I think I might be forgiven for believing that your spring issue's principal article, written by Rennie McOwan, was a deliberate attempt to infuriate those landowners who are members of your Association. Certainly you have succeeded with this one!
My understanding when I joined Friends of the Ochils as a Life Member was that it was non-political, or at least neutral on such matters. I have now been thoroughly disabused of this notion, and shall be resigning my membership unless you are able entirely to mollify my fury and to justify inclusion of such an unfortunate and anti-landowning article. Who does Mr McOwan think pays for the upkeep of the countryside through which he walks "of right", creates the paths and keeps them clear of litter, tends the woodlands, etc? Perhaps Friends of the Ochils believe that they do, as tax-payers - but they don't!
From an antagonistic and incorrect title - it is not "your land", nor is it "your law" - to a self-justifying and conceited summing up - "a lot of us have worked very hard [...] and some tears and some gloating are understandable" - the whole tone of this article was calculated to upset all landowners, whether Liberal or otherwise in their approach to access. My concerns about the motives behind the writer's prose are only increased when I see the repeated use of the word "rights", reference to "daft suggestions by some landowners", and the foolish and childish description of the House of Lords. Of course there have never been "daft demands" made by walkers, nor damage caused by them! - and, whatever one's views about fox hunting, what have they to do with the Land Reform Bill and the Ochils?
The article is biased, ill-considered and almost rabble-rousing and I believe that whoever chose to publish it - you perhaps? - should be considering his or her position. I also believe that any letters such as mine which you may receive should be published in your next issue. Mr McOwan's views should not be allowed to pass unremarked, though I should add that I have no intention or desire to enter a debate with him or anybody else who holds similar, extreme views. We at Cloan have always welcomed walkers on to our land - despite the litter which so many of them leave behind - and will continue to do so, provided that they treat our property with decency and respect, are sensible about where and when they walk, and in all ways abide by the Scottish Natural Heritage Access Code, once it is agreed.
Yours, etc,
Richard Haldane
Cloan Estate Trust
Cloan, Auchterarder
Thank you for Newsletter 22, received and read with my usual interest, appreciating all that is achieved for members by a few active office bearers. I am however unhappy with the tone of the leading article by Rennie McOwan. Of course we all rejoice that Responsible Access has been clarified for all concerned participants and are aware of the intense work that has gone into the Bill over many years. It is hoped that all potential users of the countryside will make considered response to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code now out to the public for comment.
The crowing tone adopted for the article ill represents the Friends. A more becoming role may be to join the educational needs of participants, already a huge task for all the recreational groups.
Credit to the many land providers who have cooperated with land users all over Scotland for many years, often at their own expense, would seem appropriate. Reading articles in the newsletter on walking in the Ochils over the years does not give the impression of restriction, rather the reverse!
May I also take issue with the term "freedom to roam". Perhaps it could now be acknowledged that this has caused more genuine concern amongst all grades of land providers than any other single factor in the debate. Is it a legal term, and is it to continue in use, creating such deep unease?
Another point not mentioned in the article is the conflict between legal access and the Scottish Executive's biosecurity code protecting Scotland's livestock, issued to various bodies including Scottish farmers and Scottish outdoor access interests in November 2002. Perhaps we could have an article on this in the next newsletter, from SEERAD?
Yes, there will be tears, but let's hope no (greedy) gloating, more an understanding of where we all stand in relation to the use of an incomparable countryside.
Yours sincerely,
Prue Kennard
Coul, Auchterarder
What do others think about this or any Ochils-related matter? Write to the newsletter at -
3 Ferry Orchard
Cambuskenneth
Stirling FK9 5ND
Dave.Hewitt@dial.pipex.com