I noticed that a new vehicle track has been built,running south from Dalnaspidal on the west side of The Garry. It has a branch running steeply uphill, almost like a downhill MTB track. Does anyone know the purpose of this track. Is it for estate use or something to do with super pylons ?

You could try asking here:

[www.nemt.org.uk]


I can't quite picture exactly where that is in relation to the Cairngorm NP boundary, but I suspect it is south of it? If not, it may be worth getting in touch with the planning department of the national park.

[www.scomuir.com]

Thanks for your response Scomuir. This track is outwith the park boundary. Though when this is moved to Blair Atholl! In the meantime I will make further enquiries

Have always disliked the seemingly unimpeded ability of landowners to bulldoze tracks all over the place and it's good that someone is keeping an eye on this.

However, WTF are they on about on their 'Aims' page - they list their issues of concern with "inappropriate skiing development" as their number one and "Bulldozed Tracks" second to last in the list!

Have they not noticed that most Scottish ski areas are struggling and development is highly unlikely if things go on the way they are going whereas the bulldozing of tracks, often with no planning permission, continues apace!

What is it with those who purport to represent the Scottish climbing and hill walking fraternity that they seek to de-legitimise, ostracise or at best just ignore skiers (whether they be those who use mechanised uplift all the time or those who mainly tour). IMHO it's about time some of these luddites realised skiing is a far better way way of getting up and down snowfields than trudging knee deep in snow and pretending it's somehow a better way of travelling in the winter mountains. Mountain skills should include skiing and it's about time they realised that with some constructive engagement they might find some common interest with many who ski in the winter as well as use the hills and mountains at other times of the year.

Rant over ... sorry!

Roga,

I think, and this is my personal view, that you are overreacting to the listed aims.

For starters, there are 5 main aims. No where does it state that any one is of more importance to any other with regard to the NEMT. They are simply displayed on the page, and not even in a numbered list.

Secondly, the aim with respect to skiing states:

"The Trust resists inappropriate skiing development in sensitive areas, particularly where it damages landscape quality, resricts access and disturbs wildlife.".

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it does not state that it is against skiing development, just "innappropriate skiing development". There is a difference. Ski resorts should not be allowed to just be developed without control, just as bulldozed tracks should not. Whether you or I like it or not, an estate owner or ski resort owner could equally put a case for development (whether for a bulldozed track or ski lift) based upon financial survival of that particular business. I guess it depends upon what you value most from your point of view. They do not agree with the "proliferation of bulldozed hill tracks", so to criticise them in that respect seems strange to me.


Thirdly, the main aim states:

"It is a recognised charity whose main aim is to conserve the environment of the hills of north east Scotland for the benefit of the public wishing to take recreation there, both now and in the future."

That, in my view, cannot be faulted, whatever your point of view. They are basically a pressure group, and don't make policy. You could argue to a certain extent, WH acts as a pressure group at times (with regard to Cairngorm), but maybe generally not from the same standpoint!

Lastly, you describe them as "luddites", which I think is insulting, and does you a disservice. I am not a member, but broadly support their aims. You may well find that there are members, or former members who post on here.

Scott

[www.scomuir.com]

^ Hey Scott, sorry if my post annoyed you, it was a bit of a late night rant but hey once every 3 years here 'aint bad

Anyway, I'm going to defend what I said because re-reading I find myself in agreement and reading your post you appear to have misunderstood where I'm coming from.

Yup, the aims aren't numbered but why give skiing so much prominence given the likelihood of any development 'appropriate' or "inappropriate" is pretty small if not non existent?

Sorry but where did I say that ski development should happen without control? Of course it shouldn't (parts of the Alps are IMHO a disgrace) but as things stand at present it just 'aint happening so why don't they recognise that by downgrading it's prominence on that page? We all know that if there was even a whiff of ski development anywhere (inappropriate or appropriate) every mountain and conservation body in Scotland would be up in arms and working to stop it. I find it strange these bodies don't appear to exhert the same pressure when it comes to the issue of bulldozed roads and I find the list on their "Aims" page indicative, personally I think that's the more pressing issue.

I have no issue with their conservation aims I just think to give non-existent ski development such prominence may be indicative of a poor attitude towards skiers and skiing per se.

As for "luddite" methinks you are either a bit over-sensitive or I didn't put my point clearly, I was meaning to describe those climbers (of which in Scotland there appear to me far too many) who'd rather trudge "knee deep in snow and pretend... it's somehow a better way of travelling in the winter mountains" than develop any skills in skiing.

Hi Roga,

Not so much annoyed, more that I felt the need to reply. Maybe I have misunderstood your post, but I guess that we just have different viewpoints, and maybe have to agree to disagree

I know you did not say that ski development shouldn't happen without control. From your original post:

"Have they not noticed that most Scottish ski areas are struggling and development is highly unlikely if things go on the way they are going whereas the bulldozing of tracks, often with no planning permission, continues apace! "

I think they are well aware that there is a problem. In fact, if you look at the site, they are trying to establish the extent of the problem in conjunction with the NP and SNH: [www.nemt.org.uk] It would appear that this is of greater importance to them at this time, and following your logic, as there is no equvalent visible campaign regarding the ski areas, you could argue this is of less importance to them. They need to know about new tracks, so if you find one, or more, then report it. Help them rather than criticise them. I have done that myself in the past couple of weeks, and it is being looked into.

Out of curiosity, what development do you think that should go ahead, that you think organisations like this will object to? Can you say with certainty that they act more strongly in respect to ski developments compared to other issues? To be devils advocate (even more than I have been already), if "the likelyhood of any development .... is pretty small if not non existant", then why such a problem with the aim being where it is at all? They are, after all, a pressure group with a viewpoint. All pressure groups have a viewpoint. You don't agree with it, and I guess that's that. They will not be able to exert much or any influence if they do not represent a significant number of people with these aims.

I see some views on this site which are completely one sided, along the lines of "sod conservation, ski development at all costs" which do disturb me a bit, but people are entitled to their viewpoint. I am all for the improvement (environmental/uplift/snowholding) of the existing areas, but wouldn't support a move to create a new ski area, or extend an existing one beyond what is already there. More could be made of what is there already.

I could argue that you are being oversensitive to skiing being listed at the top of a list of what appear to be equal aims for the NEMT Also, many climbers and walkers are also skiers, maybe more than you think. In terms of those who "trudge knee deep in snow and pretend... it's somehow a better way of travelling in the winter mountains than develop any skills in skiing", i say, each to their own. Skiing is one form of transport in the mountains, but it is not always the best. If you are going climbing, it can be something of a pain in the *rse to have skis strapped to your rucksack, so the intended activity can dictate how you get there. In fact, when conditions are such that "trudging" is too labourious, many climbers go skiing

[www.scomuir.com]

Tracks arent just an issue in Scotland, they are becoming one where ever their are sporting estates. Details of a seminar hosted by the North Pennines AONB. It was quite an interesting day. Link below to seminar presentations.

[www.northpennines.org.uk]

No harm to NEMT, I'm sure they're mostly decent folk, who perhaps don't express their aims & priorities too perfectly, a bit like ourselves on occasion. - Probably some NEMT members among the WH membership, as noted up the page.

They do say they're "an umbrella" organisation for the climbing/walking clubs of the region. - So that's their take on things.

But they do aspire to conservation of the hills for "all", and do acknowledge the broad range of leisure that the hills can provide. - However, all good organisations can get unwittingly hijacked by members with strong views, and it skews the agenda perhaps not in line with broader membership sentiments. - I'll bet there are skiers among the members.?

But I smiled when I saw this from a letter sent by NEMT to FCS regarding Bennachie paths:- [www.nemt.org.uk]

"Finally, in case you are not aware of this, maintained paths right across the hill have led to mountain bikers using these. One of our members was met by half a dozen cyclists descending the Oxen Craig to Back O’Bennachie [Oyne] car park at speed. This obviously poses a nuisance and danger to walkers, particularly children, and the Commission may want to try to look at ways of discouraging this."

Nasty sweaty chaps in baggy shorts. - Previously The Angry Corrie highlighted the poor toilet discipline of these loutish types at Nevis.

Roga, if any comfort it's not just ski access which they want to restrict. - To be honest I don't see what's different between 6 walkers & 6 bikers, using the same prepared trail...unless you have a presumption that walking is in some way superior to other activities.

For the record I am equally guilty of all the above crimes: walking, climbing, skiing ... and biking. (with due regard of course)

From the reported reaction to a talk Bob Kinnaird gave to NEMT a couple of years ago, "inappropriate" snowsports = any in Scotland for a good number of their members and they did not take kindly to it being pointed out that CML expand more time and effort in litter removal and collect more litter on the Cairngorm Estate from OUTWITH the ski area than in it.

<sh*t stirring>

So they should be out there picking it up, as just like the snow, it blows out of the ski area

</sh*t stirring>






[www.scomuir.com]

That was fun, but back to Drumochter....

Dalnaspidal Forest & Loch Garry currently lie outside the National Park, but I think they would be inside the proposed bundary. - So CNPA wouldn't be involved yet.

A wee look at the map, and trying to guess where the track runs from post at start of thread, are you thinking it would assist foot access to upper slopes for ski touring.?

[moreshitstirring]On Friday, when I read the link that scomuir posted to the 'north east mountain trust', I had the same thought as roga too i.e. that they seem to hold the same outdated set of values that the angry corrie ranters are well known for. Our mountains are wonderful places to be enjoyed & as we've a lot of them so there should be room for most everybody and everything that doesn't kill wildlife or permanently destroy their habitat. To put opposition to skiing first on the list of campaign group aims implies an agenda that naturally I don't like.

It's the same 'not in my playground' thinkers that would oppose the planning and works to install wind turbines, hydroelectric & pump storage power schemes and beneficial forestry plantation, all of which are neccessary if roga's luddites want to continue enjoying driving to the hills in their shiny 4x4's from Inverness, Perth, Aberdeen, Edinburgh or wherever their little soapbox bases happen to be.[/moreshitstirring]

Henry, sorry to go over a previous point, but with regard to Bennachie, I have some sympathy with the sentiments expressed. Whereas I enjoy mountain biking as well, I can understand walkers having an issue with mountain bikers using the footpaths on Bennachie as downhill mtb tracks. Imagine walking up through the trees to be confronted by someone coming round a bend, hurtling down at speed. I have, and it was a close one. I can understand the appeal of these paths for fast descents, but they were put in as footpaths. It's a difficult one - I wouldn't advocate "banning" it of course, as I can see the attraction, but there maybe should be a middle ground reached.

Imagine if people decided to start walking up and down the routes at Wolftrax, for example. I very much doubt it would be tolerated at all - I know I would be annoyed

[www.scomuir.com]

Scomuir Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <sh*t stirring>
>
> So they should be out there picking it up, as just
> like the snow, it blows out of the ski area
>
> </sh*t stirring>
>

The hundreds of candles, food packaging, human waste around known snow holing areas must have been put their by skiing aliens.