In response to “war declared by the commercial operators”

He explained that, at that time, the Association’s members controlled every inch of riparian rights from West of Aberfeldy to Grandtully and could have prevented rafting carrying on. Instead the association proposed a compromise agreement whereby rafting, canoeing, fishing and general riparian and environment rights could be enjoyed in harmony.

Classic Example of Collaboration

“This agreement worked well, although I am sure it was never appreciated that, by the voluntary good will of riparian owners, the commercial raft operators were handed an opportunity to build a significant and highly profitable business, while the riparian waters suffered a severe downturn in fishermen prepared to fish on raft-infested rivers and thus a downturn in income and capital values,” the letter explained.

“All the while, the riparian owners continued to be the only users paying significant rates and maintaining the river and riverbanks. This agreement was held up by politicians of all political persuasions - and by others during the passage through the Scottish Parliament of the Land Reform Bill - as a classic example of how different uses can work together,” continued the letter. “Furthermore, it has since been admitted by senior members of the Scottish Executive that the Land Reform Act was never meant to overturn such agreements.

“Not content, however, with anything other than total freedom to act unilaterally, the Scottish Rafting Association tore up the agreement on the day the Land Reform Bill was enacted,” maintained Mr Campbell.

Bye Laws Option

“Since then the Riparian Owners have been attempting, in a totally reasonable way, to engage the Local Access Forum, Perth and Kinross Council and the Rafters in an effort to re-establish an agreement which recognises the Access Code’s instruction that any use must be enjoyed in a reasonable fashion and with due consideration for the needs of other users. This process has been distinctly unsuccessful and there has, to date, been little sign of reasonableness or recognition of the requirements of other users. Local Councils are guided in the Access Code to consider Byelaws as a means of recognising and controlling a mixed use agreement, but there is a strange reluctance to even consider going down such a route.

Mr Campbell continued: “Although this letter only speaks for me, the Riparian owners, and this one in particular who has recently been elected Chairman of UTROA, have had enough of having their reasonable and conciliatory attitude in accordance with the Access Code, spat out by the commercial operators and ignored by the public bodies.

Abuses

“Resolution of this issue has to recognise the basic fact which the Riparian owners recognised 12 years before the Land Reform Act. This is that each user has to acknowledge all the issues affecting all of the other users, and arrive at a solution that satisfies as many of those issues as possible.

“Twenty odd years ago, Edradynate Estate recognised the SCA’s needs and provided an access below the Church Pool. This access has, for the most part, been responsibly used by the SCA, but it is being used less responsibly of late and is being abused by commercial operators, walkers and occasional canoeists who now use the field for parking vehicles on growing crops.”

Finally, Mr Campbell stressed: “I have no wish to disadvantage the vast majority of canoeists who behave responsibly, and who are not making money at the riparian owners expense. I regret, however, that until a correct sense of justice and reasonableness is brought to bear in the overall management of the use of the river, the war declared by the commercial operators will have a fallout effect on everyone.”

Access Forum

Nick Cole, Convenor of the P&K Outdoor Access Forum maintained that the Forum has been intimately involved in this issue for some time, along with John Swinney MSP and others.

He told Comment: "In contrast to the statements above, no letter from Michael Campbell has been received by the Forum, and it appears that the Council haven't seen one either.

"Over many months the Forum and its Water Access sub-group supported by the Access Officers of the Council have been working diligently attempting to facilitate a new working understanding between the two sides, he said.
"The Land Reform Act gave neither the Forum nor the Council any authority to impose an agreement, which means that it is incumbent on the protagonists to agree the terms between them. The Forum can make recommendations but is limited to acting as a facilitator not an imposer.

"Currently there is an exchange of correspondence between the formal representatives of both sides, UTROA and the Scottish Rafting Association, which is attempting to clarify points of detail and the differing views of what constitutes 'responsible' and reasonable behaviour."
He continued: "It is not true to state that the riparian owners have been ignored by the
public bodies. All means of achieving an outcome remain available though it has to be realised that the quickest solution can only be achieved through the ongoing negotiations.

"It is regrettable that such negotiation appears by some to be slow but this is for both sides in the dispute to remedy. By definition an agreement has to be accepted by both parties, otherwise anarchy will rule."
Mr Cole maintained that it is not appropriate for the Forum publicly to comment on the merits or otherwise of either side's case while negotiations are ongoing.