Friends of the Ochils member Stuart Dean is concerned about the recent proliferation of access barriers in the eastern Ochils.
The eastern area of the Ochils, lying behind the village of Muckhart and stretching across to the Frandy Burn and beyond, contains some delightful walking country. It is the lungs of those who live in the Muckhart / Glen Devon area, and no doubt of many others as well. The hills are compact and can be walked in shorter timescales than their higher neighbours. They are held in special affection by local people, some of whom have walked them many hundreds of times. Changes to these hills are coming about, however, as a result of the activities of the Woodland Trust Scotland (WTS).
As previously reported in this newsletter, the WTS has already purchased land in the Glen Sherup / Glen Quey areas, and the planting of trees has begun there along with the erection of deer fencing. The next WTS project is the Geordie's Wood scheme that covers the land between Muckhart and Glen Quey and encompasses the attractive Seamab Hill. A scoping meeting for the project was held in January 2003 and an environmental statement (ES) was published in December 2003. Responses to the ES were made by a number of organisations and individuals and these were considered by the Forestry Commission (FC), who took the decision in March of this year to "approve the Woodland Grant Scheme and provide consent [for the Geordie's Wood project] under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations."
The key issue that has emerged during the consultation process is the use of deer fencing to control deer browsing on young trees. I, and others, do not believe it is acceptable or necessary to ring-fence the woodland with seven-foot-high fencing in order to protect the trees from deer. The FC took advice from the Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS), which has concluded that "...the woodland will be difficult to establish without deer fencing." The DCS based this conclusion on the observation that "...the habitat in the vicinity [of Geordie's Wood] is ideal roe deer cover and therefore likely to sustain significant populations".
However, all parties to the Geordie's Wood development regard deer fencing as the most negative aspect of the scheme. The ES itself states that "a deer fence is an impediment to access" and that "deer fences can be visually intrusive". It also recognises that "deer fences are known to be a significant cause of deaths [of black grouse] due to fence strikes". Yet, based on the advice of the DCS, the Geordie's Wood scheme has been approved by the FC on the assumption that there is no alternative to fencing.
I want to emphasise the negative impact of fencing on the freedom to roam. I go into the hills to experience a sense of openness and freedom, and I don't want that sense to be curtailed by deer fencing. Already, if I walk up Innerdownie towards Whitewisp, I am constrained by fencing erected by the WTS. These fences have seriously damaged one of the great pleasures of walking in the Ochils - namely the ability to wander freely across the hillside without restriction. This ability to move without constraint is the very embodiment of the freedom to roam that lies at the heart of the recent access legislation.
And I would not accept that the creation of footpaths within a fenced area, and with gates and stiles in the fencing, is an acceptable alternative to the loss of the freedom to roam. Of course footpaths often develop in the hills by the persistent use of a particular route, and I may well use such paths. But I also want to have the freedom to move into untracked country at will without the constraints of unnecessary deer fencing.
The WTS accepts that fencing can be visually intrusive, but the visual impact of fencing is not limited to the wire itself. Even if trees are not planted right up to the fence line, a visual linear boundary will result along the fence line because of the contrasting vegetation on either side of the fence. This concern is emphasised in an article by Nick Kempe, ex-president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, in the December 2003 edition of the MCofS magazine The Scottish Mountaineer. Kempe argues that "fencing [...] indirectly affects landscape because it creates differentials in vegetation growth/type. This particularly happens where fencing is used to keep out grazing animals so that land inside regenerates while the outside does not."
An example of this will be on Seamab Hill where the proposed deer fence will go straight up the face following the boundary of the WTS-owned land. The fencing will seriously damage a particularly attractive aspect of the Muckhart landscape.
So where do we go from here? Let me stress that I am not arguing against the planting of trees in the Ochils. Planted appropriately, trees can enhance the beauty of the countryside, including upland areas. However, I do believe that further discussion is required on the methods and extent of the planting employed by the WTS. If they are not careful, the methods they use across wide stretches of open country in the eastern Ochils will contribute to the "industrial salami" discussed by David Gordon in Newsletter 23.
I would argue that it is not good practice for the WTS to plant so extensively with an almost blanket covering of trees, in some areas almost up to the skyline. I am sure that in years to come a much more natural distribution of trees along gully lines and streams would give a far more pleasing result than that achieved by the existing WTS methods. Furthermore, such sensitive planting could be replicated across the Ochils without the WTS having to purchase wide tracts of open country. But let me leave the debate about planting methods to others to pursue further, and concentrate instead on the fencing.
The central issue to be resolved is how tree growth can be encouraged without having to resort to deer fencing. I believe that this can be done with the support and cooperation of key organisations, and at the heart of the process is an effective deer management strategy. Otherwise, our countryside is going to be criss-crossed by miles of deer fencing every time trees are planted. As Dave Morris, director of the Ramblers' Association Scotland says, "If we cannot manage deer effectively in the Ochils, a range surrounded by land under intensive agriculture, then where can we manage them? If deer are so out of control in the Ochils that the endless proliferation of deer fencing is inevitable then it is imperative that effective deer management is put into effect without delay. Once this has been undertaken then new planting and regeneration can proceed without fencing and those fences which have been erected already can be removed."
The DCS has the key responsibility in establishing a deer management strategy that makes it unnecessary to erect deer fences. However, to date, they have not gone nearly far enough in dealing with the deer problem in the Ochils. All that they seem to have done is to advise that "the woodland will be difficult to establish without deer fencing". Of course, having given that advice, it is understandable that it has been accepted by the WTS and the FC. Not to do so would compromise the funding regimes on which the WTS relies. However, the DCS should take a lead on the Ochils deer problem and propose a far wider range of options than those based on fencing. These options can then be presented to all interested parties for debate and discussion. Morris again argues that "the DCS has a crucial role to play and it should be possible for them, using the powers available to them under existing legislation, to achieve the necessary control".
Only the parties concerned with the WTS schemes in the eastern Ochils know why such a narrow and blinkered view has been taken of the deer problem in this area. The DCS has considered all options elsewhere so there is no reason why the same cannot be done with Geordie's Wood, along with the Glen Quey and Glen Sherup schemes. And although the FC has decided to give its formal approval to the Geordie's Wood project, it is not too late for a rethink. We must continue to challenge the decision to erect miles of deer fencing around the WTS schemes. The decision can be reversed and it is not too much to ask that it is.
It is not for me to detail an effective deer management strategy in this article - there are others in the DCS far more capable of carrying out such a task. However, as a walker who spends many hours in the eastern Ochils, I would make the plea for a strategy to be put in place that avoids the use of deer fencing.
(Stuart Dean can be contacted direct at spdean@lineone.net and would be interested to receive feedback.)
Do you have opinions on fencing, access or indeed any of the subjects raised in this edition of the newsletter? Then feel encouraged to write something by way of response for the autumn edition. Address:
Friends of the Ochils, 3 Ferry Orchard, Cambuskenneth, Stirling, FK9 5ND, or Dave.Hewitt@dial.pipex.com