The recent wildfire in Abernethy burned over 30km2 of moorland and ancient Caledonian woodland. It was extremely difficult to control, reaching a width of almost 25km at its peak. Nearby residents had to be evacuated.
There were significant delays in responding to the fire and this proved crucial and led directly to the disaster. Eventually helicopters were deployed as fire teams on the ground became exhausted and struggled to control the front of the fire.
At the present tine it is not known why this fire started in what is quite a remote part of Abernethy. An accidental fire from a camp-fire or even arson may be to blame and we may never be told.
In 2025 the Park Authority (CNPA) banned camp fires and barbeques from 1 April to 30 September under a Fire Management Byelaw. Campers could face a fine of £500 if caught.
Many people support this approach. I do not – because it will increase the chance of further damaging wildfires in the CNP.
I have researched the impact of ‘bans’ on biodiversity conservation in a number of contexts: the sale of wild goose meat in Scotland, tiger poaching in Bangladesh, and the rhino horn trade in Asia. Sometimes they work, but under some circumstances they may fail, and can exacerbate the problem due to unforeseen consequences.
Sadly I am of the opinion that the fire management bye-law in the CNP falls into this category.
For one simple reason.
When a camper accidentally starts a wildfire the chances of them reporting the fire promptly are now lower than before the ban.
Why risk arrest and a £500 fine when you can simply walk away and keep quiet?
Given that we have a weak ‘report-react’ system in the CNP, this will obviously compound delays in reporting and hence make the fire much more difficult to extinguish.
The decision to ban campfires has always struck me as strange, given that the voluntary approach was working. The ban did garner much public support, but should PR be driving the Park’s management policies?
Only last year a report to the CNPA revealed that the number of open fires encountered by patrol staff was small and falling: from 0.22 fires encountered per patrol in 2023 to 0.18 in 2024 and to only 0.12 most recently in 2025. (Furthermore, satellite data confirms there were no wild fires from campers in Abernethy or Glenmore over this period).
So why ditch the educational approach to mitigating the risks of campfires and barbecues, as recommended by the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, when it was working extremely well and clearly resonated with campers? (Especially, when the main source of wildfire in the CNP is lawful muirburn ‘gone wrong’).
The best way to prevent damaging wildfires is not through byelaws but through education and better preparedness. Glib attention-grabbing actions like the 2025 bye-law, are only likely to make the problem worse.
[This post has also been published by Dougie MacMillan on linked in and has been updated in view of the comments below]
Two important corrections. Professor MacMillan says that the fire reached “a width of almost 25 km at its peak”. The maximum dimensions of the fire were (west to east) c.7.3 km, and (north to south) c.9.5 km. The figure of 25 km is a typo for the estimated area of the fire given by SFRS of 25km2. That area figure itself was an underestimate, the actual area within the fire perimeter being 32.74 km2.
Professor MacMillan also says that “There were significant delays in reporting the fire and this proved crucial and led directly to the disaster”. I don’t think that was the case. By chance a hill walker posted a report of his walk that day online. No smoke was visible at 11.18, but at 11.40 a thin line of smoke was visible, that had increased markedly by 11.48. The SFRS were alerted at 11.47. So within 10 minutes or so of smoke being visible from a distance, SFRS had been alerted. What is not public knowledge is how long it took for first responders to reach the fire location and what resources they deployed. Unfortunately they were not able to contain the fire, which by 9pm the same day had (according to SFRS) spread to a fire front more than two kilometres wide.
Your analysis misses a key point….when was the fire started? That is central to understand what followed…if it was arson highly unlikely to have been lit at 11am!
Hi Dougie, there are reasons which I hope to explain in a post in the next few days – I have been collecting information about the potential causes of the wildfire – to suggest the fire is unlikely to have started much before 11am. The timing is, as you say, important because IF the fire started shortly before 11am, it makes it even less likely that it was caused by campers, but this does not rule out it being started deliberately as the reasons why I believe it is unlikely the fire started earlier would also explain why an arsonist might have waited until then………………
given the site of the fire, i believe it is highly unlikely that camping triggered it. see my earlier post for reasons.
Just to follow up …the fire could have been lit, then partially die, then pick up with a gust of wind at 11.10 precisely. That would explain the photo and could place the timw of first ignition much earlier. But I digress ..the point of the post is to make clear that a ban will deter people calling it in if they started it.
As part of a preparation walk planning camp spots in the area for my TGO Challenge next May, I passed the area 24 hours before the fire. Having looked at the satellite images of the fire that were posted after the fire started I did not believe that there was a possibility of a wild camp fire being responsible. Firstly, the terrain where the smoke showed initially was entirely unsuitable for camping. No water, no flat ground and thick heather and bracken are all obstacles that would be readily solved by camping at the Green loch or, more suitably, at the large flat area beside the footbridge where the path becomes single track.
It’s unfortunate that people are so quick to blame wild campers when the likelihood of wild camping at that spot is remote. That leaves the question open as to how it did start
I tend to agree. Arson seems most likely.
Until the wind state for that day is confirmed, this factor along with how dry the vegetation had become shppould be part of the mix possible ignition.
I have asked this before on these boards. Has no one else ever come across a smouldering frond of heather on a dry windy day when crossing high ground? I certainly have, and can remember watching while a visible hot-spot created by friction flared for some moments consuming the dry stem. This ember soon died away, cooling as the charred parts weakened and fell down onto the damp ground.
Had the embers or sparks ignited any wind dried deer grass fronds nearby the fire might have spread.
It will be some time I suspect before the reports emerge. Never discount fires begun due to friction-heat in summer time rainless periods on windy days.
Absolutely Tom. There is a lot of possible scenarios for the ignition. My point is separate. If a camper lights a fire which then spreads they are on average less likely to report it for fear of being apprehended and fined. Simple really but not apparently considered by CNPA.
The weather was hot, dry, with light winds. See the MWIS forecast for 15 July https://share.google/kv6EsFaC6ICTO0XSl
In answer to the question “Has no one else ever come across a smouldering frond of heather on a dry windy day when crossing high ground?” my answer would be no.
“If we knew that 40% of our wildfires are caused by portable barbecues, you could ban them – though people may light another kind of fire – or you could educate people in how and where to use them safely,” said Elliott. “We’ve got three common causes of wildfires in the UK: men, women and children. Beyond that, we don’t know.”
Andy Elliott, the UK’s only serving fire officer trained in specialist wildfire origin.