Scomuir Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Roga,

Hiya

> 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

We might but let's see

> 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: 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.

Fair point, I'm just surprised that ski developments are iven such a prominent place on their Aims page when the issue is very much on hold.

> 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.

Abslolutely, I will

Can I just point out that bmy comments are really aimed at the knee jerk response by many groups in the past to proposals for ski development, not to this group in particular although I guess for the purposes of this discussion they represent, at least for me, the type of lobby that has always been against any proposals made to develop ski infrastructure.

> Out of curiosity, what development do you think
> that should go ahead, that you think organisations
> like this will object to?

I'd be interested to hear what their reaction would be if anyone took up Alan's suggestion to take a gondola up from Glenmore and close/remove the ski road and car parks. Personally I think environmentally this would be a very good move but in my observation there tends to be this knee jerk reaction from these types of groups.

Add in the idea for a detachable chair from the daylodge up Coire Cas that was discussed on Colin's CML blog last season and again I suspect there would be a great many objectors, perhaps including this group. Again I'd be inclined to support this because it would allow CML to remove much old uplift whilst still serving the same runs as well as allowing the lift to move more people faster and potentially run on more environmentally friendly fuel.

Add in snowmaking as discussed in the thread dedicated to that issue and I'd bet they'll object, don't you?

Another issue would be mountain bike racks for summer use and to allow CML another revenue stream - now would they not also object to that, particularly if the VMP was changed or scrapped as a result?

> Can you say with
> certainty that they act more strongly in respect
> to ski developments compared to other issues?

In the past y observation has been that all the bodies that object to ski development have made far more of a fuss about these as opposed to the slow creep of bulldozed tracks. The tracks issue has been going on for decades, I well remember back in the 80s whilst walking ion the Dava Moor (as I recall) being shocked by some of the tracks that had been newly bulldozed back then - my father, a seasoned walker rather than skier, was incensed by the issue but had great difficulty finding anyone who was bothered at the time.

> 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?

As I say it's more to do with the history of both issues rather than my being bothered that they mention the issue.

> 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.

Thing is I do agree with some of what they say, I think the funicular for example is an eyesore but if these groups had had a history of more constructive engagement with winter sports activities I think they might have had a better chance of influencing that development in a way which was less intrusive. However what, as I understand it (and I could be wrong so please correct me if that's the case), happened was the same old groups with a record of being anti *all* winter sports developments took a position that was all or nothing and they lost, IMHO to the detriment of us all!

> 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.

Agreed on both points.

> 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 think then we are actually agreed, would you agree with the mooted proposals I mention above for example?

Additionally do you think an organisation like the NEMT could bring itself to agree to such improvements, if improvements they be?

> 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

Yup, you could and I may well be

> Also, many
> climbers and walkers are also skiers, maybe more
> than you think.

Yes, I appreciate that's the case and it's one of the great things about the 'scene' in Scotland but I'm not sure these organisations represent this mix well enough.

> 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

Agreed but I still feel that in Scotland there's more of a 'Chinese wall' between skiers and climbers, or at least the bodies representing climbers than there needs to be. I have personally met climbers in Ullapool and elsewhere who at the mention of skiing (or for that matter mountain biking) will refuse to have any further conversation - surely indicative of something or have my experiences been one sided?

Anyway, I'll be interested to read your response to the above and hopefully what I've said is a constructive addition to the discussion

All the best

Roger

In terms of potential future developments or re-developments, rather unusually for National Planning guidelines which are usually very general, the NPPG that covers Skiing expressly supports upwards and Eastwards expansion on CairnGorm.

Scot, I know what you mean.

Most of my bike miles are on a road bike, and you have to share the road with cars who mostly don't give you the space you need. - By contrast mountain bikers have to share trails with walkers, and the walkers feel similarly agrieved. - Both situations are problematic, and part of the wider issue of sharing the world with diverse users.

I think I know the particular paths that NEMT were complaining about. It's an issue worth looking at. - BUT - What I found disappointing was their approach to problem solving... "to look at ways of discouraging this."

In other words, discourage cycling, end of story. Problem solved? - I think Ross was thinking something similar, that too often these bodies are not conserving the countryside at all, they're actually predisposed against land being used by a broad spectrum of legitimate outdoor sports.

There has to be a balanced way that diverse activities can share space on the hills, and play nicely together. - I just thought that letter by NEMT was an example of a closed mindset, lacking a positive suggestion to solve the problem without resorting to banning the other guys.

HTH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I think Ross was thinking something similar, that too often these bodies are not conserving the countryside at all, they're actually predisposed against land being used by a broad spectrum of legitimate outdoor sports.
-------------------------------------------------------

Quite right H but notice that I didn't tar the drivers of shiny 4x4's from Dundee with the hypocrite / luddite brush. I've just come back from a 20K run and of course, I welcome the forestry tracks as they allow me 3 or 4 outings per week from my doorstep, high into the hills, without having to traipse through peat hags and treacherous bogs. Without exception, the shepherds quadbike tracks to the tops create no discernible damage to the grazed heather hillsides and the proliferation of windfarms and the tracks cut out to build them are part of the solution we need to sustain the 1st world lifestyle and leisure pursuits we want.

If any campaign group takes a stance to oppose any development that involves construction work or human traffic in the hills i.e. skiing, mountain biking, wind farm, hydro, forestry and agriculture developments then they are totally pointless.

I'm just off to go trout fishing in a high hill loch accessed by a stone path built and maintained by NTS. It's a bit of an eyesore for the passing tourists on the road but when you're climbing up it, 1,500 foot above the tarmac, you really don't care what the motorists think and you know the foot traffic damage is mostly confined to dead, hard rock.

I ride a road bike and hate motorists
I ride a mountain bike and hate walkers (especially those with dugs)
I walk in the hills and forests and hate cyclists
I drive a big (not usually shiny) 4x4 and hate cyclists
I ski and hate climbers
I (very much novice/junior) climb and hate skiers

you pays yer money you make yer choice

have noticed those tracks along by the dual carriageway the last few times I passed, i just assumed it was an estate track but who knows

always a tricky / complicated subject this, have been disappointed in the past to find myself on the end of attempted ridicule from so called experts or purists or eco-types while ski touring and biking - they do usually see the less attractive side of me in repsonse though!

Not aiming last paragraph at this NEMT group at all - never heard of them in fact - I'm all for protecting our amazing wilderness - I spent an hour watching the comings and goings at my favourite nearby osprey nest (through the bins from a responsible distance, and will never divulge the location ) at the weekend.

We're all very lucky to live, work, play here, we need to respect and protect it (in every way incl economically), and I dont and wont tolerate anyone pulling me up and telling me I shouldnt be out there!


Barry

alan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

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

These lightweight candles must have blown in from the ski area, as no self respecting mountaineer wanders about the hills with candles. Food packaging, obviously lighweight and carried by the wind from the ski area. As for the human waste, there's frequently sh*t flying regarding CGM, so that's conclusive

Seriously, I agree, it's shocking how much waste is left, often by organised groups on courses. They were happy to carry it in, so it should be carried out (and indeed, the cairngorm "poo" project allows you to do just that!). There's no excuse for the mess, whatever your background/chosen activity.



[www.scomuir.com]

HTH Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> There has to be a balanced way that diverse
> activities can share space on the hills, and play
> nicely together. - I just thought that letter by
> NEMT was an example of a closed mindset, lacking a
> positive suggestion to solve the problem without
> resorting to banning the other guys.

I am finding that I am to a degree, defending an organisation that I have had no dealings with! <devils advocate>Having looked at that letter, it could be interpreted that she was indicating that the descent at speed should be discouraged, rather than the banning of cyclists, full stop. </devils advocate>. That said, I would imagine she did mean that she wanted to discourage cyclists. Discourage, and ban, are different things though...

Thing is, you have 2 users groups there which essentially are moving at significantly different speeds. One relatively slowly (up or down), and one at speed on the downhill, cos lets face it, the faster the more fun. The faster the biker is going, the more likely there is going to be an incident. As far as I am aware (and I could be wrong), they were put in as footpaths. I am not sure what you would do as a compromise/positive solution. What would you do? Take away the speed of the downhill mountainbikers, which (probably) is the critical factor, and they will feel restricted. I guess discussion with all concerned groups would be the way forward.

It is an interesting topic on it's own. As the paths are improved in many parts of the country, they are seeing more mountain bike use (for example, the path from the head of the Fairy Glen towards the Sneck on Beinn a'Bhuird/Ben Avon). As the paths have been improved for walkers, it has created more conflict with another set of hill users who are exploiting the new surface. This is on top of more dedicated areas for mountain biking (such as Wolftrax, as I mentioned earlier). As I also said at the time, it would be interesting to see the reaction if some walkers decided that the red or black runs there would make good walks. I am almost certain the reaction from mountain bikers would be to seek to prevent people from walking on the downhill tracks, arguing that it would be dangerous, amongst other things. This situaiton, as far as I am aware, has not happened, but I hope you see the point I am trying to make with it.





[www.scomuir.com]

moffatross Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

If there are luddites then surely:
1. They wouldn't be able to afford 4x4's, and
2. They shouldn't want them anyway, prefering a horse and cart, for example.



I think the NEMT appear to generally support renewable energy to a degree, given the number of links to wind farm sites on their website. I would imagine there are caveats, but that is the impression I get...




[www.scomuir.com]

I'd be interested, Cremrow, in knowing map references for the start and finish of the track, to add to a report I have compiled on vehicle hill tracks in northern Scotland. I began noting vehicle tracks and footpaths in the early 1970s, and in the early 80s was asked by Grampian Regional Council's Planning Department to compile maps of the tracks in the GRC area. I also noted tracks in nearby parts of Highland Regional Council's area and Tayside Regional Council's. This formed the basis for a technical paper on the tracks, published in the Journal of Environmental Management in 1985. Since then I have continued to note new tracks. The NEMT are considering issuing my report. Entirely factual, it covers not just the numbers, locations and lengths of different types of track, but also issues of good track construction and sound ground reinstatement, two important aspects which are generally neglected by landowners and contractors, and are poorly understood by SNH to judge from SNH's recent handbook on tracks.

roga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have always disliked the seemingly unimpeded
> ability of landowners to bulldoze tracks all over
> the place


We received a letter from the Highland Council's Director of Planning and Development about the same issue in 2006, having enquired about a similar but different matter (in relation to a horrendous hilltrack that was some 10-12m in width up the side of Carn na Saobhaidhe). I can tell you that the upshot of the correspondence was:

1. The estate did not require planning permission because they had built the track to support their farming and sporting departments. The track is a "Permitted Development" under Part 6 Class 18 (1) of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 as amended.

2. The Planning Authority has no control over a development once it has "Permitted Development" status (see above).

It was clear that as the rules stood then, there was no protection for the landscape from the creation of crude bulldozed tracks. I know in late 2006 the Scottish Executive began reviewing the General Permitted Development Order, though I don't know if there is a new Order that addresses the issue in question - anybody know? I would hope that any new Order would have more stringent criteria for approval of upland tracks with certain requirements in place. For example, for them to be built appropriate to their approved purpose and engineered to proper standards. There should also be the sanction of required re-instatement of terrain where approval conditions are not met.

There may or may not be an issue over whether this particular track at Drumochter was built for the permitted purposes or whether these were a cover for some other objective. However, from fleeting glances in its general direction while driving up and down the A9 it certainly seems to be questionable as to whether or not it was constructed to any form of decent standard. Haven't had a close look though - there is only so long you can glance for when driving without creating a different and altogether more serious situation

If anybody is aware of any relevant amendments that might have been made to the General Permitted Development Order then it'd be interesting to know.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 23.04hrs Tue 7 Jul 09 by Jamie.

I'll try to get down there later this week for a closer inspection. Like Jamie I was driving up and down the A9

As a side note (unrelated to the Drumochter track) - partly for Chionophile's interest for his report on vehicle tracks, though I am sure he is already well aware of this particular one. Here is a photograph of the Carn na Saobhaidhe hilltrack (Dunmaglass estate):



The bulldozed track ends within 30 metres of the summit cairn. The track starts in the north, apparently connected to the network of tracks servicing the big wind turbine on Carn Crom-gleann. After continuing southwards it forks, with one fork continuing to the upper slopes of Carn Mhic Iamhair, and the other towards the summit of Carn na Saobhaidhe.

Measurements done in 2004 revealed it to be 10-12m wide (including drains). The track itself some 8m wide. The way it was constructed is so that the 'surface' of the track is ~3m beneath the surface of the surrounding hillside. It is impossible to show the scale from photographs.

Dunmaglass estate have said that the track was made between 2002 and 2003 to support their farming and sporting activities, and this exempted them from planning permission. So quite why was the scale of the track quite inappropriate to its purpose?

But another player was Renewable Energy Systems (RES) which apparently was to be submitting a revised application to the Scottish Executive for a windfarm - on Dunmaglass. RES deny any involvement in the Dunmaglass track.

If the track was infact for the proposed wind farm development, rather than sporting activities, then it would of course have required planning permission. If this was infact the case, then it would highlight the many failings of the planning system with regard to these bulldozed hilltracks.

I haven't heard anything about this for a couple of years - again I'd be interested in hearing from anybody that might be better informed than I.



Edited 4 times. Last edit at 14.40hrs Wed 8 Jul 09 by Jamie.

roga Wrote:
> Fair point, I'm just surprised that ski
> developments are iven such a prominent place on
> their Aims page when the issue is very much on
> hold.

I seem to be innadvertantly defending an organisation I have had no dealings with (other than send one email), and my responses are based upon my interpretation of the website as I see it. Skiing is first in the list displayed on that page, and naturally, a skier is going to see that and I can see how it would be an issue. I don't know whether it is their top priority or not - they would need to respond directly to that one.

It may well be that they do view any skiing developments as "inappropriate" - I don't honestly know the answer to that. They are principally coming from a mountaineering & hillwalking perspective, so yes, maybe it something that they are against with no compromise. I have no problem with an organisation who can back up their objections with sound rational behind it, and if they can do that, then fair enough. It will then add to a more rounded discussion when presumably other pressure groups from a different viewpoint also submit their positions.

Is there a separate pressure group for Scottish skiing developments, or am I typing a response on it?



> > 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.
>
> Abslolutely, I will

If they are in, for example, a national park, then contact the planning section of the NP.

>
> Can I just point out that bmy comments are really
> aimed at the knee jerk response by many groups in
> the past to proposals for ski development, not to
> this group in particular although I guess for the
> purposes of this discussion they represent, at
> least for me, the type of lobby that has always
> been against any proposals made to develop ski
> infrastructure.

As I said, if they have valid, rational reasons to support objections that stand up to scrutiny, then fair enough. If they (or any other equivalent organisation) just say they don't like it and that's that, they won't get very far.

> I'd be interested to hear what their reaction
> would be if anyone took up Alan's suggestion to
> take a gondola up from Glenmore and close/remove
> the ski road and car parks. Personally I think
> environmentally this would be a very good move but
> in my observation there tends to be this knee jerk
> reaction from these types of groups.
>
> Add in the idea for a detachable chair from the
> daylodge up Coire Cas that was discussed on
> Colin's CML blog last season and again I suspect
> there would be a great many objectors, perhaps
> including this group. Again I'd be inclined to
> support this because it would allow CML to remove
> much old uplift whilst still serving the same runs
> as well as allowing the lift to move more people
> faster and potentially run on more environmentally
> friendly fuel.

Both sound interesting ideas. I am all for making the existing areas more efficient, and to remove some of the older lifts. The idea of closing the ski road would be interesting, as this would impact walkers and climbers considerably. Sneachda and Lochain are 2 of the most popular winter climbing areas in the country, particularly due to the ease of access. Closing the ski road would have the effect of reducing numbers to these areas, and as a result, reducing the impact of these people. The more effort required to walk up will simply mean less numbers making it into the hills, assuming that the gondola wouldn't always be running when walkers/climbers wanted it to.

As to what NEMT, or similar organisations would be, I can't speak for them. They may well object, they might support to a degree given the change in visitor dynamics? Who knows. Maybe you should ask them?


>
> Add in snowmaking as discussed in the thread
> dedicated to that issue and I'd bet they'll
> object, don't you?

As above, maybe you should ask them? I suspect they would, as snowmaking requires a considerable amount of water and energy, as I understand it.

>
> Another issue would be mountain bike racks for
> summer use and to allow CML another revenue stream
> - now would they not also object to that,
> particularly if the VMP was changed or scrapped as
> a result?

Mountain biking on existing, or carefully constructed routes would be fine by me, provided it didn't lead to people cycling on the plateau. As to NEMT response, see above


>
> > Can you say with
> > certainty that they act more strongly in
> respect
> > to ski developments compared to other
> issues?
>
> In the past y observation has been that all the
> bodies that object to ski development have made
> far more of a fuss about these as opposed to the
> slow creep of bulldozed tracks. The tracks issue
> has been going on for decades, I well remember
> back in the 80s whilst walking ion the Dava Moor
> (as I recall) being shocked by some of the tracks
> that had been newly bulldozed back then - my
> father, a seasoned walker rather than skier, was
> incensed by the issue but had great difficulty
> finding anyone who was bothered at the time.

The tracks issue is a difficult one. I don't know how long it actually takes to bulldoze a new one per km, but I imagine that a track can be created quite quickly, and without being spotted in a relatively remote spot. The tracks I have pointed the CNP & NEMT to are in the Cairngorms. One is marked as a path on the OS map, and is now a fresh landrover track. Don't know what the outcome will be - they may have permission for it (doubtful), but we will see.

As for the Dava Moor issue you mention with your father, it appears that the NEMT was formed to deal with issues such as this, so whereas the problem has been ongoing, it surely should be a good thing that you should be able to find someone who is "bothered" these days.

>
> Thing is I do agree with some of what they say, I
> think the funicular for example is an eyesore but
> if these groups had had a history of more
> constructive engagement with winter sports
> activities I think they might have had a better
> chance of influencing that development in a way
> which was less intrusive. However what, as I
> understand it (and I could be wrong so please
> correct me if that's the case), happened was the
> same old groups with a record of being anti *all*
> winter sports developments took a position that
> was all or nothing and they lost, IMHO to the
> detriment of us all!

You may well be right - i don't know if that was the case.
>
> > 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 think then we are actually agreed, would you
> agree with the mooted proposals I mention above
> for example?
>
> Additionally do you think an organisation like the
> NEMT could bring itself to agree to such
> improvements, if improvements they be?

I don't know, as i've said above, you should ask them...

>
> Agreed but I still feel that in Scotland there's
> more of a 'Chinese wall' between skiers and
> climbers, or at least the bodies representing
> climbers than there needs to be.



I have personally
> met climbers in Ullapool and elsewhere who at the
> mention of skiing (or for that matter mountain
> biking) will refuse to have any further
> conversation - surely indicative of something or
> have my experiences been one sided?
>

Talk to me about the merits of golf courses on SSSI sand dunes, and you'll get a similar reaction from me

I can't really comment on your discussions with those climbers (in Ullapool of all places - how did you get round to discussing skiing, and what caused the end of the conversation?). People who don't participate in other activities naturally will have some difficulty understanding the viewpoint of others. Maybe those in favour of ski developments should try to adapt their proposals to become more favourable to other groups where there is a potential conflict, along the lines of what you were suggesting the opposition groups to the funicular should have done?

I know more climbers who ski and/or board, than I know climbers who don't ski/board. There is a huge overlap, particularly with winter climbers. The majority of this subset of people will have learned to ski at a ski resort, whether here or abroad, so I would hope that in general they have a reasonably balanced viewpoint. Some are going to be anti skiing. I would hazard a guess that hillwalkers who are not climbers are more likely to object to the ski centres. This is partially based upon the fact that some climbers actively benefit from some of the ski infrastructure (the gondola and chairlifts at Aonach Mor, for example).


So, in summary (as i've finished my beer and I need my beauty sleep), we appear to agree on some things after all!

cheers,

Scott


[www.scomuir.com]

Thanks, Cremrow, for offering to check exactly where the Garry track is, and to Jamie for his post on the track in the northern Monadh Liath. I did know about the latter, for it was the subject of an article in Scottish Wild Land News, but your comments are very useful, and with your permission I would like to incorporate some of them in my report. Your photograph of the track would deserve a star in a book of photographs of the ugly aspects of the Highlands, along with clear-felling by forwarder machines, and ploughing of thick peat for tree-planting! I am not joking, because I and others are considering the need for such a book and taking photographs for it. You and Roga are right to criticise the unfair state that Town & Country Planning is in, and has been in for decades, over vehicle hill tracks. Aberdeenshire Council is the only one, as far as I know, that has a policy on such tracks, a legacy result from a far-sighted senior planner in Grampian Regional Council's days, who asked me to survey the tracks and make maps of them. Even AC with its policy, however, has failed to take effective enforcement action over some of the worst recent cases, all of which had been unauthorised engineering operations without planning applications. I wrote to Scotland's Chief Planner Jim Mackinnon about the problems, and told him about the compilation of my factual report. He replied sympathetically, recognised my technical arguments on the need for better standards of location control, construction techniques and ground reinstatement, and stated that this issue and others were under consideration in the preparation of the forthcoming major review of Scottish planning, which they call the Planning "Framework" (sadly, another meaningless buzzword). We shall see, when it finally comes out later this summer. Will it continue to defer to big landowners' interests in tracks for game shooting and to avoid controls of change in use for forestry and agriculture, or will it bring all these into the same principles as development control for a new house or a new ski facility? We shall see.
Adam

Funnily enough, Adam, the article you saw in Scottish Wild Land News about the Monadh Liath track was written by my father. Given the size of the track he wondered if elephant hunting was the 'sporting activity' the estate was involved with!

The photo I included above isn't mine (or his) as I didn't have any of our own pictures to hand when I posted my above message, but I do have plenty photos that my father took from the same position (such as appeared in the SWLN) as well as from other positions, that you would be welcome to have if you would like.

You'd also be welcome to incorporate any of my words into your report.

Jamie