The ongoing dispute between the North Chesthill Estate and Ramblers Scotland over access to the estate's land and its impact on walkers has sparked a heated debate. The estate's recent confirmation that it has removed signage warning walkers off its land comes as a relief to many, but the underlying issue remains a contentious one.
The estate's decision to take down the signs is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't address the core of the problem. The signage was initially erected as a temporary measure to manage deer numbers during the stalking season, which is a common practice in Scotland. However, the estate's response to Ramblers Scotland's petition highlights a deeper issue: the estate's website still advises walkers to 'walk elsewhere' during the stalking season, suggesting that the estate's commitment to allowing access is not entirely clear.
This situation raises important questions about the balance between land management and public access. While the estate has a responsibility to manage its land, it must also respect the rights of walkers and adhere to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The code emphasizes the importance of managing access during specific times, such as the stalking season, but it also requires that walkers be provided with alternative routes and clear information.
The estate's website, which continues to advise walkers to 'walk elsewhere' during the stalking season, suggests that there is still a lack of clarity and communication. This could be a result of the estate's historical approach to managing access, which has been criticized by Ramblers Scotland. The estate's spokesperson acknowledges the misleading information, but the damage has already been done, and the petition has gained momentum.
The petition's goal of preventing a repeat of the 2025 incident is understandable, but it also highlights a broader issue: the need for better communication and collaboration between land managers and outdoor enthusiasts. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code provides a framework for managing access, but it is up to individual estates to ensure that walkers are informed and provided with alternative routes. The estate's website should be updated to reflect this, and Ramblers Scotland should continue to advocate for clear and consistent communication.
In my opinion, this dispute underscores the importance of finding a balance between land management and public access. While the estate has taken a step towards resolving the issue, it is crucial that both parties work together to ensure that walkers are welcomed and informed. The Scottish Outdoor Access Code provides a starting point, but it is the estate's responsibility to ensure that it is followed and that walkers are provided with the necessary information and alternative routes. Only then can a common-sense solution be achieved that benefits both walkers and stalkers.
