I WELCOME the support from Chrissie Bannerman (Letters, February 4), a resident of Balmaha, about my concerns over camping by-laws (“Ban on camping has tainted Loch Lomond”, The Herald, February 1). I agree that problems have increased over many decades in the area where she lives albeit, as she says, from a small section of campers. Her letter does however confirm what I and many others have been saying about the camping by-laws – most of the trouble has been caused by people engaged in criminal acts, often fuelled by excessive alcohol consumption. Why should the majority suffer when Police Scotland does not seem prepared to tackle the minority who are the source of the problem?

Fundamental to any solutions in this national park is the need for substantial financial resources to improve the infrastructure. I want to see a Scandinavian type of solution where we have a network of paths throughout the national park which links together all communities, hotels, B&Bs, camp sites and huts with walking and cycling routes. Perhaps we could help fund this through a tourist tax, as is now being proposed for Edinburgh (“Festivals chief: Stage is set to introduce a tourist tax”, The Herald, February 3) and is common in other major cities across the world. In Switzerland, a country as famous as Scotland for its scenery and walking routes, there has long been a bed tax applied whenever you stay in overnight accommodation. It helps to pay for the paths network and signposting.

I want to see the party manifestos for the coming elections contain commitments to amend the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000 – to remove the power of national park authorities to make camping by-laws, but also to give them the power to levy a tourist tax on all accommodation providers, based on the Swiss model. As your editorial said (“It is time for a debate about pros and cons of tourist tax”, The Herald, February 3), a tourist tax could be a relatively pain-free way to raise funds and now needs serious consideration by our national politicians.

Cameron McNeish,

Glen Road, Newtonmore.

IN the ongoing correspondence about the camping by-laws in Loch Lomond & the Trossachs (Letters, Februaru 2, 3, 4 & 5), five points appear to have been missed.

First, better enforcement of existing legislation may help, but it is not the answer. For anyone to be convicted of an offence, it is usually necessary to see them actually depositing litter, ripping up fence posts or chopping trees. For example, simply finding someone camped next toa felled tree trunk, with a chainsaw lying outside the tent, is not of itself sufficient evidence in law that the tree was felled by the occupants of the tent. People have been acquitted in court because they were not caught in the act, red-handed. Short of installing CCTV in the countryside (which no-one wants), it is very hard to prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Secondly, by definition, enforcement of existing laws means the damage has already been done. Even if someone is convicted and fined for chopping down a tree, it will take many years for a replacement tree to reach the height of the one that was destroyed.

Thirdly, one of the main reasons for the by-laws is to tackle the problems caused by the sheer number of campers in the summer season. Most of them may well be acting responsibly as individuals, but to permit the cumulative impact of all those individual actions is, in a strategic sense, irresponsible. Half of Scotland’s population is within one hour’s drive of Loch Lomond & the Trossachs. The cumulative impact of large numbers of people camping bumper-to-bumper along our lochsides is a problem that is not found in most of Scotland, and the fear of similar by-laws being introduced across vast swathes of our countryside is unfounded.

Fourthly, it is misleading to refer to the by-laws as “banning” camping. Their intention is to regulate camping. The Scottish Government has said that 300 camping places, formal and semi-formal, are to be established before the by-laws are introduced. In addition, the by-laws enable the National Park Authority to issue permits to camp outwith campsites. According to the park authority’s website there could be 220 permits per night, so not exactly a camping-free zone. And certainly not a barrier to the enjoyment of the countryside by disabled people as has been claimed.

Fifthly, the by-laws only apply to places within staggering distance of a public road. For example, the by-laws do not affect camping on most of the West Highland Way within the national park area.

The main opponents of the by-laws are organisations such as the Mountaineering Council of Scotland and Ramblers Scotland. Members of those organisations will be hill walkers like me who visit the countryside to enjoy wildness and peace, perhaps camping beside their car in a quiet glen or beside a remote loch. It is ironic that such organisations are defending the right of people to camp anywhere, even though the cumulative impact is the sort of (perfectly legal) noisy and over-populated hell that genuine hillwalkers would travel miles to avoid.

David McCulloch,

4 Buchanan Mews, Drymen.

OUTDOOR recreation interests will not be surprised that Douglas McAdam, CEO of Scottish Land and Estates, is an enthusiastic supporter of the Scottish Government’s decision to approve camping byelaws in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park (Letters, February 5). Landowners from across Scotland will soon be queuing at Environment Minister Aileen McLeod’s door with cries of “me too”. Even Forestry Commission Scotland, our biggest owner of public land, is now claiming, incorrectly, that camping near roadsides is illegal.

Introducing camping by-laws, combined with a camping permit system, overturns a fundamental right of access which was supposedly secured by land reform legislation in 2003. In taking this decision the minister undertook no public consultation and sought no authority from the Scottish Parliament. There is now nothing to stop landowners seeking by-laws to control other rights of access to our land and water, using the simple excuse that too many people were enjoying an outdoor activity on their land. Anyone could potentially face criminal charges if, for example, they were out mountain biking, canoeing or even just walking along a trail and the landowner did not want you on that trail or to step off it, unless you had paid for a permit.

The Minister was warned about this by outdoor interests, but disregarded the advice. So now we have gone from 2015, when the First Minister was a stout defender of human rights, challenging the UK Government’s attempts to evade its responsibilities under European Human Rights legislation, to 2016 when her own Environment Minister is making it a criminal offence to lie down on the ground under a simple shelter, or sleep in a vehicle in quiet spot in the countryside. Human rights are for life for all of us, not just for politicians and their electoral convenience when faced with landowners with axes to grind.

Dave Morris,

2 Bishop Terrace, Kinnesswood, Kinross.