I'm sure that this must have been mentioned on this forum before, but I can't find it so here it is again:

"There is concern about the increasing number of constructed hill tracks, intruding into wild landscape and damaging our natural environment.

Currently, the construction of hill tracks do not require planning permission as long as the tracks are claimed to be constructed for land management purposes such as agriculture and forestry.


There are no restrictions of hill track constructions at different altitudes, no clear definition of maintenance i.e., upgrading / change of use from footpaths, no baseline map against which to assess claimed repair as opposed to construction and no penalties if the regulations are not followed."

hilltrackscampaign

Sign the petition

You'll be asked to make a donation via PayPal, it's not clear but you don't have to do this.

Thanks JH. See my comments on my blog for some thoughts on why not more hillwalkers have yet signed up to this.

Link to Cameron's blog article

Why haven't people responded to the petition? Maybe it needs a bit of PR behind it. Find somebody who everybody recognises as the face of hillwalking in Scotland and get him to publicise it, and with all due respect, that doesn't mean hiding it away on the TGO Cameron McNeish blog.

I wonder how many people have read your TGO blog article? I'm afraid I didn't, although I do look at the blogs every couple of weeks. I wonder how many people will read this thread? (Of course, I have no idea.)

But this illustrates exactly what I've been saying elsewhere - it's better to put the blog articles on the forum. One of the big advantages of the web over the printed word is the ability to discuss and interact, and if you look at the number of feedback comments you've got on the blog this just isn't happening. I can understand that after a life in printed word journalism you might be more comfortable with this, and the feedback comments you get might not always be welcome (cough, cough), but the disruptive technology isn't the web as such, it's the interactivity of the web. IMO it isn't a case of putting an article on the web instead of the magazine, it's a case of starting a discussion instead of telling us something.

Having said all that I know nothing about journalism so am probably talking a load of ********.

More generally I'd say the take up of petitions is never very great, partly because what you or I might think is very important isn't necessarily very important to others, but also because even if people do think it's important, generally they're averse to taking any sort of action. People are much more likely to sign as the numbers who have already signed increases, which is where the PR is needed......

Would you mind if I cut and pasted your blog article onto this forum thread?

John

We ran the story of the Hill tracks petition on March 1st and March 11th on this website as news stories. I've also blogged about why I think people haven't responded. We don't, generally, run every news story we cover as a forum thread as well. For the website to run as a complete entity I'd expect people to pick up from the news story and comment on it on the Forum, but perhaps this wasn't a story that particularly appealed to our users. I agree with you JH that sometimes petitions can be more of an embarrassment than a success, although I believe the numbers for this one are picking up a little now. Having said that, when we have to run stories about hillwalkers not being very enthusiastic about signing a particular petition I wonder what kind of message that sends to the government.
My own feeling is that this hasn't quite been handled the best way. I think it might have been better if the MCofS set up the petition rather than leave it to a couple of politicians with a political agenda. I have to confess that I was fairly reluctant to sign it, on the basis that one of the politicians has a very poor track record when it comes to looking after wild land.

Fair point. I usually come straight to the forum.

I'm sure anyone who sees the cover of the latest Scottish Wild Land Group News will be signing the petition straightaway!
It features a photo taken on the Corriegarth Estate near Foyers - absolutely horrendous.

Well, this has moved on somewhat in that 2100+ signatures are on the petition and a date for a debate in the Scottish Parliament has been set for, I believe, within the first 10 days of June, 2010.

This is the motion on the Scottish Parliament web site, look for:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/motionsAndAmendments/motions.htm

S3M-6227# Peter Peacock: Hill Tracks in the Scottish Uplands—That the Parliament notes with concern the number of engineered hill tracks appearing in the Scottish uplands, particularly in the Highlands; notes that such tracks can be constructed without planning consent when justified as being for agricultural, forestry or repair purposes; further notes the growing number of concerns from hill walkers, ramblers and mountaineers and members of the wider public about the intrusion of these tracks into the natural landscape and the impact on otherwise wild land; considers that, given the importance of the Scottish uplands for current and future generations, this warrants greater scrutiny of proposals for such tracks within the planning system; recognises the legitimate rights of farmers and crofters to continue to construct tracks for their purposes on what will generally be lower-lying land than considered to be a problem in this context; notes that Heriot-Watt University reported on these issues in March 2007, and would welcome the urgent mapping of tracks by reviewing current knowledge of track location and control provisions and consideration of future possibilities for greater control of developing hill tracks and the criteria under which any greater controls might operate.

Supported by: Jackie Baillie, Dr Richard Simpson, Hugh Henry, Karen Gillon, Des McNulty, Rhoda Grant, Robin Harper, David Stewart, Sarah Boyack, Patricia Ferguson, Lewis Macdonald, Mr Frank McAveety, Trish Godman, Helen Eadie, Mary Mulligan, Elaine Murray, Hugh O’Donnell, Ken Macintosh, Gil Paterson, David Whitton, Rhona Brankin

UHMMMM ! - where is the prominent SNP support for this ? It has not been in the news as far as I can see.

I hope what transpires is:
1. planning becomes required, with planning fees related to
a. total length of the constructed hill track &
b. extra charged for every part-kilometer visible from a public place, and
2. a burden is placed on the developer/land owner to deposit prior to development a restitution fee, meaning
3. a time-limited approval will be granted in all cases after which restitution will be required.

There is STILL TIME. Ask every compatriot to sign this petition and to comment on every blog.

Phil,
Ardgay

Dear friends

We thought we should give you some feedback on the debate on the Hill Tracks campaign which took place in Parliament last week (9th June). We hope you may have been able to watch it online.

We were very pleased to be able to bring this important debate to the Parliament and believe that there were many constructive contributions made from MSPs across the chamber. We were however a bit disappointed with the Minister's response. While there was a recognition about the importance of the issue, what was disappointing was that there was still no specific timescale given for the Government to carry out a review of Permitted Development Rights that would relate to Hill Tracks.

We believe that the Scottish Government should be acting a bit more urgently on this and to bring the development of these tracks under the public scrutiny of the planning system. Hill Tracks for Wind farms and Telecommunications masts rightly need to go through open public scrutiny and this should be the case for all new tracks in our upland areas.

Scotland’s wild land is a precious asset and in need of greater protection into future generations. Please be assured that we will continue to push this issue until a satisfactory conclusion is reached.

Thank you again for your support for the e petition and for those of you who wrote to your MSPs about the issue. We know from feedback from colleagues that this issue has registered with Parliamentarians in a way that was not apparent before the e petition and debate, and that can only be for the good in seeking a development in policy, and due to your efforts.

If you want to access the full transcript of the short debate you can do so at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReports/meetingsParliament/or-10/sor0609-02.htm#Col27125.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Peacock MSP Sarah Boyack MSP

So that was the debate, and where do we go from here? I hope the debate was not the end in itself!

Cameron makes a good point about the rather low percentage of hillwalkers who extend their enjoyment of the land into actually doing something to keep that land enjoyable.

Scotland is under real threat from increased demand to enjoy its outdoor landscape, and there are cheaper technological means to ruin scenery and government policy / grants to do just that. There is also an increasing range of means of extracting cash from the landscape using unsympathetic industrial methods.

Unless people who enjoy our landscape get moving and get effective there will only be more effects from the people who enjoy ruining it.

Well said? Maybe we should all form a UK chapter of Ed Abbey's Monkey Wrench Gang. :) Recall HD Thoreau's treatise on Civil Disobediance...