petewick wrote:
There was a questionnaire passed out to the public three years ago to gather data for a feasability study.
petewick
Unfortunately, I didn't see that.
petewick wrote:
I disagree with what you say that the land is available now.
petewick
Since the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003, which came into force last year, everyone has a right to go everywhere in Scotland. Not only to walk, but also to ride bikes or horses and also to camp. The only restrictions are things like the curtileges of buildings - farmyards, gardens and the like, land where crops are growing (but, even then, you can go around the edges) and areas such as golf courses, sports grounds and military sites.
petewick wrote:
There are parts of Kintyre which are inaccessable due to forestation, planted there by those with outside interests to prostitute the land for their own profit, as you put it.
petewick
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you there.
petewick wrote:
Sorry if this seems very one sided, but I'm a Campbeltonian by birth and had to leave my town due to redundancy and have witnessed vast economic decline to Kintyre.
petewick
I really am very sorry to hear about your redundancy. It is something that I have faced myself in the past and it is not pleasant. Please forgive me, however, if I ask a question that I think might be considered relevant in this context. Would the Kintyre Way have made a difference to that?
petewick wrote:
Something like the Kintyre Way can only be for the good for the area, it's one of the few positives sugestions in the last few years.
petewick
It certainly could be good for the area, if it is well planned, funded and managed and has the support of the local communities. I don't doubt that. But, as it is presently set up, I feel that it has too many cons as opposed to its pros.
petewick wrote:
I don't hear any negative reports from the West Highland or the Southern Upland routes.
People who use these paths are, in the majority very well informed and intelligent individuals who appreciate and adhere to the Country Code.
petewick
I can't really comment on that, other than to say that, at the recent meeting, the lady who managed the West Highland Way was talking of 200,000 walkers a year, telephone number sized sums in costs and funding and large numbers of people working on, maintaining and "rangering" the path. A path of effectively the same length to that proposed here; for 5,000 walkers, almost no funding and, possibly one employee. Great if it works, but who's going to pick up the pieces if it doesn't? It needs a much more substantial backup than it presently has.
petewick wrote:
It will bring vast benefits to the area, but I detect a hint of NIMBYism in the air.
petewick
Yes, it could if it is done right. And yes, I'll hold my hand up to NIMBYism. And also to being emotive on the subject.
It is our back yard. Who else will stand up for it, if not us? I realised that there was going to be some flack for this. But better that, than to have been seriously concerned and not to have asked the questions.