Draconian speed limit is not the answer to loch's problems

Published on Friday 14 October 2005 01:54

TIME is drawing to a close for those who wish to have their say on the proposed by-laws governing Loch Lomond. The period for public consultation ends on Friday, 28 October. So far, more than 2,000 people have responded to the proposals which will mean, among other things, a speed limit of 7mph across half the loch's surface.

Bob Elliot, the senior operations manager for Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park Authority, said: "We will take all these comments into account before submitting final proposals to the park authority board and then the Scottish Executive in December."

Since the Executive is known to be less than best pleased with the level of complaints surrounding the loch and its governance - particularly the use of jet skis - it will no doubt rubber-stamp whatever the park authority proposes. And the future of the thousands of people who take their pleasure from the loch, live on and round it and earn their living from it will be sealed.

Of course, there are certain things to be commended in the park authority proposals: safety measures such as compulsory buoyancy aids and raising the age for supervision of young people driving motorised craft to 16. But the blanket speed limit over such a large area of the loch is a sledgehammer to crack a nut - that nut being the irresponsible use of jet skis.

Boats are not, and never have been, a problem. For more than 25 years, I have encouraged my sons and their friends to pursue their chosen sport of water-skiing - and indulged my own passion for angling from the same boats (admittedly at a much reduced speed). Like the vast majority of boat owners, I have respected the by-laws and the rights of other loch users.

The ecology of Loch Lomond is at its most vulnerable in the shallows, round the islands and close to the shores, and it is those areas that are in need of most protection. Unfortunately, it is in those areas that irresponsible jet-skiers take most of their pleasure and the result has been a diminution of wildlife and plants precious to the loch.

But this draconian speed limit is not the answer. Education and policing of the present by-laws and speed limit areas by both the authority and those who control access to the water are. The money spent on a fancy edifice promoting the south gateway would have been better spent on more rangers, whose hours and terms of employment should be adjusted to cater for the busier weekend and evening use of the loch.

If these proposals go ahead, people in an area of high unemployment will lose their livelihoods and hundreds, if not thousands, more will have their enjoyment of this national treasure curtailed.

The final decision is too important to be left to a faceless few. Even 2,000 responses may not be enough to sway them from their idea of a "quick fix".

Perhaps the only answer is a full-scale public inquiry.