JOHN Urquhart (Letters, October 25) is right to state that the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority's attempt to extend camping by-laws is a "de facto rewriting of a key part of the Land Reform Act" but is wrong in saying that what is now needed is a serious rethink of the wild camping section of the act to deal with irresponsible behaviour.

The whole basis of our rights of access, whether to walk, cycle, ride horses or camp is that these should be exercised responsibly and the reason the act did not make provision for bans was that irresponsible behaviour is already dealt with under the law.

I am a former president of the Mountaineering Council of Scotland who was involved in negotiating the Land Reform Act on behalf of recreational organisations; land owners and managers were repeatedly asked to tell us what types of irresponsible behaviour were not already covered by the criminal law. They could not name a single instance. That is why the act is as it is.

This situation has not changed in respect to wild camping. Leaving rubbish around campsite is littering, a criminal offence. The national park authority has suggested that bans are needed to stop people cutting down trees - but this is also a criminal offence under existing legislation. Meanwhile, drinking and holding rowdy parties are already covered by numerous criminal laws and when in doubt the police can almost always resort to using the breach of the peace laws. These are used to tackle anti-social behaviour in the cities.

The real questions are why Police Scotland has been so ineffective in using its powers around the shores of Loch Lomond and why it appears to be abandoning its responsibilities to others? Before the consultation on new by-laws goes any further the national park and Police Scotland need to answer these questions and be accountable for their answers to the Scottish Parliament.

The licensing system for wild camping proposed by Mr Urquhart would be a bureaucratic nightmare. One of the wonderful things about our access legislation is that it is simple, unlike the situation in England and Wales where the legislation required mapping of access areas. The mapping exercise generated lots of disputes, mainly from landowners concerned about the values of their property, and cost millions. In Scotland we have avoided this, until the national park authority started trying to map bits of land where by-laws should apply - it would be interesting to know the cost of this.

To require permits in national parks would require a huge resource - hundreds of people camp over the course of the year, a very positive thing in general as it encourages people to get out and take exercise - and would be extremely damaging to tourism. If the thousands who camp while walking the West Highland Way are required to apply for a permit before they come in order to get across the national park, a significant proportion will simply go elsewhere.

The one positive proposal from the national park authority is to create more campsites. It is extraordinary that it has taken so long to come up with a proactive strategy on this, given all the economic and other benefits, but now it has it should focus on implementing this and drop its proposals to extend by-laws and instead focus on working with the police to ensure they are available when needed.

Nick Kempe,

23 Queen Square, Glasgow.