pretext of the sawmill to close off access. The route thru the working farm is an old route - I have been on it IIRC. the obvious answer is to divert the path.
The councils rarely take action. ramblers joining in will help I have no doubt. Its an important test case
As I type this, I’m looking across Loch Sunart towards Glenborrodale. I have an Ardnamurchan Loop on my list of rides for next year but this track is part of the route - maybe I’ll need to pack some bolt croppers or an angle-grinder? I’ve noticed elsewhere landowners are using COVID and other reasons to lock gates and give various reasons to restrict access.
I'm with nick on this one.
I think what the landowner is doing is wrong, and i hope the ramblers hand him his arse , but it's nowhere near as big an injustice as the lack of access across the southern chunk of GB. Which I understand the ramblers help to perpetuate so ahm oot.
( apologies if I have misunderstood the ramblers' stance)
I live nearby and have done this route on MTB. It is achievable with the locked gates if you don't mind hanging your bike on a fence by a pedal and climbing over.
But it is blatantly obvious the landowner has a rotten attitude, the number of locked gates to get from Borrowdale to Loch Laga must have cost them a fortune in padlocks.
I contacted the local Highland Council Rights of Way officer after what I saw, something I had never done before and have never done since.
This is a court case that could greatly ease access on a mountain bikable route between Acharacle and Borrowdale. United we stand and divided we fall. Ramblers interests may often be different than ours but here we stand to gain throughout Scotland.
United we stand and divided we fall. Ramblers interests may often be different than ours but here we stand to gain throughout Scotland.
In all other aspects, the attitude of the Ramblers to the wider cycling community is no different to that of the landowner in this case, and they (the Ramblers) wouldn't hesitate to grasp any opportunity to further restrict the teeny rights that cyclist have. And yet people on a mountain bike site are giving those folks their dollar?
They can go **** themselves as far as I'm concerned.
I’ve no idea of the situation and never been there, but OA rights don’t normally exist through working farms yards etc which a sawmill is likely considered to be.
From the article it sounds like the sawmill is a recent development though.
As I understand it, the sawmill got the go ahead on the proviso that access was maintained. TBH I'm not sure anyone thinks that access through the working area is a good idea, so it just needs a bit of a detour added around it. This is normal practice with RoWs in Scotland.
In all other aspects, the attitude of the Ramblers to the wider cycling community is no different to that of the landowner in this case, and they (the Ramblers) wouldn’t hesitate to grasp any opportunity to further restrict the teeny rights that cyclist have.
Maybe not in Scotland.
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/blogs/2016/september/shared-use-paths.aspx
Maybe not in Scotland.
well, if a Rambler's representative can admit that "on the whole sharing paths with cyclist in Scotland works fine, it just needs compromise and education" than that makes their stated position in England even less defensible doesn't it.
The big picture really is the estate owner doesn't want people on his land. This is another attempt to stop access. I've seen lots of detours by farmers and landowners to keep access open but away from working areas, some officially done and signposted some more as hoc.
If this rich estate wins it sets a precedent that will erode access in Scotland. Ramblers are pushing this because they are better organised also the optics are better. Older folk bimbling around is harder to fight than raucous hooligans on MTBs. I'm happy for them to fight my corner.
Whilst I get the anti Rambler bit if it goes through I imagine a floodgate of similar situations will happen so donated and so has my Climbing Club. United we should stand for access for all.
I used to live there it's not exactly a busy place to start with.
United we should stand for access for all.
This is an important statement on this.
well, if a Rambler’s representative can admit that “on the whole sharing paths with cyclist in Scotland works fine, it just needs compromise and education” than that makes their stated position in England even less defensible doesn’t it.
Yes.
I’m happy for them to fight my corner.
This.
United we should stand for access for all.
This is an important statement on this.
I agree. And since they don't ( where I live) then I'm not.
( appreciate that Scotland is a different, more enlightened country, and your view is different)
I’m happy for them to fight my corner.
they don't fight my corner.
they don’t fight my corner
If you ever want to ride an MTB in Scotland away from trail centres or you want England to follow with better access laws then you might just find that in this case that are.
Donation made.
More details here. As to why RAmblers SCotland are involved - as per the link it was two of their members who were reported to the PF for aggravated trespass while walking on the estate.
https://theferret.scot/highland-landowner-breaching-public-access/
Landowner needs reined in.
"In an email dated 22 February 2019, passed to The Ferret, Houston threatened the council’s then-access officer, Donald Kennedy, with legal action. "
The Ramblers, whilst in some ways doing some good things are way to hypopcritical and disgustingly narrow minded to warrant support. I take on board the suggestion that this could be the thin end of a wedge but the associations appaling actions against legimtimate use of RoW is immoral at best.
A complete disregard for local preferences in favour of urban-centric or incomer whims saw the negative side of CROW.
The National article mentions that the landowner is applying for something under section 28 of the Land Reform Act. A quick google hasn't helped me here - does anyone know what that means?
My goodness some of you are petty about the ramblers
this case is in Scotland - the ramblers are on our side
or you want England to follow with better access laws
Show me something that says The Ramblers support increased access for mtbs in England and I'll gladly change my view.
Bottom line is the fact that we have this being brought as a court case shows just how fragile things are. We need to see land access as being about ensuring secure land (and river) access for all and get away from the user group focus.
Show me something that says The Ramblers support increased access for mtbs in England and I’ll gladly change my view.
this is in scotland! nowt to do with anything that happens south of the border
nowt to do with anything that happens south of the border
Sweet, then likewise I don't need to bother myself with what happens north of the border either then, do I?
The point being that you cannot tar ramblers Scotland with the same brush as you do the ramblers in England. thus your dislike of the parties to this case is unfounded
Appears to be one organisation.
I believe so, it is registered in Scotland and England separately as a charity but has just the one company number. I believe they'd need the OSCR number due to having an office in Edinburgh/operations in Scotland.
They seem to refer to the individual countries with the term "devolution" so you could endlessly argue the toss over that if you was so inclined.
nickc Full Member
Sweet, then likewise I don’t need to bother myself with what happens north of the border either then, do I?
Obviously you will not be coming up here to ride a bike ever again then?
For ****s sake, some of you really would cut your noses off to spite your faces wouldn't you?
The point being that you cannot tar ramblers Scotland with the same brush
Yeah I can; leopards, spots, all that jazz. If offered the chance, the Ramblers either side of the border wouldn't hesitate to jump at the chance to restrict the rights of the cycling community regardless of current legislation.
Obviously you will not be coming up here to ride a bike ever again then?
I've never paid any attention to the legalities of the routes that I choose, regardless of what campaigning organisations would prefer me to do otherwise. I'm not going to rely on the Ramblers to fight my battles, I don't think they'd be overly reliable allies
At least half the Ramblers I know are also cyclists. Folk have been using bikes to access the hills since the dawn of time.
And?
I don't know how many different ways I need to say that the Ramblers as an organisation are not on our side.
Every day's a school day....
I'll donate a few quid as I if the landowner wins then it could set a precedent that other landowners could use to exclude walkers in other parts of Scotland. We do not want the same unsatisfactory access laws as down South.
We need to stop this bickering between walkers and cyclists.
Land access up here in Scotland is - in general - amazing! And it needs defending by everyone who enjoys being able to access the outdoors irrespective of whether they're on a bike, on foot, in a canoe etc etc!
I want my kids to experience at least the same levels of access to the outdoors as I do.
A worthy cause if I lived in or visited Scotland, as I don’t it doesn’t get a donation from me.
an organisation who’s stated policy is to restrict my access to the countryside because of the method I choose to do that?
Ramblnazis 😆
I don’t know how many different ways I need to say that the Ramblers as an organisation are not on our side.
In England! In Scotland they are!
cool, then why haven't the Ramblers, having seen how successful shared paths can be, changed their position on access in England?
nickc
Full Membercool, then why haven’t the Ramblers, having seen how successful shared paths can be, changed their position on access in England?
Because their approach in England is flawed does not preclude supporting them for an important access battle in SCotland. @nickc feel free not to contribute.
Anyone who walks or cycles in SCotland please help if you can.
Thanks, I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don't end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England enjoying the same rights you have up there.
In England! In Scotland they are!
Yep, despite being the same UK wide organisation that happens to have regional offices. Duplicitous barstewards aren't they?
It's not just England where the RA are anti shared access with cyclists. They actively campaigned against it in Wales. The only reason they put on their cycle friendly face in Scotland is because proper access laws up there are a done deal (which is great, and I AM envious). But to be fair it's a little much to expect those of us south of the border to just be pragmatic and donate to them on the OP issue when they are actively hostile to improved cycling access in England and Wales. I genuinely hope the Ardnamurchan campaign succeeds, it seems a crap state of affairs, but I won't give money to an organisation that take such a hostile, entitled and selfish view of countryside access issues in a significant part of the UK. BTW, I am also a keen hill walker and would support them if they dropped this ludicrous anti cycling stance (yeah, yeah - not in Scotland, we get it).
Edit:
Thanks, I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don’t end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England enjoying the same rights you have up there.
Bang on the money.
Hmm. Linked from website in the article above 'ramblers Scotland': www.ramblers.org.uk
Is the ramblers response to the Dartmoor national park consultation : https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2021/october/dartmoor-national-park-consulting-on-new-rules.aspx
Their full response is available as a download on that page. Surprise! No comments made on the rights of cyclists on Dartmoor that are already more restrictive than those 'enjoyed' even in England and Wales.
TL; DR the ramblers couldn't give a stuff about our access even if they don't actively oppose it.
the ramblers couldn’t give a stuff about our access even if they don’t actively oppose it.
In the Welsh consultation they did actively oppose better cycling access.
I hope any money that cyclists in Scotland give to Ramblers don’t end up supporting campaigns against cyclists in England
Maybe it's possible to donate specifically to the fund for this case, not to the organisation as a whole.
Presumably those concerned about the Ramblers ability to represent the interests of cyclists in this case are members of a body that does represent cycling, such as Cycling U.K., and have written to them encouraging them to consider joining the action?
Maybe it’s possible to donate specifically to the fund for this case, not to the organisation as a whole.
Look at it this way, Imagine your local Tory party are pinky-promising to rebuild the primary school which you'd like as it'd mean you wouldn't have to drive to the next town over each morning. But you know that along with that benefit, they'll also cut the funding for the single-mum nursery places, close the "English as a second language" course that the Polish and Romanian folks are benefiting so much from and shut the skate park, so you don't vote Tory because while you might be better off, they'll screw over hundreds of other people, right?
Same with the Ramblers in Scotland, you might be OK if you live there, but your fellow cyclists south of the border are being hammered by them every opportunity they can get.
Solidarity...(or something)
NickC have you considered joining the ramblers? It sounds like you'll fit right in*.
The English ramblers that is, the Scottish ones aren't so full of many bastards.
yes nickc - solidarity is important and in Scotland the ramblers and cyclists are the same side
so solidarity means supporting them!
so solidarity means supporting them!
Yeah, do you know for sure that money you give to Ramblers in Scotland isn't being used to fund campaigns south of the border to make sure we don't get the same rights that you enjoy? Wouldn't that be ironic?
the Scottish ones aren’t so full of many bastards
If you think for a second that the Ramblers in Scotland wouldn't jump at the chance to go back to how it was and they didn't have to share access with cyclists. I have, as they say; some magic beans....And even if that isn't the case, and they're content and surprised at how well it's all worked out; why in England and Wales do they continue to oppose it? The right thing to have done in Scotland as a cyclist in my opinion is to have said "We'd love to give you our money, but we'll hold off until you stand up for the rights of cyclists south of the border, like you do here".
No?
No
Once again you simply fail to understand the issues here as highlit by this piece of nonsense
If you think for a second that the Ramblers in Scotland wouldn’t jump at the chance to go back to how it was and they didn’t have to share access with cyclists
To go back to how it was: pre land reform act we actually had more rights but less clearly defined. Bikes and walkers have open access for centuries
Walkers and cyclists have common objectives and huge overlap between the groups here. Bikes have always been used for access to the hills
Please - don't let your parochial, blinkered and frankly wrong views lead you to make pronouncements on issues you don't understand
Please – don’t let your parochial, blinkered and frankly wrong views lead you to make pronouncements on issues you don’t understand
Thanks for your support in making the Ramblers change their views on access rights in England.
Same with the Ramblers in Scotland, you might be OK if you live there,
Access rights in Scotland aren't just for locals - we happily extend them to visitors from England, or indeed anywhere, too!
but your fellow cyclists south of the border are being hammered by them every opportunity they can get.
if that is true, have you paused for a moment to wonder why that might be the case if this is true:
they’re content and surprised at how well it’s all worked out; why in England and Wales do they continue to oppose it?
It could be that the English membership of the RA has different views from the Scottish membership (just as say the English membership of the Labour or Tory party may have different views from the Scots to use your analogy), but it could also be that there's a very different demographic - you have 10x the population in only double the area so that's a rather different number of people packed onto the same paths, which may be less workable with different speeds of user etc.
I don't actually think its an odd position for the RA to take that their no 1 priority is access for people on foot. Now if they are going as far as opposing other methods of transport then I'd be asking myself why. And I think the answer to that probably lies in a proportion of the cycling community who ride at speeds or in manners that startle or frighten ramblers, or get confrontational when ramblers ask them to moderate their riding. I can understand why RA members south of the border might be hesitant to welcome cyclists onto paths they are currently not permitted on. I don't think ebikes and full suspension have done anything to make your desire for access easier - they've just increased the number of people and range of places where conflict can arise.
To go back to your analogy with the tory party - if Douglas Ross correctly calls out the SNP on some aspect of their government, should the people of Scotland just ignore it because "he's just a tory and we know what they are like" or can we be nuanced enough to say "Douglas you've got this one point right, but don't assume I'll support you on anything else". Because those are the people who actually carry real influence - the ones who blindly support or block everything because of who is asking actually achieve little.
I think @poly explains the situation well. It only takes a few speedy nobbers to colour the view of many to suppose all bikers are like that. Sadly I sometimes think that way too and I am a biker. BUT. I'm also a walker and bikers do sometimes piss me off approaching at speed and without warning. As bikers we need to look at our own behaviour.
I'll go a bit further. I'm not totally convinced that a blanket change to allow riding on all footpaths is that desirable but there is a case for upgrading the status of many (most?).
I suspect part of the acceptance of cycling on all paths in Scotland is (along with the historical background of access to remote areas) is that most of the relevant routes in the highlands are estate tracks and/or much less used than say your average Peak District footpath.
Are they people who are so against supporting this fully committed and actively pushing for the equivalent cycling groups to argue against the Ramblers view in England?
If not, I'd suggest they stop moaning either way because if they aren't part of the solution to improve things then they are part of the problem which just helps to encourage more campaigning against...
Otherwise, enjoy the moaning but it isn't doing anything to improve things.
most of the relevant routes in the highlands are estate tracks and/or much less used than say your average Peak District footpath.
The same access laws also apply in the Pentland Hills and on the outskirts of Glasgow though, so they can work even when considering accessibility by a large population.
As regards the argument that this thread has become, I'd have thought that anyone interested in improving the lot of mountain bikers in England and Wales would want to refer to Scotland as an example of what could be achieved and that they might therefore have an (albeit long-term) interest in controlling the excesses of landowners in general. However, the next time I see any sort of petition or other campaign for improved access rights in Wales and/or England, I'll stay away from expressing my support as, you know, it's nothing to do with me.
Please can we have some input from Welsh residents/ nationals on this.
Or the ramblers could understand why they don't enjoy our support in Scotland when they're actively opposing us in the rest of the UK? As an organisation they might recognise that cyclists and ramblers have more in common but I'm not holding my breath.
'Support this action in Scotland because you want the ramblers to support you in England and Wales' and 'the ramblers in Scotland are totally different to those in England and Wales' right-o.
Fwiw cuk have chipped in on the dnp thing. Thank you for your support.
As TJ has already said, cyclists and walkers have had the same access rights to rural paths in Scotland since waaay before the LRA. It just wasn’t widely known. One benefit since the LRA is I’ve found myself explaining access rights, when challenged for riding my bike on a ‘footpath’, to far fewer self-righteous people who feel compelled to tell me how they think I shouldn’t be there. (I even had one chap have a pop at me and say I should ‘stick to bridleways’ – that was a hilarious encounter when I told him he was in the wrong country).
Anyway, to get back on point with the OP, the landowner in this case is behaving outrageously and it’s not just the one path the walkers were reported on that have locked gates – it’s tracks all over his estate. Basically he thinks he’s above the law and needs to be brought to heel and other landowners, who may be tempted to behave similarly, enlightened. I for one totally support Ramblers Scotland and have donated. Even if you don’t like the RA in other parts of the UK, that is under a different legal system and a separate issue and ultimately, in this case, surely as off-road cyclists we can go by the ancient proverb of ‘the enemy of your enemy is your friend…’
+1 on getting things back on track, as it were.
This land owner is out of order on wider issues across the estate, this one it seems both a totemic issue and is a case of 'I will make changes, and because I made changes, I can choose to end access/make access far more difficult'. That is not on and yes we should push back on a united front against them.
any update on this case?
Court case delayed at start of year to allow negotiation.
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-scotsman/20220112/281835762057375
But perhaps if no agreement reached by now court case still pending
I reported a locked gate across a bridle way a couple of months ago and reported to RW Office. Heard nothing after 3 weeks so went back and cut the lock which hasn’t reappeared. Chap may be a millionaire but cost of locks will soon mount up.
Hadn't heard of this case or seen the thread. Living in southern England it's borderline interest for me but I still fervently hope that the landowner loses; preferably expensively.
I think both sides of the "debate" here had a point - I'd rather that one or more cycling organisations had offered the RA some cash and requested/suggested something specific in terms of recognition across the UK in return*. Cyclists could've donated to that and at least been visible
*If they turned that down then I'd have said "**** 'em" too (I doubt they really need the money; surely they're minted ?)
Access in Scotland is clearly equal for all non-motorised users, so cyclists supporting the RA in this case makes sense.
When I am working to enable access I am doing it for all users.
The organisations also talk to each other. Ramblers is a large organisation and Scotways isn't - so deferring to the RA makes sense.
Note: Came across this book and have ordered myself a copy:
Scotways Guide to The Law of Access to Land in Scotland
https://scotways.com/product/law-guide-2018/
Bit parochial though, SC. The counterpoint is that RA is a UK organisation, Scottish offshoot notwithstanding and that it'd be better to put some even tiny conditions on their receipt of the support of the wider cycling lobby. Just clicking on a donations page doesn't even identify you as a biker supporting their cause - you're just a cash-source. If that's all you "want", then fine
... but unless Scottish bikers don't care about UK-wide access rights (and the fact that RA appears actively to oppose or at very best, fail to promote) then they ought to see their privileged situation for what it is
(no, I admit I'm not an active trail-access advocate ... unless ignoring stupid rules (in a very narrow and specific way) counts)
[Sorryish - I know people were trying to get back to the point before this reappeared. I don't have a massive axe to grind here but ^ that is how I see things as a "southerner"]