I was pleased to have this letter published in the Herald last week following a post last year asking why grazing had been allowed to continue on the slopes (see here).
The proposed Woodland creation scheme for the Rest and Be Thankful 2019-29 on the slopes of Beinn Luibhean is still open for consultation (see here). Maybe that’s an administrative error and the plan is now approved? However, if this plan had been treated as an emergency, like the coronavirus, planting would have started years ago.
What I didn’t say in the letter is that despite all its policy statements about the importance of woodland for preventing flooding etc, the LLTNPA has NEVER spoken out about the inordinate length of time its taking to plant trees at the Rest and Be Thankful. We should expect our National Parks to be doing far better than that.
The £100m cost of this Rest and Be Thankful bungling to the public and the additional cost to the local economy in Argyll and Bute of the repeated road closures will, however, pale into insignificance if COVID 19 results in a tourist lockdown in the countryside. To give Forest and Land Scotland some credit therefore, it was good to see they issued a blog on Tuesday encouraging people to visit the countryside as a safe thing to do (see here). Quite a contrast to the LLTNPA Board the day before who missed the opportunity to discuss the implications of the corona crisis in the light of their statutory duty to promote sustainable economic development (see here).
Well said Nick.
The most recent landslip started, or at least went through, a forested area. The landslips there follow watercourses and I doubt that tree planting the whole slope will make much difference. Landslips happen during exceptional rainfall and/or snowmelt events. The two large landslips on east bank of Loch Lomond in the mid 80s both followed watercourses down forested slopes. There is a current, rather quaint belief, that trees are the answer to all our problems.
The current engineering solution will probably work in most instances, but I agree (as Lord Cockburn would have in 1840) it is an eyesore. But will grow over in time (with naturally regenerated trees because of the soil disturbance). More worryingly in the Rest and Be Thankful landscape is the slow takeover by Sitka spruce colonising away from plantations.
I agree forestry won’t necessarily solve the problems here – previous posts have shown landslips in forested areas in Strathard – which is why a tunnel is needed but, having agreed it MIGHT reduce the problems in the medium term its incredible that its taken five years for nothing to happen………………….I don’t agree with planting everywhere but if there is one place where planting might be justified its surely here?
Some really good advice provided by Forest and Land Scotland on getting outdoors into the countryside (see link in article) but note this is advice for the individual. Going out in groups is more problematic, unless individuals can maintain a minimum 2 metre separation and avoid physical contact during the activity, if at all possible. And nice to see FLS showing someone lying in a hammock suspended between two trees. All the more reason why the LLTNP should be suspending the camping byelaws and permit system with immediate effect – a classic example of a local regulation working in the opposite direction to government coronavirus control policy which requires DISPERSAL AND SEPERATION of public activity in the outdoors not CONCENTRATION into a limited number of camping locations, as required by the byelaws. Only the LLTNP could be daft enough to spend huge sums of public money running a permit system and enforcing criminalisation of campers in complete defiance of Scottish and UK Government infection control policy!!
I note that LLTNP are specifically telling folk NOT to visit the park … https://www.lochlomond-trossachs.org/park-authority/covid-19-coronavirus-advice-visitors/ … whilst calling out the “permissible reasons to leave your home”. Of course, as Nick has pointed out already, “permissible” doesn’t mean “against the law” but rather “against the preferences of a government minister”. A dangerous slope to conflate the two.