Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[Billy-o]

The c18th - C20th inclosure acts forced certain castes of people from the land and some of them had to live on the roads or in hedges when outside of those annual periods when agricultural wage labour/accommodation was available - which led to other problems including a generally held suspicion of 'itinerants' on the part of landowners and townsfolk. Need leads sometimes to what is viewed as criminality. Further controlling laws grew from that. It was miserable in England. Worse in Scotland.

OT : Such disposession continued in the way the railways were built, the London Underground, just for example, was involved in patterns of land acquisition which were interesting, and of course the laws exercised by the UK state to build motorways still exist and are exercised. It is also an interesting fact that in the UK 55% of houseowners have mortgages, i.e. they don't hold their own ownership documents. Similar for farmers and rural landowners. Fail to pay the mortgage and you may well be out on your ear. It is all very precarious.

 

[British Red]

Enclosure by Act
Originally, enclosures of land took place through informal agreement. But during the 17th century the practice developed of obtaining authorisation by an Act of Parliament. Initiatives to enclose came either from landowners hoping to maximise rental from their estates, or from tenant farmers anxious to improve their farms.

From the 1750s enclosure by parliamentary Act became the norm. Overall, between 1604 and 1914 over 5,200 enclosure Bills were enacted by Parliament which related to just over a fifth of the total area of England, amounting to some 6.8 million acres.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/landscape/overview/enclosingland/

Stages of the Enclosure process (Before 1801)
Stage 1
-Owners of at least 3/4 of the village had to agree to the enclosures
-A petition was drawn up, which asked Parliament to pass an Enclosure Act for the village
-Notice was posted on the church door informing villagers of the enclosure ¹
Stage 2
-A small committee from Parliament came to hear any objections the village people had
-Parliament then either passes the act, or rejects it depending on the advice from the earlier committee
-Commissioners are then appointed to observe the enclosure of the land ¹
Stage 3
-A detailed map is drawn up of the current land holdings, marking the land into individual plots
-Landowners must then prove their legal entitlement to the land they are currently farming
-A new map is drawn, giving legal land owners their share
-Landowners then build fences and roads on their new land

Without enclosure advanced agriculture would not have been possible & the ability to support the urban population required for an industrial revolution would not have happened

 

[Billy-o]

This one is new to me:

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

 

[Broch]

Yet, when the boot is on the other foot, we're supposed to support it. An earlier post suggested we taxed and leaned on the landowner to such an extent that he had to vacate; am I the only one that sees the irony in that?

 

[Billy-o]

I think, first, we should remember what the OP was referring to. A particular case, and a landmark, one made difficult to swallow because of the way these particular 'farmers' are actually hedge-fund owners who want to have holiday rentals and game shooting. Wildcampers aren't compatible with that, as far as they see.

The other thing is that lots/most/all people are likely pretty sympathetic to the general plight of those trying to eke a living out of rural food production. They may not all agree politically and, like everywhere, there is a difference between rural and urban sensibilities. But the sympathy for those struggling, I think, remains nevertheless.

 

[British Red]

I think, first, we should remember what the OP was referring to. A particular case, and a landmark, one made difficult to swallow because of the way these particular 'farmers' are actually hedge-fund owners who want to have build holiday rentals and game shooting. Wildcampers aren't compatible with that, as far as they see.

The other thing is that lots/most/all people are likely pretty sympathetic to the general plight of those trying to eke a living out of rural food production. They may not all agree politically and, like everywhere, there is a difference between rural and urban sensibilities. But the sympathy for those struggling, I think, remains nevertheless.

The owners haven't said that wild camping is not permitted on their estate, merely that people should ask permission.

I camped on Dartmoor long before the 1985 act and don't recall ever being refused permission to camp. Indeed most farmers were lovely and hospitable as were the Warren House Inn, the shop at Postbridge & all the other locals. Being courteous and asking permission doesn't seem a huge imposition if people are keen to do it. Indeed there's a map on this thread that shows who owns what.

 

[Herman30]

This one is new to me:

They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.

In Estonia they have a saying (translated to english):

Small crooks hang.
Big crooks sit in the horse carridge.

 

[nigelp]

The owners haven't said that wild camping is not permitted on their estate, merely that people should ask permission.

It won’t be giving permission.
The estate will however be getting tens of thousands of requests to camp soon….

 

[Wander]

Yeah, I think you're being a bit dewy-eyed (at best) or disingenuous (at worst) if you think they're about to start saying yes to people.
I don't doubt that Ray, Ben, Bear etc will be allowed to camp, for a filming fee...

 

[British Red]

It won’t be giving permission.

How do you know?

 

[British Red]

Yeah, I think you're being a bit dewy-eyed (at best) or disingenuous (at worst) if you think they're about to start saying yes to people.

I rarely find that rudeness persuades people to a point of view.

On this occasion I can see both sides of the debate. Damage to land and livestock, rudeness to people who own and work on the land, litter and faeces are all too frequent occurrences. Equally well people do need places to exercise and experience nature.

In my opinion, tolerance, courtesy and understanding needs to be shown by both sides and jumping to conclusions is unlikely to resolve the situation

 

[Suffolkrafter]

I rarely find that rudeness persuades people to a point of view.

On this occasion I can see both sides of the debate. Damage to land and livestock, rudeness to people who own and work on the land, litter and faeces are all too frequent occurrences. Equally well people do need places to exercise and experience nature.

In my opinion, tolerance, courtesy and understanding needs to be shown by both sides and jumping to conclusions is unlikely to resolve the situation

That about sums it up for me.

I'm not completely sure that this issue is really about environmental damage though. We all take a toll on the land whether we are public users (ramblers, campers, dog walkers etc) or landowners and farmers - I suppose exceptions being those managing land with a particular view to improving it environmentally, increasing biodiversity and so on.

The question is, what fundamental rights do we, as a country, decide that all citizens should be afforded irrespective of personal wealth, luck and circumstance?
And how should these fundamental rights be balanced vs other rights, i.e. in this case the right to own land and to do what you want with it?
And how is population density and public attitude to environment factored into this? And intended land use?

As a population, in this country, do we even deserve access to land in the way that Scandinavians have access to their land? Do we have sufficient respect for the land?

I don't want anyone traipsing through my small garden. I have a right to privacy. But what if my garden is a small woodland? Or a large woodland? Open moorland? At what point should I have to give access to people? Should the rights of the majority outweigh the rights of the few? Look at France for example. Vast swathes of land are made inaccessible for the majority by a minority of hunters. Is that fair?

And then this has to be balanced with the needs of the landowner. Where's the incentive to correctly manage land if you see people trash it repeatedly? Who's going to want that responsibility?

Wish I knew the answers to all this. But I do think too much unnecessary focus has been put on wild camping. There are bigger issues out there.

 

[Wander]

Yes, I agree - I think the previous two posts have the most reasonable take on this.

The only other ingredient I'd like to throw in to the mix, is one of population (in the UK).
There's just too many of us.
During lockdown I noticed a definite erosion to tracks with the increased footfall, and this will have a knock on effect on habitat and biodiversity. But the last thing the countryside needs is more people traipsing over it, though everyone should have that right.
I haven't got an answer. All I know (and sorry for repeating myself but it keeps getting overlooked) is that you can't have rights without responsibilities.

 

[BumblingAlong]

I’ve looked it up, the licence to travel was known as a Pauper’s pass warrant. If you were a travelling to sell your wares you would require a hawkers licence. Being found abroad, sleeping rough, in a tent or abandoned building outside your parish without either would be a punishable offence.

Need one of those for Oxford soon

 

[Laurentius]

Yet, when the boot is on the other foot, we're supposed to support it. An earlier post suggested we taxed and leaned on the landowner to such an extent that he had to vacate; am I the only one that sees the irony in that?

I don't see a contradiction in land reform through the tax system that discourages the accumulation of very large tracts of land for fairly exclusive usage. I have my reservations about the National Trust, but they at least are supposed to manage the land in the public interest as a charity. This does not impact the small land owner, as it would be a progressive tax system, land over a certain limit unless owned by a charitable trust (a proper one, not Eton School) or a public authority such as the Forestry commission, or a public water board. (Water needs reforming too)

 

[billycoen]

Never mind all this wild camping on moorland and forests malarkey,get yourself down to your nearest roundabout,it's all about "stealthy" camping according to youtube.Gawd help us...

 

[pieinthesky]

What would it be like if fishing were only allowed in one UK river? I suspect the land owners in the area would find plenty to complain about!

What if the only place you could swim in the whole UK were lake Windermere? What if the only place you could let your dog of its lead were in Hyde Park?

Surely this is a reason to increase public access, not decrease it.

 

[Broch]

There are about 175,000 km of public footpaths in the UK the majority of which (in terms of length) are in rural settings. There isn't a lack of access, there are restrictions on what we can do.

I have never been refused an overnight camp when canoeing, walking, cycling or even in the truck. I am afraid that the activities of the last two years may make things different now though. But who'd refuse an old man a night's kip?

 

[johnretired]

I’ve looked it up, the licence to travel was known as a Pauper’s pass warrant. If you were a travelling to sell your wares you would require a hawkers licence. Being found abroad, sleeping rough, in a tent or abandoned building outside your parish without either would be a punishable offence.

 

[johnretired]

Would it not be reasonable to determine that if the Owner of the land on Dartmoor who has won this action does not want people camping overnight on land that they own then that would surely be reasonable, especially as the Court has upheld the request under UK Law? If anyone who wishes to continue overnight free camping after the legal ban on Dartmoor has been declared then First perhaps any such individual must forever also make available any property they reside at, at all times too be available to any other individual to stay at overnight, that would surely then be a fair exchange and show that individual upheld the 'Spirit' of the claim they are trying to continue to maintain against the Dartmoor Landowner.
I have visited Dartmoor many times during my life and as i approach my 7th decade here on this Planet we all have to adapt and simply saying something has happened previously does not mean it is the best way forward now. Like so many Dartmoor users I see Human waste and littering just about everywhere I go on Dartmoor. Once I wished to move permanently to Dartmoor as I believed it remained stationary to change but my visits have become fewer as the Moor has become contaminated by the visitors using it with sometimes no regard to the mess they leave behind.