SINCE the inception of the Cairngorms National Park I must confess to feeling delighted and frustrated in turn at some of the decisions made by the national park board.
I would guess most folk living within the park's boundaries have shared these sentiments and I'm wary of criticising board members too much - given that you can't please everyone all the time.
But I can't help thinking back to when the concept of Scottish national parks was established and the political arrogance that suggested we could create a new kind of national park, and that we didn't necessarily have much to learn from other countries.
My biggest disappointment is that here in the Cairngorms our national park seems to favour development over conservation, contrary to every other national park in the world.
The worldwide concept of national parks was based on nature and landscape conservation but our politicians, few of whom understood conservation anyway, sold locals the message that development would be the prime criterion and that conservation would be secondary.
In some cases, but not all, that seems to be the case.
Just before the usual suspects start reaching for their pens of vitriol, let me admit that I write these comments as a mountaineer and a lover of wild places.
The fact that I also help run a small business within the national park is a side issue but I would fully support comments made by the Mountaineering Council of Scotland, of which I am a member, in response to the Cairngorms National Park Authority's Draft National Park for 2012-2017.
Confirming its support for the rather dubious principles under which National Parks in Scotland were established, the MCofS has stated that: "It is the wildness of the Arctic-alpine zone, and the opportunities for quiet recreation and physical challenge both in those areas, and on lowland crags, that makes the national park special to mountaineers. The feeling of wildness is central to the special experience that the Park offers."
I would argue that it is the wildness of the Cairngorms that makes the national park special to everyone who visits the area.
People don't come north, or from abroad, to enjoy the architectural delights of our villages, or to enjoy our burgeoning housing estates, but for the beauty of our landscapes. That's what makes visitors come back time and time again.
Responding to a question from the CNPA about opportunities and threats that might arise in the years ahead, the MCofS said that in its view: "There is great urgency to address the threat of a reduced sense of wildness as a result of the visual impact of development.
"The minimum should be to achieve no loss during 2012-17 as wildness is frequently lost through both incremental and major developments."
MCofS "strongly agrees with the need to conserve the special qualities of the park, welcoming the recognition that wildness is affected both by a view from within the park outwards, as well as a view of the park from beyond the boundary and within the park.
"We agree that wildness is one of the defining features of the park, and also that it is the 'glue' for the identity of the park."
I would disagree slightly. I would argue that 'wildness' is the defining feature of the national park, not just one of many defining features. Diminish that wildness and there is little left to justify national park status.
The MCofS also suggests there are a number of real challenges facing the park in the years to come, in "ensuring the landscape context of the park does not become a ring of wind farm developments. There is already a significant impact on the special qualities of the park, which are threatened by the numerous developments constructed or planned close to the boundary of the park.
"Many are highly visible from core upland areas within the park, and are having a significant impact on the wild quality.
"These are primarily wind energy developments, which pose an immediate and growing threat as the cumulative impacts are already evident, and there are more applications in the planning system.
"This is a challenge that needs to be urgently and consistently addressed by the CNPA, which should exert as much pressure as possible on decisions outside the national park."
I would certainly applaud the Park Board in its opposition to the Allt Duine proposal above Kincraig, a potentially disastrous scheme that would create traffic problems on the A9 during the construction phase, and a lot of construction work within the boundaries of the park.
Such a windfarm would simply add to the cumulative effect created by all the other Monadh Liath windfarms and all for a renewable energy source that is grossly expensive, subsidy driven and unreliable.
Finally, in its response to the draft Plan, the MCofS has reiterated its opposition to the proposed 'new town' of An Camas Mr at Aviemore because the development would: "change the character of the Park and detract from the communities' 'sense of place' in the landscape".
I couldn't agree more.
I have yet to hear any argument for An Camus Mor that makes any sense and I would much rather see the park board, and Highland Council come to that, take a harder line against holiday homes.
It is an issue that erodes local communities, puts up house prices and deprives young people of an opportunity to live locally. I can't help wonder how many An Camus Mor houses will become holiday homes?
