It was a pleasure to read Alan Cameron's letter about access in the last issue of the Friends newsletter, because it is important we have a lively and constructive dialogue about these issues. Additionally, Alan was a founder member and the first treasurer of the Friends and his colleagues (including myself) owe him a great deal for good sense and effective stewardship. However, he misrepresents my views on access.
Responsible freedom to roam has always brought duties with it. It means understanding and respecting people who earn their living from or on the land. It means co-existence. It means being a guardian of the countryside. It means being a protector of wildlife. It means respecting legitimate privacy and causing no harm.
At the same time we rejoice, of course, in the new legislation because it will underpin our right to responsible access in appropriate terrain. In my view, this right has always been there in the Scottish folk tradition and is, therefore, a fact.
At the same time, the Access Code and the new discussion structures should provide a framework to solve local difficulties. There will, of course, be isolated problems and instances of bad behaviour by owners and walkers and this will be particularly true of the early stages, but all can be solved by goodwill and discussion.
I believe passionately in responsible freedom to roam and in outdoor education.
It has fallen to me to take schoolchildren, youth groups and approved-school boys on to the hills and to teach hillcraft and good behaviour. I have been invited to three conferences of the former Scottish Landowners' Federation to speak about access and was invited to represent hillwalkers and mountaineers on the (former) Red Deer Commission. I mention this because Alan's letter misrepresents me.
Alan praises the tone of the Access Concordat drawn up a few years ago, but the Concordat had a limited timespan and only applied to the high ground. Because of my activities in the access field, I was invited to "receive" the Concordat on behalf of national outdoor organisations when it was officially launched at Scottish National Heritage's centre at Battleby, and when it came to my turn to speak I emphasised the right of people to responsibly roam in the outdoors and the need to co-exist with rural communities.
I'm sorry Alan and Richard Haldane (see Newsletter 23) did not like my article. Personally, I thought it was on the mild side and I stick by every word. I hope I may have the pleasure of constructive discussion with both men in future because that is the best way forward, and it is good that the Friends of the Ochils is there to provide a platform.
Yours,
Dr Rennie McOwan, Stirling
Agree with this? Annoyed by it? Or any Ochiline thoughts generally? Then write to: Friends of the Ochils, 3 Ferry Orchard, Cambuskenneth, Stirling FK9 5ND