I should have got permission to forage!

[BigShot]

Mike, while I agree with much of what you said, a lot of the land in the UK wasn't bought by anyone. For that matter, most of the land in the US wasn't bought either. I'm sure we all know the origin of the term "stake your claim".
Lots of it has been passed down through the generations from an original "landowner" who, to put it bluntly, stole it from everyone else.

Someone, at some point, surrounded a bit of land, land accessible and exploitable by everyone, and said "this is mine and noone else is allowed on it". Just because that happened a long time ago doesn't make it right.


On the point of suing a landowner if you hurt yourself on their land - that annoys me intensely. How anyone can try to place blame when they turned their ankle on an uneven path or had a branch fall on them is beyond me.


There's a much bigger difference between field/woodland and home/garden. The latter is an issue of a person's dwelling and personal space. The former is an issue of a huge swathe of land that is private only in name. It would be a serious invasion of privacy to enter a person's house. To pass through a gate that is 5 miles away from a person's home is nothing of the sort.

The main difference is privilge and money. The haves have land and can use it whenever they like, the have nots have to beg and grovel to be allowed to do such. The fact that most of the private land in the UK was once common and later stolen and set asive for the "haves" and later passed on to other "haves" doesn't make the situation any less unjust.

That is why I'm so strongly in favour of changing the legal climate such that the "have-nots" can have access to land that were it not for the earlier theft by long deceased "haves" would be free for them to access anyway - while in the mean time freeing the land"owners" from any legal responsibility to those who use the land. That's something that should be put in place anyway.


That said - I've got no actual problem with someone controlling and exploiting a piece of land. I'm FAR from a socialist as I have far too many problems with that particular system. What I see as a problem is the exclusive nature of the current system. You can use and exploit land without barring every other living creature from it. It's the exclusivity I think is an issue.

 

[John Fenna]

"Theres a fence around the common land
Put there by the Law.
It's called "Hunting" if you're Gentry
But it's "Poaching" if you're poor...
Song by Rhythem and Reds.....

 

[BigShot]

Silverback - I'm aware not all land was robbed by the present occupier.

However, to close off that point, and this isn't a personal dig (nor is anything I say for that matter) it must be said that as that land was broken up and sold on, it didn't become any less "stolen" to the rest of the population.

Someone fenced it off and put up a "keep out" sign a few hundred years ago, then ran out of money due to a changing social climate and had to sell off the land to keep living the life they were accustomed to in a stupidly large manor house. The point is, most of the land should never have been theirs to sell in the first place.

The problem I have (as one of the responsible people) is that someone with a pile of money (however gained), the right blood in their veins or the good fortune to have one of the small number of "permissions" on "private" land can get access to some truly beautiful places and some of it rather wild too, wheras I (a mere commoner with little means) can not. There is something deeply unfair about the situation - especially considering that it was once ALL public access land, first stolen, then inherited or sold.

I do, however, have complete sympathy for people with a legitimate claim to work an area of land feeling the need to close it off to all but themselves and friends because of idiots with no respect.

 

[Doc]

I fail to see why anyone should feel they have a right to access it at their own free will when they have contributed not one jot towards it's aquisition.

The days of the huge country estate are long gone and in a majority of cases the land has been broken up and sold off to the highest bidder.

Maybe a valid viewpoint south of the border, but in Scotland the view there is a long tradition (now enshrined in law) of free access to uncultivated land.

Also the huge country estate is alive and well in Scotland. In fact, half of the entire country is owned by just 344 landowners. The 66 largest landowners own one quarter of the country. Of course, this includes the semi-public ownership of the National Trust, Forestry Commission MOD and Crown Estate.

 

[Mike Ameling]

Silverback - I'm aware not all land was robbed by the present occupier.

However, to close off that point, and this isn't a personal dig (nor is anything I say for that matter) it must be said that as that land was broken up and sold on, it didn't become any less "stolen" to the rest of the population.

Someone fenced it off and put up a "keep out" sign a few hundred years ago, then ran out of money due to a changing social climate and had to sell off the land to keep living the life they were accustomed to in a stupidly large manor house. The point is, most of the land should never have been theirs to sell in the first place.

The problem I have (as one of the responsible people) is that someone with a pile of money (however gained), the right blood in their veins or the good fortune to have one of the small number of "permissions" on "private" land can get access to some truly beautiful places and some of it rather wild too, wheras I (a mere commoner with little means) can not. There is something deeply unfair about the situation - especially considering that it was once ALL public access land, first stolen, then inherited or sold.

I do, however, have complete sympathy for people with a legitimate claim to work an area of land feeling the need to close it off to all but themselves and friends because of idiots with no respect.

At some point, all land on this whole planet was "claimed" by somebody. And, in almost every case, was "taken" from somebody else who had a prior claim. And that person also "took" it from somebody else with an even earlier claim. And often times, that "taking" was by force. Just look at how often this has happened throughout Europe. Here in the U.S. all the Indian tribes who "claim" a certain area as their "homeland" took it from some other Indian tribe before them - who took it from another tribe before that - etc. etc.

So the question then moves on to: When does the "law of conquest" negate any/all previous claims? It would seem obvious that the descendants of the Saxsons or Vikings should no longer have any "rightfull claims" to land in Britain. Nor the Romans before them. So when did a "right of conquest" negate their claims? Or should we just keep "giving the land back" to every prior claimant - until we homo-sapiens give it back to cro-magnon man?

You make the statement ... "it was once ALL public access land". So you obviously have determined a cut-off date or time period to negate all previous claims - somewhere in the late Middle Ages. Why then? Why invoke that time period as the time when all prior claims are now null and void? And what should happen to all those people who took possession of the land since then - either through conquest, theft, or purchase?

You should carefully think through the consequences of opening such a can of worms.

And nobody ever said that the world as a whole is "fair" - if everybody could ever agree upon a definition of that.

Just a few humble thoughts to trouble your sleep.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hitnerlands

p.s. For years during the Cold War, the USSR would talk on and on about desiring and working towards PEACE. And they always tried hard to claim the "high moral ground" with that goal. But then somebody decided to find out exactly HOW the Soviets defined peace. They had two definitions. One was very similar to what the rest of the world used. But the other was for their internal use only, and the one they taught in all their schools to the little kids growing up. That definition was something to the effect of: when the whole world is subservient to Soviet rule. Very interesting. One definition to use when dealing with everybody else in the world, and another definition for their own internal usage. And both in conflict with the other.

So, how do you now define terms like "rights", "ownership", "fair", "justice", "rich", "poor", etc. etc. etc. It really helps if everybody is using the same definition.

 

[Mr Adoby]

Someone, at some point, surrounded a bit of land, land accessible and exploitable by everyone, and said "this is mine and noone else is allowed on it". Just because that happened a long time ago doesn't make it right.

The same argument can be used about just about anything, not just land. Your knife. The ore was dug up by someone who previously said, this is my mine. And then the stuff was processed in many steps until you had a nice knife at your side. So your knife is not your knife. Of course this is rubish.

Land can be owned. But for that to be possible the society have to allow it and make laws that regulate it. So ownership is just an agreement between people, and the socielty enforce it. Often it is not fair. Often people will try to buy cheap and sell expensive. And try exploit and make money on what they "own." And?

But this doesn't mean that it is always necessary to restrict access to the wild on private property. However it just might be necessary if too many tries to use too little. The woods may very well become overexploited with erosion, littering and other problems as a consequence. This is really a concequence of overpopulation and a high level of exploitation of the land, where more and more land is used by cars, car parks, shopping centres and houses and farming. To complain about restrictions in those circumstanses is a little like complaining about having too little spare time. You can do something about it, but it may be to expensive and difficult. Or you can adapt, or get another better paying job where you don't have to work as much...

Places where there are not so much people there may be different rules. In Sweden, Finland, Scotland and Norway, there is actually rights for non-landowners to freely make use of private land in the wild in many different, non-harmful ways. Camping, foraging and walking. But this will most likely be allowed as long as these rights don't harm the wild. This typically only applies "in the bush" well out of sight from any buildings or settlements.

From the Swedish Wikipedia on "Allemansrätten," loosely "the all man right" to access the wild: (Auto translated using Google Translate)

The right is one of Finland, Iceland, Scotland, Norway and Sweden unique right for all people to remain in the wild. The right gives a limited right to travel over private land and to temporarily reside there. With the right follow the requirements for consideration and caution against nature and wildlife, the landowner and the other people. The concept of access rights established in the late 1940s, when a recreational study was to identify measures that could facilitate the urban population to come out in the wild.

Since 1994, the following written into the Swedish Constitution: "Everyone should have access to nature under the right". The actual laws governing the right treatment, however, mainly in 2 and Chapter 7. Environmental Code. Access rights can be curtailed to some extent also by the local regime statute and violated by the different rules for things such as national parks.

In Norway, with its main principles regulated in the "outdoor vacations" (outdoor Act) of 1957. The right applies only to "outlying" and differs between lowlands and highlands.

The Scottish right is not quite as wide as the Nordic, which states simply that you get full access to all land and lakes (Lochs), provided that it does not destroy or sabotaging agriculture.

Also in the Nordic region vary what is permitted. In Sweden, for making up the fire in the environment under secure conditions (right can be limited such as in national parks), in Norway in "excellent", but not in or near forests during the summer months, while production of a fire in Finland always presupposes land owner's permission. In Åland also requires overnight land owner's permission.

A.

 

[BigShot]

Some interesting points.

Mike - you're dead right about "fair". To be honest, I don't actually expect fair (as much as some of my comments in my previous post might give that impression) for example, I don't believe all land should be owned by the state (God forbid!) or that every resident should get an equal share of the land, a division that would give 0.0015 square miles (388.5 square meters) per person - just less than a plot 20 meters by 20 meters - it's interesting that the equal share would give each person only the same area as a full size tennis court - yet the situation exists where one person owns enough land to cover tens of thousands of tennis courts. Not a situation I wish to change, but interesting.

I'm not sure if I've made it clear enough - I don't actually have a problem with ownership of land. I don't have a problem with the exploitation of land. The problem I have is with the lack of recreational access.
It is only this which I feel should be changed.
When it comes to purchasing and working land, I completely agree with the Status quo - at least the Scottish version anyway.


Mr Adoby
The knife example is flawed, I do see what you're saying, but that is quite a different issue. The materials taken from tree and mine are the products of the exploitation of a resource, which are then worked and turned into a tool. Noone else can posess or exploit that tool for commercial gain, just like is the case with land. My ownership of it in no way prevents people from going into a particular place that once they were allowed to go. It in no way prevents someone else's enjoyment of an open space.
Still - I do see what you're getting at - I just don't agree that the logic follows to that situation. .


I find your following point about ownership of land interesting, in fact it has clarified my thought on it somewhat. That the status quo is something only possible due to societal consent and relevant law is perfectly true.
The problem we have in most of the UK is that those laws and societal permissions were granted at a time where the vast majority of society had no say in the matter at all. We now live in a very different society, and there is a growing pressure to change the status quo.
There are a growing number of people who feel that the right to enclose and restrict access to thousands of acres of the natural world is wrong.

It is clear that in Scotland the societal permission and accompanying law has already shifted. The situation there is the one I desire, private ownership and exploitation of land, but public access and enshrined in law in a sensible way.

It is to be expected that the landowners who benefit from the standing societal permissions and resulting laws, however they came about, will fight against the changes. But given that those permissions only exist because society allows them to, it is only right that they should change when the current society deems that they should.
It strikes me that by and large the interested elements of society deem that the laws should change, as they have done in Scotland, to permit the continued ownership and exploitation of the land with the condition that the public be allowed responsible access.

How that responsible access is policed becomes another issue, of course, but I do feel that this is the way society wants things to go, and as such, they should.


I'm very glad this discussion has stayed respectful as I've found it very interesting. Thank you to all involved.
May it stay this way as long as we continue picking the bones out of it.

 

[Mr Adoby]

Mr Adoby
The knife example is flawed, I do see what you're saying, but that is quite a different issue. The materials taken from tree and mine are the products of the exploitation of a resource, which are then worked and turned into a tool. Noone else can posess or exploit that tool for commercial gain, just like is the case with land. My ownership of it in no way prevents people from going into a particular place that once they were allowed to go. It in no way prevents someone else's enjoyment of an open space.
Still - I do see what you're getting at - I just don't agree that the logic follows to that situation. .

I agree that the knife example wasn't very good. But even that type of ownership is just a (very common) social convention. Just as it once was perfectly possible to actually own a slave. And it wasn't that long ago that a lot of land was owned and used jointly in many villages in Sweden.

In different countries there are different laws about who may exploit minerals below ground. Uranium or gold deposits, for instance. The landowner doesn't always have any say in the matter. This is also a societal convention. Otherwise most mineral finds couldn't be exploited. Landowners doesn't usually have the necessary resources, or actually doesn't want the minerals to be exploited. But it may be considered important to do so by the goverment.

For instance whole villages in Germany are relocated to make it possible to exploit coal deposits. It is perfectly legal to do so, since the goverment make the laws.

A.

 

[BigShot]

Mineral rights are an odd one. I've seen some rather convoluted things related to that. I believe in some places the mineral right comes with the land, but can either one can be sold without the other. That being the case (as I understand it) someone can turn up on your land, and exercise their mineral right against your will. Crazy stuff.

On the knife front - I can't see societal opinion shifting much on the ownership and theft of object though Haha.


Has the joint use and ownership of land in Sweden stopped altogether now?

 

[Mr Adoby]

Has the joint use and ownership of land in Sweden stopped altogether now?

No. Some land is still jointly owned in the villages. But very little remains. It may be a small road through the woods, to allow access. Or parts of a peatbog or a marsh area. Perhaps a sand pit. Or an old cattle-roads through the village, that once was used by the whole village to drive the cows out into the woods.

But this is exceptions.

In my land there is a jointly owned pump-house, used to drain water from a previous lake bottom. We are 6 landowners who together own the pump-house and the small area of land where it stands. Its called "samfällighet" for legal purposes in Swedish. But traditionally it was called "allmänning."

This type of land has existed in all germanic countries.

In GB you have village "Commons." In Germany "Allmende." In Denmark "Alminding"/"Allminding" and Norway "Allmenning."

A.

 

[BigShot]

Cheers for that. Things like that always intrest me.
At our family seat in Ireland (haha - I like that, makes it sound so grand!) there's a pump house to supply water to a few houses. They all use it and contribute to its upkeep. The water that comes out of it is like nothing else either. I've been known to bring a few bottles of it back to Manchester in the past. Haha.

 

[Mr Adoby]

I found a nice link to more info about how the public is allowed access to the country-side in Sweden. In English...

The Right Of Public Access in Sweden

This right is something we Swedes are immensly proud of.

It isn't a law, only a custom, but a custom described in the Swedish constition.

A.

 

[mjk123]

Interesting debate.

Anyone know if the following point of law has been tested.

Namely, in the case that the land owner has taken a mortgage against the property and is tresspassed by a shareholder of the mortgage holding bank.

 

[hog]

Too many people too little land.

 

[xylaria]

I have had never had a problem foraging and keeping within common law. Apart from accidental trespass, most things are easily found where I have a right be. Maybe I am lucky where I live, that there is plenty of byways, unadopted land, clean derelict land, council parks, canals etc to pick form. Keeping within the law isn't hard at all. Even when I lived in north london it wasn't difficult.

The only plant i remove from the root are reedmace so that is saving somebody a job of doing it. I have decided to grow burdock on the allotment rather than break the law. Ok the only plum tree with fruit on it I have seen is ten foot down the line of manned level crossing, so to get plums I would have to commit criminal trespass, risk a 20k fine and instant death, but i could always ask the signal man permission between trains. I don't think it is that difficult.

 

[Armleywhite]

I have been stopped many times by landowners asking if I knew I was on thier land. Each time I have replied courteously "No I didn't realise" and apologised for straying, but always explained I was following map routes etc. Everytime, they have explained that it was private, but allowed me to continue, providing I use gates and make sure their always closed etc. NOT once have I ever had a madman with a gun banning me.

I fully understand, rightly or wrongly the ownership of the land, but being a sensible and polite person has always allowed me to continue on my way!

 

[Chips]

Interesting debate.

Anyone know if the following point of law has been tested.

Namely, in the case that the land owner has taken a mortgage against the property and is tresspassed by a shareholder of the mortgage holding bank.

It would be trespass. The bank which loans the property owner the money for the propert does not own the house.

 

[Mike Ameling]

Interesting debate.

Anyone know if the following point of law has been tested.

Namely, in the case that the land owner has taken a mortgage against the property and is tresspassed by a shareholder of the mortgage holding bank.

A mortgage is just a loan with the property as colateral - security to be used to pay back the loan if there is a default. It conveys no legal "trespass" rights to any share-holder in the bank. It does give the bank emplyees the right to ... inspect ... the property to determine size/condition, but that is all. So the "shareholder of the mortgage holding bank" has no rights whatsoever to the property. The only "rights" the bank has are written into the morgage itself.

Now, this does not stop some mortgage holders from making ... demands ... of the person who owns the property and how they use it. But they can only "ask" - unless it was written into the mortgage. Or threaten to not renew/extend the mortgage at the end of its term.

Just my humble thoughts to share. Take them as such.

Mikey - that grumpy ol' German blacksmith out in the Hinterlands

 

[Chips]

I have been stopped many times by landowners asking if I knew I was on thier land. Each time I have replied courteously "No I didn't realise" and apologised for straying, but always explained I was following map routes etc. Everytime, they have explained that it was private, but allowed me to continue, providing I use gates and make sure their always closed etc. NOT once have I ever had a madman with a gun banning me.

I have had words with a lot of private landowners.

One particular situation, I was walking up a private road with a few friends. A large silver landrover drives past, stops, a guy gets out, and says,

"Where the ******* **** do you think you're going?
I then respond with our final destination, unhelpful to him.
He then says, "Where the **** did you come from."
I gestured roughly back the way we came.
This slightly flummoxed him, as we had crossed a big, fastflowing 40' wide river for practise and he couldn't work out how we did.
He then says, "You idiots left the gates open though didn't you."
I laughed and said no. We always would leave a closed gate closed.
He then accused us of damaging his fence. Then, he said I should I have used a gate a good 200m down the field rather than jumping his fence. I said I didn't see it, and it was ridiculously far away anyways. He then made a derisive comment about the quality of my eyesight. I responsed to this with the comment that "actually, my optician said I had the best eyesight she'd ever seen." Then, we just walked off, ignoring his profanities.


Oh, and the place has an excellent crop of chanterelles by the road, I highly recommend a visit. Glen Tromie lodge is what you want.

 

[BigShot]

Haha!
Nice work there Chips. I take it you were on legal access land right?
Are you certain they were Chanterelles and not one of the (less edible) lookalikes?