The BMC is currently drafting a huts policy that is similar in many respects to the MCofS policy and it has been circulated for comment. Below is an abstract from a letter received from a BMC member regarding development of new huts in England and Wales. Do you think MCofS should adopt such a policy as regards Scotland?

"Many thanks to the BMC Huts Advisory Panel for the circulation of their draft document on future huts policy, and the opportunity to comment. There is one major issue which is going totally over our heads and needs to be considered as an urgent priority.

I believe it is fundamentally wrong for us to be promoting the future development of huts that are independent of the local community. This is particularly the case when we are acutely aware of the problems facing rural economies at present. What is proposed will prevent a real opportunity for diversification in those economies. I think there is scope here for an imaginative alternative policy.

I believe we should not develop huts or encourage clubs to develop further huts. We should instead work with local community councils to identify with them where there is a business opportunity for a member of their community to provide an appropriate accommodation service for outdoor enthusiasts and visiting commercial groups. We would be ideally placed to constructively liase in getting the level of service, and charges set in a sensible manner. We could also provide 'client lists' of clubs and members who wished to be made aware of such accommodation.

Such an approach would serve as a refreshing change in being seen to actively engage with and contribute to local economies, rather than perpetuate the sad history of the economic clout of relatively rich organisations and clubs with largely urban constituents being used to isolate themselves from the local communities of the places they like to visit."

Bruce Strachan wrote:
I believe that the comments make very good sense.As long as we don`t end up with a whole host of "independant" hostels run for clubs/asociations only.More people who climb/walk in our hills are members of no organisations than those who are,so as long as "the old school tie" doesn`t come into the equation I believe the authors comments would if taken on board provide a splendid source of accomodation in mountaineous areas away from the midges!!!...But please no more closed huts...If any of the old "honourable" clubs want huts where goat desecration can be undertaken away from their wifes could they not build another hut in Paisley?.....

Gordon Crawford wrote:
The author of the original article did raise some valid points about how club huts relate to their local communities, but these issues are no more pertinent than for holiday homes, or how mountaineers relate generally to the communities of the areas which they visit. I am not familiar with the situation in England and Wales, but as far as Scottish huts are concerned there are a number of points which it overlooks.

1. Many Scottish huts are in locations which are too remote to provide a commercially viable opportunity. Can a hut like Coruisk even be considered to have a local community? It does inject a significant amount in terms of boat fares etc. into Elgol. Others such as Inver Croft are not very remote, but still too far from the road. I have spoken to members of the local community there, who are glad to see it restored from the ruined state it was in twelve years ago. If you want to set up a bunkhouse for Achnasheen, you will find plenty more ruined cottages in the area. Some estates perceive any presence in an otherwise empty valley as a deterrent to poachers.
2. The revenue generated by most club huts is too small to provide a significant income, even before the value of maintenance and administration labour, provided by volunteers, is taken into account. Even at commercial rates, any new bunkhouse would have to rely on other custom, which would mostly be taken from existing bunkhouses.
3. The importance of low cost accommodation should not be underestimated. If you feel that paying £10 rather than £4 per night does not impact your personal finances, there are many on lower incomes who do. The importance goes far beyond the individual level and even clubs without their own huts are dependent on their availability. Additional costs in deposits and payments for unfilled places would be incurred as a result of relying on commercial accommodation. This could prevent many clubs from operating a full program, and ultimately threaten the existence of a number of smaller clubs.
4. The value of club huts to the mountaineering community is far greater than merely a source of accommodation in mountain areas. Were that not the case, it is unlikely that many clubs would have gone to the trouble of obtaining, restoring and maintaining them. Clubs which operate their own huts, are able to organise events which they could not viably do with bunkhouse accommodation, and visiting clubs can often benefit too. Huts often become an important part of a club, and many members become involved in supporting them. They are sometimes seen as a distraction to the true cause of mountaineering, but they offer people valuable experiences within a broader context.
5. Those who are criticising clubs as being elitist, old-school tie organisations are sadly out of touch with the modern scene. There may be very small number of organisations that still fit this bill, but as a generalisation of most clubs, it is at best a crude caricature of a distant past. Few clubs can expect to thrive without an open membership policy, and far from being organisations for men to get away from their wives, women often form a larger proportion of those involved in club activities than you will find amongst hill-goers generally. Clubs allow those on lower incomes to achieve things which would otherwise be beyond their means. They also do a lot to get inexperienced people more involved in mountaineering, and as well as supporting their own members, they do a lot for the mountaineering community generally. If you feel that you do not benefit, it is probably because you do not contribute.
6. The original objection was that club huts are 'independent' of local communities. This is not entirely true, but the degree of involvement is generally related to what local facilities there are. Any local pub is likely to see increased trade. The tendency for people to shop at for bunkhouses. Gas cylinders, coal, firewood and building materials are often sourced locally. Current regulations on gas appliances require fitting and inspection by a professional, usually local, and often other maintenance work is carried out by local trades. The question of a fuller involvement in the life of the community remains unresolved, but it is more likely to be achieved by a group with a particular attachment to the area, than if they merely visit the local bunkhouse occasionally.

Alan & Sue Kimber, 'owners of a very comfortable quality bunkhouse in Fort William, with the best drying rooms anywhere in Britain', write:
It is really encouraging to see BMC/MC of S trying to find ways of supporting the rural economy. Might I suggest that the bodies that represent mountaineering nationally examine their policies of helping to support and develop club huts? The clubs themselves might be better to spend the cash used to buy, develop and maintain properties hundreds of miles away from their member base on local accommodation providers instead. There are many excellent bunkhouses scattered throughout the mountainous areas of the British Isles that are crying out for business, at a fair price. Many of the owners will gladly buy in a shopping list of food in advance of arrival. In this way the clubs will be supporting the local economy of the areas they gain so much enjoyment from and ridding themselves of annual security and maintenance bills for distant properties in their ownership. I am not suggesting that in remote areas unserved by club huts, that we should stop development, such as Coruisk. However, just that clubs examine whether or not they need their own property when many other similar styles of accommodation already exist in the area.

For anyone interested in finding out more try the following:
www.hostel-scotland.co.uk
www.highland-hostels.co.uk
The Independent Hostel Guide - Britain & Europe - Available from The Backpackers Press, 2 Rockview Cottages, Matlock Bath, Derbyshire, DE4 3PG
(and direct from the MCofS)

Noel Darlow wrote:
Aren't we forgetting who owns the land? Most of the mountain areas of Scotland are not owned by rural communities but by large estates; any direct income from overnight charges isn't going to end up in the community. There's a good chance it wouldn't even pay for the upkeep of the building unless the hut is in an easily accessible, honeypot location.

Indirect income (local shops, garages, and not least pubs) is probably the main benefit to small community businesses rather than bed fees. This is a significant factor in the HIghland economy but perhaps relates more to a general provision of hotels, huts, campsites and even parking space rather than any direct involvement by a rural community with a local hut. The Coruisk hut, mentioned above, creates trade for local shops and pubs in Broadford as well as passengers for the Elgol boat trip to Coruisk (for those who can't manage the notorious bad step ;). The Skye Bridge company will, unfortunately, also take its toll.

Finally, whenever I hear "business opportunity" and "wild place" in the same sentence the alarm bells start ringing. You only need to look at the funicular (a novelty train ride for summer coach tours masquerading as a winter "ski-ing" facility) for an example of an unsuitable development in a wild mountain area. For the above reasons, I'd like to grab the wheel and change the course of this discussion from rural community involvement to what are appropriate developments in wild areas. If a new hut is being considered, I'd like to see an impact survey taking into account the environmental effects of the expected number of visitors and a final decision taken based on the principle of protecting and preserving wild areas.

Pete Main, (who disputes Alan Kimber's claim to have the best drying room in Scotland; as it's at Newtonmore Hostel) writes:
Big rich climbing club based in big city miles away from small highland village wants to buy a bungalow and turn it into a club hut. Local residents object, local hostel owners object but as planning issues do not involve commercial considerations the club hut goes ahead anyway. Not a great way to make friends with the locals. To some extent club huts and independent hostels/bunkhouse do compliment each other, especially those huts that are in remote places. Obviously people staying at the huts bring cash to local businesses such as pubs and petrol stations (is Esso local?) but this impact is small compared with the owner of a small hostel and living on site, possibly with children attending a local school. Now that's community involvement. Very different from the 'climbers' who zoom into their hut on a Friday evening, drink a bit, eat a bit, walk about a bit and then jump into their smart cars and zoom back to the city on Sunday. The building then sits empty until the next occasional visit.

In commercial terms there is a term called 'displacement'. This means that if you own a business and someone comes along and opens the same business alongside you, how much business will you lose. This will depend on the number of customers and how good you are. If you are good and the total number of customers is still growing, no problem. If the opposite is true (you are rubbish and the number of customers is static or falling) then, big problem. We have been through this painful process in Newtonmore over the last few years and have lived to tell the tale. So if any clubs out there do want to open up huts in small villages, have a look at what's there already, there may be a superb small independent hostel that would fulfil all your needs. Ask yourselves if there really is a NEED for a new hut in this place.

Are any developments appropriate in wild areas? I doubt it, but they are appropriate in the villages that surround the wild areas providing they are small, sustainable and sympathetic to the rural economy. I sometimes wonder if the people who shout the loudest about protecting wild areas are not the very same people who pollute the atmosphere by driving thousands of miles each year to get to those wild areas. We had a club meet where 16 people used 12 cars to get here. As far as price is concerned, if you can afford to travel by car then you can afford under £10 per night for your accommodation. If you are really that hard up that you must have the cheaper prices that huts offer then why not hitch up and sleep in a bothys (or I can recommend the underpass to the toilets at Glenmore campsite).

Jason Shuttleworth writes:
Like many people I enjoy visiting the Scottish highlands, and stay variously in club huts, bunkhouses and tents. Good club huts and bunkhouses demand return visits and get reccomended to friends, and in fact often act as a focus at the planning stage of a trip. There are also people out there who through the club system get access to mountains that they otherwise would not be able to afford, and club huts play a part in this. I can see that some bunkhouse owners might be worried about the provision of new huts, but if they are offering a good service and warm welcome to their guests competition should not be a problem. In fact it might bring more people and business to their area. At our club hut in Snowdownia both the local farmers campsite and B+B next door do very well when either the hut is full, or for those who dont like roughing it.

C Wells writes:
This is a wind-up, right?

Either that, or it looks like an excuse for businesses to use forums like this for crypto-marketing purposes. (Mr and Mrs Kimber, if you wish to advertise, I respectfully suggest you pay the MCoS the going rate like everyone else.)

If, however, there is a remote possibility that the alleged 'BMC member' is actually on a serious kite-flying exercise, they really ought to consider how patronising their argument is towards club members and the 'local communities' (whatever they are) alike. He/she makes it sound like climbing clubs are exploiting natives in a colonial manner. The crude categorisation of 'rich' urbanites and the poor downtrodden rural communities is, frankly, laughable, not to say rather insulting to those of us that actually live and work in the countryside.

Apart from that, as Gordon has so eloquently demonstrated, the arguments are half-baked and nonsensical. The idea that the paltry numbers of climbers regularly using hut accommodation would make a massive difference to the local economy if they were forced to join 'client lists' and pay over-the-odds for bunkhouse accommodation (which is invariably owned and run by incomers anyway) is risible. In any case, I'd like to bet that the cheap accommodation afforded by club huts actually increases the number of visits to an area and therefore increases the spend in the local economy. If you were having to fork out 7-10 quid every time you headed to your favoured base, I'm damned sure most climbers would think much harder before heading off for a trip if they thought conditions might be marginal. Local spend would undoubtedly reduce. Successful climbing in Scotland is, as everyone knows, often about opportunism. The hut system allows people to react quickly and take advantage of good conditions and weather without having to worry about bedspace availability, booking ahead or arriving at some anti-social hour of the night. If you're keen enough to want to do this, you join a club with huts. This is the reality, climbing clubs are full of enthusiasts, not the 'rich' people alleged to inhabit such organisations. The latter are far more likely to be patronising local hotels and B+B establishments already - or have their holiday homes to enjoy.

The whole question is clearly a spurious concern baked up over a non-issue.

Malcolm Handoll writes:
This issue is site specific - and cannot be viewed in simplistic terms. I will not come down on one side of the fence - I am out in the Scottish mountains a lot - and use bivvy, bothy, hostel or tent - depending upon various factors. There are many locations out there which warrant an independent hostel, or an SYHA hostel, or MBA maintained bothy, or club hut, or nothing.

Lets not squabble - but instead enjoy our freedom to roam - and so long as I can pitch my tent or lay my weary back down on heather or huddle beneath a shelter stone - then I am happy!

However - a constant sad reminder of depopulation are the numerous derelict buildings - which with a roof would be fine shelter.

Were there to be a policy to encourage these to be re-used, in any one of the above ways - I would be a happy Welshman (and that's saying something!)

Mick Greenshields writes:
Rebuild some of the old huts and bring back some of the history.

Pitch-In