No right to roam.

[Broch]

The link you provided there agrees with me.

"A landowner who confronts you whilst trespassing on his land is unable to confiscate the contents of your basket, as they belong to you. However, you still must leave the land at the earliest opportunity."

It's legal to go into your garden and pick mushrooms (from a theft point of view) if I want, though the entering of the land is in itself trespass. The going into your garden would be trespass, which is a civil offence and you'd have the right to ask me to leave which I would have to do. However, if I picked mushrooms you would not be allowed to take them back, they would legally be my property at that point.

Section 4, subsection (3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose.

The trespass is not lawful, but the foraging of fungi/berries/leaves is as long as they're not being uprooted.

We are moving off topic - but I'm not sure there's much more to say about the access land

The law also says you must not cause damage (which is a criminal not civil offence) - one would have to be careful that damage is not caused. For example, my land is managed completely for conservation and there are signs saying that. Consequently, I could argue that the removal, or even the movement, of material was a damage to my efforts, costs, and plans for the land. I appreciate that if there is no conservation management plan there would be no claim of damage; but with the published plan being specifically to improve biodiversity any disturbance could be argued to be damaging. Luckily I've not had to test this in court

 

[British Red]

The link you provided there agrees with me.

Is foraging legal in the UK? Know the law - BritishLocalFood

A brief guide of the law concerning the picking of wild plants and mushrooms in the UK that will clarify all your legal questions.

britishlocalfood.com

It also states

CROW Act and Right to Roam​

Foraging laws can be further complicated by additional legislation, such as the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act, 2000 (applying to England and Wales only).

This legislation grants unrestricted access to designated areas of open land. This includes upland areas, downlands, heath and mountain, as well as land voluntarily opened up by a landowner.

The access is granted to the public for recreational purposes, although this is not explicitly defined. There are certain restrictions on what activities can be carried out in these areas, and the forager will be affected by the following clause:

“Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he –
(l)Intentionally removes, damages or destroys any plant, shrub, tree or root or any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root.”

 

[Chris]

Is foraging legal in the UK? Know the law - BritishLocalFood

A brief guide of the law concerning the picking of wild plants and mushrooms in the UK that will clarify all your legal questions.

britishlocalfood.com

It also states

CROW Act and Right to Roam​

Foraging laws can be further complicated by additional legislation, such as the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act, 2000 (applying to England and Wales only).

This legislation grants unrestricted access to designated areas of open land. This includes upland areas, downlands, heath and mountain, as well as land voluntarily opened up by a landowner.

The access is granted to the public for recreational purposes, although this is not explicitly defined. There are certain restrictions on what activities can be carried out in these areas, and the forager will be affected by the following clause:

Section 2(1) doesn't apply to picking the fruit/leaves/fungi, just uprooting plants or damaging/destroying them. Mushrooms are the fruiting body of the larger organism and picking them is fine.

 

[Paul_B]

Any mushrooms growing on my land are there because I want them for my own cultivation and culinary use, if edible. If you came in trespassing to pick them, thus depriving me of my food source, what is the legal situation? Is that criminal trespass at that point?

In my garden I have wild garlic, a native and naturally growing plant round this area. I do however clear it from areas I don't want it and encourage its growth in areas I do, for personal use. My partner does a nice pesto with it despite the remnant smell lingering on your breath like garlic but for about 3 days before giving up! It's nice but I'm prefer not to eat it for that reason. My question is that's a form of cultivation so legally you're not foraging a wild plant so it's that theft, criminal trespass and can I take my wild garlic harvest off you?

Curious as to the finer points that the linked article doesn't make clear. Gardens would seem more questionable if it's a maintained garden. What about maintained field boundaries? That strip of wild plants not commercially grown but grown under whatever Stewardship grant scheme applies. Cultivated by the farmer albeit for a subsidy.

 

[Chris]

We are moving off topic - but I'm not sure there's much more to say about the access land

The law also says you must not cause damage (which is a criminal not civil offence) - one would have to be careful that damage is not caused. For example, my land is managed completely for conservation and there are signs saying that. Consequently, I could argue that the removal, or even the movement, of material was a damage to my efforts, costs, and plans for the land. I appreciate that if there is no conservation management plan there would be no claim of damage; but with the published plan being specifically to improve biodiversity any disturbance could be argued to be damaging. Luckily I've not had to test this in court

I think that's grasping at straws a little bit there, the legislation is very clear that unless cultivated crops or organisms of scientific interest, they can be foraged.

Whether people agree with it or not, that's the law. I wouldn't want people picking mushrooms in my back garden either, but that doesn't change the fact that they could do so without me being able to do more than ask them to leave.

 

[Broch]

I think that's grasping at straws a little bit there, the legislation is very clear that unless cultivated crops or organisms of scientific interest, they can be foraged.

Whether people agree with it or not, that's the law. I wouldn't want people picking mushrooms in my back garden either, but that doesn't change the fact that they could do so without me being able to do more than ask them to leave.

Perhaps, but with increasing efforts to improve the biodiversity of the land, and increasing 'over foraging' of some species, I think the point is valid and, may well be tested. 'Damage' is not defined or limited in the law so 'upsetting' anything that is 'planned' (even if it is a wild herb) may well be classed as damage. In two months time my wood will be full of red campion, greater stitchwort, bluebells and a host of other wild flowers. If a gang came and trespassed to take wild flowers I am confident I would be able to prosecute because I have spent years and money generating an environment where those plants thrive. They have caused damage.

 

[Chris]

Perhaps, but with increasing efforts to improve the biodiversity of the land, and increasing 'over foraging' of some species, I think the point is valid and, may well be tested. 'Damage' is not defined or limited in the law so 'upsetting' anything that is 'planned' (even if it is a wild herb) may well be classed as damage. In two months time my wood will be full of red campion, greater stitchwort, bluebells and a host of other wild flowers. If a gang came and trespassed to take wild flowers I am confident I would be able to prosecute because I have spent years and money generating an environment where those plants thrive. They have caused damage.

The scenario you state there, I'd agree you may perhaps have a chance. If an individual comes along and picks a small amount of food (foraging, not just flower picking) for personal consumption, however, you'd not be able to do anything about it other than ask them to leave.

 

[Broch]

The scenario you state there, I'd agree you may perhaps have a chance. If an individual comes along and picks a small amount of food (foraging, not just flower picking) for personal consumption, however, you'd not be able to do anything about it other than ask them to leave.

Maybe, maybe not. I have 'cultivated' the environment for the plants (some of them rare) to grow. Let's hope I never have to prosecute

 

[British Red]

Section 2(1) doesn't apply to picking the fruit/leaves/fungi, just uprooting plants or damaging/destroying them. Mushrooms are the fruiting body of the larger organism and picking them is fine.

It literally says "any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root.”

 

[Chris]

It literally says "any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root.”

And it still isn’t offence. The law you are referring to states that it removes your right of access, not that picking those things is illegal. You could pick fruit/fungus and any attempt to take it from you would be theft.

At the point of your right of access is removed you are trespassing and should leave when asked to do so.

 

[Pattree]

Let's hope I never have to prosecute

Indeed! Regardless of our interpretations of the law here, the only winners in the contest would be the lawyers.

 

[Laurentius]

I have decided however, since people seem to think that access should be allowed on private land, that I will never pay for town or city accommodation again; I'll just camp in someone's garden, use their rose beds as my convenience, and, if there's no outside tap, wander into their kitchen to get water - oh, I may even dig up the odd carrot.

It is all a matter of degree though, if you trespass on my allotment and pinch my vegetables I shall be annoyed, it is not a lot of land, but if you have thousands of acres of garden then it is another matter, depending on what you do with it, you probably do not need it all and no-one will notice.

There does need to be a sensible solution to these Islands of land, that is to say it would not be hard to create footpaths and gates to some of them, new rights of way, which is different from allowing people to trample all over your fields to get there, which they will if there isn't an easier way.

I had an interesting conversation a while back with a guy I caught "trespassing" on my land. Technically he had as much right as I had to be there, as the landowner, being the Council has given people permission to cross it to access the river, however the first time I caught him there I gave him a warning not to trample on my newly planted trees. however he has since said he enjoys the view I am creating out there and understands why I was a bit peevish before as he would not like it if there were a footpath established there accessed by a bridge over the river. I have long since stopped going to a certain public woodland near to where I live because I am sick of seeing all the bottles and cans and evidence of barbecues all over the place. That is the trouble with marginal land on the borders of urban areas, it gets abused for more than wilder places.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

My thoughts are that demonising one side or the other doesn't help matters, and in real life, we're not so easily divisible into 'urban people' or 'country people' and so on. But we do live in a culture that encourages devisevness.
There's a common denominator to the problems afflicting the countryside; the problem is people serving their own interests at the expense of everything else, whether that's tourists defacating in shrubbery and dropping litter, people lighting campfires simply because they want to, landowners blocking access, overgrazing and mismanaging land and destroying waterways (as is happening where I grew up), hunts killing foxes because they believe that tradition entitles them to. Etc etc. I feel like our society encourages an attitude of looking after ones own interests and to hell with everything else. As a result people become less compassionate to others and the environment - both urban environment and natural environment. This is what needs to change.

 

[Paul_B]

It's not just urban border areas but into the hills too. I've said many a time on here that a certain tarn in the Lakes gets abused by commercial outdoor education organisation. On other occasions its namesake tarn in another area of the Lakes we've picked up all sorts of rubbish from nappies to discarded beer or baked bean cans. That tarn was not typically used by outdoor organisations but individuals.

Imho it's not about the individual now, it's more systemic. Society is entitled, selfish, destructive and highly inconsiderate. Is that worse now than in the past? I don't think so. Selfish ape springs to mind!

This thread only reinforces my view that society and communities are about vested interests. My rights vs your rights. How about no rights? Or no rights you can't defend!

Sorry I'm in a negative mood this morning. I just wonder if we gave some people the right to go anywhere they wanted they'd not think it's enough. I mean these pockets of no access land with access to them article makes my point well. You do have access to these pockets but it's not enough, why? Yes they can take it away but that would result in the landowners benefit being taken away. If that was worth having they'd be daft to stop it with the access agreements.

BTW I used to kayak back in the day courtesy of access agreements with restrictions. Back then river access was so poor you really only got it through trespass. Compared to our rights as walkers on the land kayaker practically had no rights. With this in mind I actually think we have good land access but it's not enough. Imagine if land access mirrored river access 30 odd years ago. You can walk up helvellyn but only on the last Sunday of the month for 3 months of the year. Oh and it's limited to 50 pre-booked walkers too!

 

[Broch]

Don't get me started on river access

 

[Danceswithhelicopters]

Who possesses this landscape? –
The man who bought it or
I who am possessed by it?

Norman McCaig, A Man in Assynt

 

[Broch]

Who possesses this landscape? –
The man who bought it or
I who am possessed by it?

Norman McCaig, A Man in Assynt

Well, for thousands of years it was the man with the best bow, best spear, best sword, most accurate gun, biggest bomb ... thankfully, in this country we are (mostly) beyond that.

 

[Pattree]

I’m several decades too young (Not a phrase that I use often.) to have been part of the Mass Trespass but the access to Kinder Scout, The Pennine Way and ultimately the National Park were not the generous or willing gift of landowners. No one was prepared to meet half way.

They were won.

I honour those who cared, particularly those who went to prison to give me free access to the moors.

“So I’ll walk where I will over moorland and hill
And I’ll lie where the bracken it’s deep.
I belong to the mountains and the clear crystal fountains,
Where the grey rocks are jagged and steep.
I’ve seen the white hare in the gullies and the curlew fly [low] overhead,
And sooner than part from the mountain,
I think I would rather be dead.”

Ewan MacColl.

The only time that I saw the white hare in the groughs ( as I know the gullies ) they were moulting, half brown and half white and matched the brown peat and the grey gritstone in the bottoms perfectly. I’ve only ever seen curlew fly low.

Many of those 2,400 areas do not have any marked access at all. No one is going to gift us access - yes we can ask first, we can offer to make styles and gates but in many cases and ultimately it will take pressure from those of us who care.

 

[slowworm]

My first thought was for the wildlife in the patches of non-open access land. It's likely to be much better off without too many people roaming through it.

It's also a bit sad to see some of the comments are about what someone can take rather that what's best for the land.

 

[Robbi]

Well, for thousands of years it was the man with the best bow, best spear, best sword, most accurate gun, biggest bomb ... thankfully, in this country we are (mostly) beyond that.

Pity that.