In my second post on the byelaw review, issued yesterday morning (see here), I included data on boat registrations supplied by the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority (LLTNPA) in response to a Freedom of Information request in June 2021. Having spent several hours checking the claims made about jet skis in the Review Report, which were unsubstantiated by the provision of any data, I was very pleased to find the FOI response. While there was no qualification in it about the data for 2022, explaining it applied to only part of the year, I should have realised from the date it could not be for the whole year. In making this mistake I was perhaps subconciously influenced by what I had read in the Visitor Management Season Review presented to the LLTNPA Board in December (see here) – again without any supporting data – which claimed there had been “a 21% drop in all boat user registration” during the year.
As a result I wrongly claimed that there had been a very large drop in the number of jet ski registrations in 2022 and the 65% increase in jet ski registrations which the Review Report claimed to have taken place between 2012-2022 appeared to be a lie. Usually I am more wary of using such words and I apologise for the claim and my error.
I also owe a public apology to the Locally Elected Board Member for Balloch, Sid Perrie, who appeared to have read my blog and because challenged LLTNPA staff on the claimed increase in the number of jet skis at the start of the Board meeting on the byelaws yesterday. It appeared that LLTNPA staff had also read my blog and had briefed the chair because an answer came back immediately that those figures were not for the full year.
Unfortunately the audio for the meeting for those following it online was terrible and I did not catch the exact number of visitors quoted but I did pick up it was similar to 2022, an exceptional year . How that fitted with what the report to the December Board meeting stated about the number of boat registrations is unclear but if numbers of jet ski were indeed similar to 2021, then registrations of other types of motor boat must have dropped even further.
Having realised my mistake, I corrected the post immediately but it is very important that anyone who read it before that does not falsely conclude there was a very large drop in jet ski registrations in 2022. The actual truth still needs to be established but if there is a drop it will be far les than I claimed.
The fundamental probem, however, remains. The LLTNPA is still not being open and honest and only publishes data when this suits its agenda or it is forced to do so. Had the LLTNPA published the data as appendices to the Review Report, I would not have made the mistake I did. And the other part of my case, that by choosing as its baseline 2012, a year with a very number of jetski registrations, the LLTNPA had distorted the truth about the real trends would have been that much stronger.
What has been happening with the Loch Lomond byelaws is a repeat of what happened with the camping byelaws, where the LLTNPA made claims about large increases in antisocial behaviour and campers which were based on very dodgy use of statistics. I complained about this at the time to the person in charge of statistics and data integrity at the Scottish Government only to be told the LLTNPA was not within his remit and he was powerless. Unfortunately, nothing has changed since then, the LLTNPA’s use of statistics is as poor as ever and there is no governance when it matters.
In an attempt to remedy some of the data deficit about the Loch Lomond byelaw review – it would be nice if the LLTNPA were to add the data to their Review Report (which was basically endorsed by the Board yesterday) – I am now submitting a number of Freedom of Information requests, including the following:
- Please provide me with a list of the total numbers of boat by category, including jetskis/PWCs, registered under the Loch Lomond Bye Laws for the year 2022
- Please provide me with the number of jetskis registered under the Loch Lomond byelaws for each year from 2012-2022 broken down by those owned by businesses and those owned by individuals.
- Please provide me with the number of breaches under the Loch Lomond byelaws referred to the Procurator Fiscal between 2012 and 2022 broken down by the type of craft and offence.
We will see!
Facts are very important – once again my apologies for getting them wrong yesterday.
I doubt there will ever be properly conducted surveys permitted. All those to be seen so far have a “we must control this ” agenda. No single analysis exists that might fully inform the wider public, even the Scottish government, about the deliberate efforts made by a select few to curtail leisure boating on Scotland’s biggest loch.
For nearly all of my adult life the idea of actually bothering to put a boat afloat on Loch Lomond has never held any appeal. Once, very very long ago, I attended a crowded and well supported Clyde canoe club meet with my dad (I think it was in 1958 !) Ever since, my imagination when it comes to being afloat needs no permission. I know that for very little greater effort, each of Scotland’s major centres of population can also access the whole seascape along the Clyde estuary and the west highland coast. Open unrestricted Waterways are there to be enjoyed.
It saddens me each time I use the A82 to note how few leisure boats of any type are now to be seen enjoying the loch. Maybe more people are just like me and use their unwillingness to be “pawns” in this game…to show criticism towards the LLTNPA attitude towards boats and access. Boat owners everywhere are in the main ‘free thinkers’ . For freedom most simply by-pass this money-trap of an over regulated place and enjoy their boats elsewhere. IMO They are quite correct to do so.The shrinking boat number statistics easily indicate to any elected official at Holyrood exactly where blame for this failure lies. The misapplication of “appointed” authority over age old freedoms within this largest public park by those with controlling ‘mind-set’ and fiscal agendas, remains a National scandal.
Sadly Tom we don’t get to opt out. Every year more of the coastal sea is designated as Marine Protected Areas, so far these have only been used to ban anchoring, which discourages boats from entering a loch if all they can do is turn round and leave, but it is only a matter of time before a case is constructed to ban boats entirely on some sort of spurious grounds of potential pollution or wildlife disturbance – the latter is already used on Lomond to create exclusion zones with draconian penalties for contravention.
More and more places you can’t get ashore beyond the beach as the hinterland has been turned into somebodies garden and old buildings converted into luxury houses, thus excluding the land from public access under the law.
Niall, as you probably already know I have severe reservations about the 2021 Crown Estate seabed revaluation exercise and the consequent blanket money grab for infrastructure placed on the seabed. The current lease system to a far greater extent has negative impacts on the remoter economies among the islands and within Highland sealochs than similar charges levied adjacent to major centres of population. In the more affluent central belt a greater proportion of any necessary (tax) revenue could be raised?
However, the increased popularity of leisure boating has delivered seasonal job opportunities to provide facilities for those who cruise Scottish coasts. It does satisfy me enormously to observe each year how few modern yachtspeople can be bothered with the inconvenience of dropping an anchor, or then needing to use a dinghy to get ashore etc ! If people have pay for infrastructure ‘conveniences’ offered to them within harbour authority zones, this arguably is only what they expect today.
Plenty of places remain where a boat can venture and stay overnight leave no trace and hardly be noticed. Yet those who enjoy boating must continue to exert their opinions on RYA Scotland. The leisure boating sector must be properly represented to ensure RYA(S) continues to safeguard all leisure boating interests,and correctly inform government. RYA officers must act without submitting to comfy committee-led compromises, along with passive acceptance of ever more onerous stealth legislation, because this is easier to agree. There is little denial that for over 25 years leisure Boating interests on Loch Lomond have been effectively “cowed” into passivity, and left mute thanks to reams of bye-law…..in the main imposed on Scotland by those who are non-boaters.
On the RYA, James Stuart, who was comvener lltnpa until 31st Jan, is involved, declared an interest and did not attend meeting. That suggests he was actively involved in RYA response to these byelaws because merely by being a member of a respondent organisation should not preclude participation in making decisions. Claire Chapman, Scottish Canoe Association had a similar declaration announced at start of meeting.
Tom, you have identified the strategy – condition people to the idea that moorings and pontoons are the norm so that “acceptable” places to go are defined, controlled and limited. Then work on selling the idea that not using them is antisocial and damaging to the environment. They are of course charged for, perpetuating the idea that anyone who does not live in the immediate area is a “tourist”, a cash cow who must pay up at every opportunity if their presence is to be tolerated.
The same strategy is applied to campervans.
The impression given is that every time you pause someone has their hand out, and if there isn’t a price list you are not welcome there.
The assumption is that to own such a vehicle or vessel is restricted to the very well off who can well afford to pay. The money in fact mainly does not stay in the local community, it goes straight to the large companies outside the area who supply and maintain the facilities. The effect is actually to extract money that would otherwise be spent in the community – everyone has a budget and the choice is pay for a mooring and eat / drink on board or anchor and go to the pub, same applies to the expensive campsite.
The Scottish tourism strategy is to minimise numbers and maximise revenue.
It is still possible to avoid this – but my point is that it is getting harder. Loch Lomond is just the “pilot project” and the model.
Re the LLTNPA Special Board Meeting. In my opinion the whole debacle was a disgrace from the word go. Firstly, came the very lame excuses for not allowing the application/deputation from a member of the public to address the Board. One was that his application was invalid due to it not being within the required timescale which the Chair thought (incorrectly-see 10 Deputation below) was 12 days prior to the Meeting. This would have been extremely difficult as the Meeting with Agenda was only posted on LLTNPA web on the Tuesday prior to it – 4 working days!!!
“10 Deputation
38. The Board may hear deputations on any matter that falls within its statutory
remit, subject to the following conditions having been met:
a. An application for a deputation must be in writing, signed by a representative of the group or organisation or person wishing to be heard and setting out the matter on which the deputation wishes to be heard;
and must be lodged with the Proper Officer at least two weeks before the Board meeting;
b. notice of any such deputation must be entered in the agenda for the Board
meeting; and”
I totally agree with Nick on the extremely poor sound quality. My husband and I tried 4 different devices to no avail. Only by attaching my sound bar and holding it to my ear could I hear what was being said. I have complained to NPA of this previously. One wonders if there is deliberate ‘slugging’? It also became evident that Board members were only to be allowed to ask questions re the proposals and not put forward information as one member (an experienced Loch user) tried to do. The Chair repeatedly ‘shut him down’ asking “do you have a question?” and “everyone had the opportunity to respond to the Consultation”.
One wonders why there is a Board at all if they are only paid to ask innocuous questions and then agree the proposals anyway.
However, for whatever good it will do, and if I heard correctly, there apparently will be a further 12 week consultation period after Scottish Ministers have approved the draft.
Just had the letter in inviting me to renew my boat registration, which I won’t be doing. It mentions that the slip will be closed for the swimming event in September again, also mentions a cycling event over ten days in August “throughout the national park including Balloch” with the clear implication that anyone not involved would be better to stay away.
Oh, and the launch fees have been increased yet again – and are well over the going rate elsewhere.