National Parks

[arctic hobo]

Inspired by the thread on the forestry comission and legality of camping, I'd love to hear all your views on access and protection of land in the UK. I know this can get contentious and arguable, but if we try and keep it under control
It seems to me that we have a fairly unique situation regarding land in the UK.
Firstly, there is little land (in the UK as a whole, although admittedly Scotland is very different to say England) that is 'wild' land - that is, uncultivated, public land. Public as in how it used to be in prehistory - without any laws over it.
We have forests that are Forestry Commission (very tightly controlled, and enforced), and those owned by other forestry companies like Sylvanis and Fountain Forestry (varying but usually like FC land), and forest owned by farmers. Lastly, we have forest in designated national parks.
But is there any sense in controlling land so tightly? So much so that nobody can properly enjoy it? Do we run the risk of having a countryside behind a sheet of glass, look but don't touch?
There are hundreds of ways of categorizing land. We have SSSIs, AONBs, Nature reserves, Conservation Areas, of course National Parks, Access Land, etc, etc.
National Parks seem to be one of the highest forms of protection. At least, what are called National Parks in other countries are very well protected, most notably those in Eastern Europe such as Bialowieski in Poland, Synevyr in the Ukraine, etc. But in the UK all sorts seems to be allowed, like the Whinash windfarm by the Yorkshire dales (ok this isn't yet), or Hope Quarry in the Peak District. But in the same breath camping is very restricted - even with the new CROW act it's limited to a few nights and only in some areas. This flies in the face of countries like Sweden and Norway, who with their Allemannsretten allow wild camping literally anywhere - and yet they have no quarries or windfarms by their parks.
So what should we do about National Parks? Should they be opened more, or protected more, or just changed?
Another great problem in the UK (having so little hikable land and such an enormous population - remember 1% of everyone in the world is British!) is path erosion. And irresponsible tourism. Should paths be repeatedly restored, and who should fund it? Do diggers and cranes have any place in the parks?
Should we restrict access to stop erosion?
In some countries, the problem does not exist because of their terrain (the Norwegian idea of a path is often an amusingly sadistic red T painted in a boulder field with stones the size of a car!), and in others because there aren't enough hikers - but the fact is it does exist in the UK. Do we just accept it as a natural process?
I could go on all day (there's a lot to say on the subject I think!) Your thoughts please

 

[BlueTrain]

If I may, I'd like to throw in a few comments, even though I'm an American. These are completely off the top of my head, too.

The situation is similiar in this country--in places. That is pretty much why there are national parks here, too, because some places of natural beauty and wonder would otherwise have a lot of traffic. One in particular is Yellowstone and the other is the Great Smokies. Yet others have been created out of space that was already being lived on, like Shenandoah, which led to some bitter feeling in some places.

I recall being able to camp along the New River in West Virginia, completely unrestricted. There are still a few places where that is possible (there) but most of the area I'm thinking of has been made a public hunting and fishing reserve, also known as a Wildlife Management Area. I remember very well spending a cold November afternoon stuck in my then new (second-hand) Land-Rover. I got un-stuck, finally, but I had been able to just drive down this old dirt road until the road ran out. The next time I went by there, the road had been graded-and gated. The next time, which was about ten years ago now, the gate was still there but the road was completely grown up. It was still a wildlife management area but it made a great place for hiking, all the same.

Honestly, I don't know. Enthusiasm for hiking, camping and the like comes and goes. When I first bought that Land-Rover, Colin Fletcher had just published the Complete Walker and that sort of thing was just beginning to take off. But my memory only goes back so far and I cannot say with assurance if things are better or worse in any respect. But it is certainly not simple.

Many things enter into the story, at least here, anyway. There is always the budgetary consideration, there are pressures to use the parks for other purposes or, sometimes, even to eliminate the park altogether.

I am interested in the other responses you may receive.

 

[mark a.]

Good question (or set of questions - there's quite a lot in your post!) Not sure how one could answer it, though. I think it's great we have the National Parks to protect the limited land we have available to us, but on the other hand it's not really worth it if the rules restrict us from using it properly, or if they become magnets for too many people (like path erosion problems in the Lakes).

I'm sure the parks have a difficult job with the balancing act of use vs protection. Cars and roads are environmentally damaging - but you can't ban them from the Lakes as you wouldn't get any visitors. But what about camping / bushcrafting? It's fine if sensible, considerate people like us do it, but what about the masses who would mess things up, burn down forests accidentally and leave litter everywhere?

I would really like the Forestry Commission to allow more camping - something along the lines of a permit system, perhaps. Walking through miles upon miles of lovely forests can be lovely, but a bit depressing if you can't explore them properly, especially if you're stuck to the logging tracks.

Personally, I know I would love the ability to stay on a nice bit of land, but then I wouldn't want every Tom, Dick and Harry being able to do so too. But then how could you decide and enforce a restriction policy? Perhaps the FC has it right - just be really restrictive and save yourself lots of headaches!

 

[Biddlesby]

I think that might be the only solution, despite what people who would treat their camping sites with respect have to put up with.

I just want to add that I believe if you 'manage' wildlife it stops being wildlife.

 

[Nyayo]

A major difference between British National Parks, and those in the rest of the world is that people still work and live within the park boundaries - in the peaks we have many large (and innumerable small) villages within the Peak District National Park. In most other places, people were either forcibly cleared from the park area (i.e. South Africa) or prevented from settling within the boundaries. The planning/access law within British Parks is therefore a nightmare, with the needs of residents and tourists having to be taken into account.

My second point is popularity. The Peak District is arguably the second (or first, depending on who you ask) most visited Park in the world; it is surrounded by major cities like Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield etc. I think something like 75% of the Uk's population live within 1 hour of the Peaks. If we don't protect it, it will get developed by either housing (bad) or industry (much worse). If we choose to protect it, it can be seen as elitist, or even a 'fossilised' social landscape, resembling that of the 50's rather than that of the C21st. No win situation.

Nyayo

PS Hope quarry, Tunstead quarry (with it's 11 miles of workings) etc have planning permissions that pre-date the Park, so, natch, they dig away in absolute bliss, and defend themselves with that old red-herring of 'you close us, and you'll have 1000's of job losses'...

 

[moko]

Although I hate myself for saying this, I think the FC and various conservation organisations have probaby got it right. The few remaining 'natural' areas in the UK are for everyone from schools kids to serious hikers. We live in a highly populated country where outdoor pursuits are becoming more popular and the pressures on the natural environment are immense. Unfortunetly, those of us who love bushcraft just dont fit into the bigger picture and as a result are forced into the margins of rural life. It is a paradox, that as people are starting to take more of an interest in envoronment issues, wood craft and rural topics in general, the more regulated and restricted the countryside seems to become.
Sorry, I dont have an answer although upping sticks and moving to the Yukon seems like a good idea.

 

[JoshG]

I think the FC should run some sort of system that allows those of us who want to wild camp the freedom to do so. All this illegality really gets to me, and sure i'm all for conservation, but surely they can make exceptions?

 

[andyn]

I think the FC should run some sort of system that allows those of us who want to wild camp the freedom to do so

I have to disagree....It would be nice to be able to...but i still disagree.

Its all very well and good changing regulations and allowing anyone and everyone to camp in forest/wood areas, but how much more annoyed would you be if you turned up at your favourite wood only to find burnt tree stumps where someones fire got out of control and burnt the whole thing down.

The rules are there not only to protect say the FC's finacial investment into what is now their property, but also to maintain an enviroment that everyone can enjoy when they visit. It just happens that the rules clash with our choosen hobby/lifestyle.

I think its one of those subjects that could be discussed forever. I'll quote something, although not nessecarilly acurately, that a politician once said "We cannot please everyone, we can only do what we feel is best for the majority"

 

[Fluxus]

The rules are there not only to protect say the FC's finacial investment into what is now their property, but also to maintain an enviroment that everyone can enjoy when they visit.

As a government agency, the FC's property is our property as a nation.
Land ownership and access is a deep philosophical question which I won't state my views on here again, suffice to say I have a big problem with the general attitude towards land ownership in our culture.

Secondly - I'd like to steer clear of an elitist attitude amongst those who like being outside towards the rest of the population - the countryside is there for all however they choose to behave in it.

Flux

 

[pumbaa]

I would be more than happy to pay for a course that gave me a "recognised" license to wild camp . Something along the "leave no trace" theorys . If the price was high enough to make the destroys think "no way" but still affordable for the serious wild campers , it may just work ! It would need to be nationaly recognised though .
As a side thought i would also be happy to volunter to police a scheme like this in our local woods .
I Know this is not the best idea , but it would allow a compromise .
Pumbaa

 

[bambodoggy]

I would be more than happy to pay for a course that gave me a "recognised" license to wild camp . Something along the "leave no trace" theorys . If the price was high enough to make the destroys think "no way" but still affordable for the serious wild campers , it may just work ! It would need to be nationaly recognised though .
As a side thought i would also be happy to volunter to police a scheme like this in our local woods .
I Know this is not the best idea , but it would allow a compromise .
Pumbaa

I have to agree more or less with you there Mate, seems like a sencible way forward.

I'm not so sure about the pricing though, I'd rather the costs were kept right down and you only had to do say a weekend. You then get your "Wildcamp permit", and away you go. Some of the money paid for the permit could go towards paying to have rangers on site regularly to check permits. If you don't have a permit then you get a warning, if you are caught again without then you get a fine (which goes back into the pot to pay for more rangers). If you are not following the codes laid down in the weekend course (no trace, fire control etc) then again you get a warning (like a points endorcement on your driving licence) and the next time you have the permit revoked and have to do the weekend course again.... if you licence is revoked twice then that's your lot, you've had your chance.

Not rocket science and a good compromise to allow everyone to use, as Flux says, what is in effect our land

Just my thoughts anyway....and odd as I'm usually dead against regulartion but in this case I think it could be the solution to many problems

Cheers,

Bam.

 

[Toddy]

Permits, licences, qualifications.....????

Lobby, petition, demonstrate best practice!!!

**Your** land, not a private preserve for some elite sportsmen; not an exclusive, "we've passed the test" smug club; not an enclaved zone confining humanity to the suburban limits of society.

I don't believe you lot.....what is condoned & tolerated is encouraged. You are in effect justifying the non human use of the parks.....aren't we part of nature any more??

If the parks get well used then the funding we apply ought to reflect their popularity and that will make education part of the curriculum, the country code, poisonous plants, threatened species, etc., used to be taught in schools, aren't they nowadays?
If not, *why*not?

Maintainance, upkeep and repair should be given the feel good factor, ....all those little gym junkies could really enjoy a proper workout and the Trust for Conservation Volunteers would get a nice boost. They are already set up to cover training, public liability, etc., if everyone who uses the land does their bit to keep things healthy then it's available for all of us.
Over use of land can be re-directed and infra structure put in place to cope...it's not rocket science to landscape a decent hard wearing path with adequate resources. Most people will never stray from the path but the potential is there for those who do want to go a little deeper to do so without becoming criminals.

Okay, rant over......but if no-one complains nothing changes; if you don't ask you don't get.

Toddy.....going for a walk in the woods

 

[JoshG]

I have to disagree....It would be nice to be able to...but i still disagree.

Its all very well and good changing regulations and allowing anyone and everyone to camp in forest/wood areas, but how much more annoyed would you be if you turned up at your favourite wood only to find burnt tree stumps where someones fire got out of control and burnt the whole thing down.

The rules are there not only to protect say the FC's finacial investment into what is now their property, but also to maintain an enviroment that everyone can enjoy when they visit. It just happens that the rules clash with our choosen hobby/lifestyle.

I think its one of those subjects that could be discussed forever. I'll quote something, although not nessecarilly acurately, that a politician once said "We cannot please everyone, we can only do what we feel is best for the majority"

Well I guess illegal wild camping is the way forward then, huh?

 

[pumbaa]

Toddy ,
I agree with everything you have said , but if i were to wild camp in our local forest then i would be branded a criminal (or at least given a hard time by the authorities) as it is mostly FC land round here and they do not approve of such activity .
Most people would be able to do what they have been doing any way . Yet i feel that no matter how much lobbying was done wild camping would never be alowed as there are to many people that would ruin the chance given . At least a license of sorts could open up the areas to those that wanted to make use of it for wild camping . Other activitys would more likely not need it , so it is really just bushcraft that would gain from it , although oranisations like the scouts and woodcraft folk could also gan from being alowed to use these areas overnight !
I know its not ideal , but surely a compromise would help to open the areas to those who could sensibly make use of them .
Pumbaa

 

[bambodoggy]

Toddy, I agree broadly with what you say but unfortunately I think it would end up as a lot of things do with a small few ruining things for the rest of us.

I'm not talking about quals to go outside, just a licencing thing in very much the same way that you need to do a test to get a car licence. Once you show you are able to use the wild areas without causing damage and destruction then you should be allowed to, at the moment you cannot legaly do it down here in England.
I'm talking about doing this only for wild camping though....walks and other access would stay open to all as it is now.

This systyem would mean that those who really want to go out and wild camp are able to show they are responcible and would be able to legally enjoy their hobby. Those that were only in it for an outdoor booze up would most likely not bother getting the licence and so would not be allowed there....or have their licence endorced or revoked if they messed about.

This is the only practicle way I can see of getting people like the FC to open up a bit more for us "over nighters".

Does that make a bit more sence now?

Bam.

 

[jamesdevine]

Here In Ireland thinks are different. Our access laws are to say the least very outdated and largely infavour of the land owners. Are population is not huge and our farmer (the many land owners) are struggling to keep going with the treat of losing their EU subsidies that they are largely depended on.

Tourism here you say and yes from what I have read (and there is alot to read) tourism offeres a part way forward from many land owners. But here is the thing both they and the government seem hell bent on moving in this direction and the old issue of Insurance and who is going to pay for the opening of the land.

Well us the recreational users no matter how you look at will end up paying through the noise to access land that 10years ago I could walk accross and camp on without problem.

We have a small population but the land has always owed by a very small part of that population in that past it was the right too own and work you lived on that was the probelm, now it is simply the right to visit there and enjoy it. Progress what

But as Toddy has said it won't change if we don't make it change and part of that is co operation with the land owners.


My 2 cents

James

 

[SMARTY]

I have found that the key to dealing with the FC is liaison. Down here there are woods managed by them with public access. The big issue seams to be FIRE. You can see their point of view. I use FC land and light fires. The FC visit, have a brew and leave. As long as you play by the rules there is generally no problems.
I have found old fire pits, rubbish, and open toilets in the forest, no wonder they get p'd off.
Alternatively talk to local land owners. I have found quite a few who will let me into their woods to camp, and light fires. I normally dont cut but clear the fallen wood to burn. Everyone is happy.

 

[Rod]

Hmm.

Been wild camping in many of the National Parks for years: Never asked permission. Never left a trace.

As long as you don't make yourself obvious, camp higher up, be discreet, keep well away from livestock and behave like you are part of the landscape, and not like most of the visitors to the NP's ; you're OK (in my experience).

I do some voluntary work for the FC and they seem OK with me wanting to camp - no open fire though. Mil trangia is fine. They seem glad to have the someone on-site overnight from time to time

Sorry guys - some of the fuss is lost on me. No offence

peace

 

[BlueTrain]

I want to make a couple more comments here. But first I wanted to mention that, apparently like the UK, some of our National Forests have complete towns within them and so on. Some National Forests are very large. But National Parks are another story altogether, with the parks taking many different forms. A better way to say that is there are seashores, trails, scenic rivers(!!), monuments, landmarks and the more usual parks, all administered by the National Park Service. There are also state parks and forests, just to confuse the matter, plus wildlife management areas (public hunting and fishing preserves). But the same problems exist.

In fact, problems go back a long way. One sort of problem, which I assume does not exist in the UK, is wildlife in national parks becoming a problem for local farmers and ranchers. Wolves are usually the subject.

I will leave aside the concept of land ownership as it might relate to the topic. Local ideas go back hundreds of years, even here, even further in other places. But newer concepts are a bigger concern. One idea is just how people fit into all this. Another is the concept of wilderness and, I guess, how people fit into it.

Contributor Toddy hits the nail on the head. Are people a part of nature anymore? Can you exclude people from a park and call it natural. Or to put it another way, was the park made for people or not?

The whole concept of wilderness as it is used in the U.S. may not exist in the U.K. and Europe (or anywhere else, for that matter). Wilderness is more a point of view than anything else, anyway. Trees don't enter into the matter. The Indians who lived in the "wilderness" certainly didn't see it that way. In fact, the Indians in the East practiced considerable wildlife management, for that day and age. European settlers had their own ideas, of course, and the bucolic countryside with white fences, red barns and nice houses of all sizes is the result.

And that all happened without barons telling us what to do.

 

[JoshG]

I have found that the key to dealing with the FC is liaison. Down here there are woods managed by them with public access. The big issue seams to be FIRE. You can see their point of view. I use FC land and light fires. The FC visit, have a brew and leave. As long as you play by the rules there is generally no problems.
I have found old fire pits, rubbish, and open toilets in the forest, no wonder they get p'd off.
Alternatively talk to local land owners. I have found quite a few who will let me into their woods to camp, and light fires. I normally dont cut but clear the fallen wood to burn. Everyone is happy.

Where do I begin asking local land owners?