Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[johnretired]

nigelp​

hello sir, why have you made a SAD emoji at my post, could you please explain your reasoning as all i have stated is a fair appraisal of the legal situation and an educated opinion outlined with reasoned thought? May I assume everyone can stay on any land/property including bricks and mortar you or any of your family own for free and without permission every night of every year for eternity? best regards john

 

[johnretired]

FAO nigelp​

hello sir, why have you made a SAD emoji at my post, could you please explain your reasoning as all i have stated is a fair appraisal of the legal situation and an educated opinion outlined with reasoned legal thought applying UK Law which I assume we all adhere too? It is these Laws which protect your rights and all of the UK population rights surely. May I assume everyone can stay on any land/property including bricks and mortar you or any of your family and friends , associates etc own for FREE and without permission every night of every year for eternity? best regards john

 

[Broch]

FAO nigelp​

hello sir, why have you made a SAD emoji at my post, could you please explain your reasoning as all i have stated is a fair appraisal of the legal situation and an educated opinion outlined with reasoned legal thought applying UK Law which I assume we all adhere too? It is these Laws which protect your rights and all of the UK population rights surely. May I assume everyone can stay on any land/property including bricks and mortar you or any of your family and friends , associates etc own for FREE and without permission every night of every year for eternity? best regards john

John, there's no point shouting; you can't expect 'WhatsApp' type responses on a forum. Nigel may well not look at this again until tomorrow. To be honest, your post sounds like you're drumming for an argument - Nigel has just expressed his disagreement without wanting to argue; I suggest you leave it there. Others may take up your point in time.

 

[British Red]

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 a great example. Fishing in every UK river above the tidal area only happens because the owner of the fishing rights (which are all privately owned) permits it.

By law (since 1882) no public fishery can exist in waters that are not tidal. Even where a public right of navigation exists, this doesn’t give you the right to fish. So, in inland fisheries, the fishing rights are owned by someone. Some owners might choose to allow the public to fish free of charge or, for a variety of reasons, choose to take no actions against people fishing in their waters

And yet fishing is the largest participation sport.

It just shows how ownership, stewardship & permissive access can work. Isn't it great?

 

[Ozmundo]

Hi newbie chipping in,

It was mentioned wealth isn’t relevant to the arguments being proposed. I disagree a bit.

Well the fact is someone with extraordinary wealth decided to purchase a large are of land in a national park. Simply not an option for 99% of people.

The area is unusual for have a long standing tradition, seemingly recognised in law as allowing the public to access and carry out specific activities without permission from the land owner.

After owning the land for some years that person has taken legal action to overturn that established tradition. Again something that most is us probably couldn’t afford to do.

This is different to the situation of most peoples back gardens.

They’ve upset people. I don’t like it myself but clearly within their rights.

But, if their stated objective is to ensure protection for the environment and good conservation practice why did they choose this route?

As many people have identified there is a certain business model involved. The problems that they assert are due to wild camping are highly unlikely to be solved by this action.

Honestly I can see permission being granted may be rarer than rocking horse droppings. I hope to be proved wrong.

If they seek to stop irresponsible idiots wreaking the area it will have little effect as those sorts don’t care about permission.

Even if they physically enforce removing antisocial elements they’ll still have to bear the costs involved and maybe for cleaning up.

Does anyone know if the owner has tried to engage with those groups who do use the area responsibly before going to court?

Seems to me it’s a back door way to justify charging a fee.

 

[Ystranc]

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.

Public access hasn’t been curtailed in any way other than to assert the landowners right to require wild campers ask for permission though it’s a great shame that it had to come to this.
As a landowner (all be it on a much smaller scale) I can understand part of the reasoning for them to have gone to court over this but then for the people that were used to having the freedom to camp on Dartmoor it is a great loss.
Some of the most vocal vitriolic posts on the internet have come from people who have probably never camped on Dartmoor in their lives and are approaching this from a more political perspective.

 

[Ystranc]

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)

You use the term “exclusive usage”, this isn’t strictly the case…there is still freedom for the public to roam over the part of DartMoor owned by the Darwall’s. The idea of applying punitive tax to the landowner who already bears the cost for maintaining the land and clearing up after the public who have free access seems rather unjust. Being rich enough to own large tracts of land isn’t a crime.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

The idea of applying punitive tax to the landowner who already bears the cost for maintaining the land and clearing up after the public who have free access seems rather unjust.

I agree with what you're saying here. You raise some interesting points.

If the landowner's concerns relate to damage to the environment, it seems odd to go after wild camping though. After all, if you're out in the moors for the day, does it make that much difference if you stay out until the following day? The type of people that will leave litter will do it regardless.
Ban barbeques, ban dog walkers, overhaul land management, look at farming practices, that would make more sense surely. I'd have thought wild camping is fairly low down the list.
But I don't think it's about any of that. I think it is political, I think it's about control. They can't stop people roaming on their land, but I bet they would if they could.

 

[nigelp]

Public access hasn’t been curtailed in any way other than to assert the landowners right to require wild campers ask for permission.

That’s not quite correct. The judgement was to establish what would constitute ‘recreation’ as defined within access legislation because wild camping or spending the night on the moor wasn’t expressly included within it. It was however accepted as such a recreation on Dartmoor and has been accepted as such long before the land was purchased.
Recreation on Dartmoor as expressly permitted allows walking and horse riding and not much else within that narrow scope (see the list below taken from .gov site). This judgement might not just apply to wild camping because it could then be used to prevent photographers spending a long time on the moor without the express permission of the landowner - such as arriving before dawn or staying after sunset without permission because that’s not recreation either. The crow act only accepts a very narrow range of activities.
I don’t see any ‘bushcraft’ type activities on that list. So no wildlife tracking and trailing, don’t you dare stop and put a tarp up for the afternoon and practice you cooking skills with your stove.
Fancy a dog walk? Short lead between March and July across Stall Moor and all times around ‘livestock’ - game birds are defined as livestock along with the all year round sheep and cattle on the moor.

“There’s a general rule that visitors using their open access rights must keep dogs on a short lead of no more than 2 metres between 1 March and 31 July each year (except in the coastal margin) and at all times near livestock.”

Note it says ‘general rule’ - some estates and landowners will see that as the rule.

I say be careful what you wish for because when there are more laws and restrictions they start to affect everyone.

As @Suffolkrafter says - they can start with one activity and then down a list until suddenly all you can do is the four things below as defined within the act and nothing else.

What people can do on your land​

People can normally access your open access land on foot. They can:

• walk
• sightsee
• bird-watch
• climb
• run

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-ac...ponsibilities#what-people-can-do-on-your-land

 

[Ystranc]

H

I agree with what you're saying here. You raise some interesting points.

If the landowner's concerns relate to damage to the environment, it seems odd to go after wild camping though. After all, if you're out in the moors for the day, does it make that much difference if you stay out until the following day? The type of people that will leave litter will do it regardless.
Ban barbeques, ban dog walkers, overhaul land management, look at farming practices, that would make more sense surely. I'd have thought wild camping is fairly low down the list.
But I don't think it's about any of that. I think it is political, I think it's about control. They can't stop people roaming on their land, but I bet they would if they could.

Having seen pictures of debris left after lockdown parties over the last couple of years I have to say that I really do understand the anger of some landowners. Unfortunately people like the members of this forum, those who know how to behave, are a minority.

That’s not quite correct. The judgement was to establish what would constitute ‘recreation’ as defined within access legislation because wild camping or spending the night on the moor wasn’t expressly included within it. It was however accepted as such a recreation on Dartmoor and has been accepted as such long before the land was purchased.
Recreation on Dartmoor as expressly permitted allows walking and horse riding and not much else within that narrow scope (see the list below taken form .gov site). This judgement might not just apply to wild camping because it could then be used to prevent photographers spending a long time on the moor without the express permission of the landowner - such as arriving before dawn or staying after sunset without permission because that’s not recreation either. The crow act only accepts a very narrow range of activities.
I don’t see any ‘bushcraft’ type activities on that list. So no wildlife tracking and trailing, don’t you dare stop and put a tarp up for the afternoon and practice you cooking skills with your stove.
Fancy a dog walk? Short lead between March and July across Stall Moor and all times around ‘livestock’ - game birds are defined as livestock along with the all year round sheep and cattle on the moor.

“There’s a general rule that visitors using their open access rights must keep dogs on a short lead of no more than 2 metres between 1 March and 31 July each year (except in the coastal margin) and at all times near livestock.”

Note it says ‘general rule’ - some estates and landowners will see that as the rule.

I say be careful what you wish for because when there are more laws and restrictions they start to affect everyone.

As @Suffolkrafter says - they can start with one activity and then down a list until suddenly all you can do is the four things below as defined within the act and nothing else.

What people can do on your land​

People can normally access your open access land on foot. They can:

• walk
• sightsee
• bird-watch
• climb
• run

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-ac...ponsibilities#what-people-can-do-on-your-land

One thing that you mention…Strictly speaking game birds are not regarded as livestock once they have been released without realistic expectation of recovery or recapture. If your livestock (eg. Sheep or cattle) strays onto your neighbour’s land you commit an act of trespass however if game birds that you have reared and released go onto your neighbour’s property there is no act of trespass committed and you would lose your shooting rights over them. It’s a fine distinction but once gamebirds have been released they cease to be property in the true sense, the right to shoot them in season relates solely to the land that you’re shooting on/over. Keeping dogs under control in a public place is expected whether you’re on Dartmoor walking through livestock or walking down Islington high street past other dog owners.

 

[British Red]

Fancy a dog walk? Short lead between March and July across Stall Moor and all times around ‘livestock’ - game birds are defined as livestock along with the all year round sheep and cattle on the moor.

“There’s a general rule that visitors using their open access rights must keep dogs on a short lead of no more than 2 metres between 1 March and 31 July each year (except in the coastal margin) and at all times near livestock.”

Note it says ‘general rule’ - some estates and landowners will see that as the rule.

I would hope any responsible dog owner would not be ignorant enough to let their dog off the lead during the nesting season for ground nesting birds! Not just on Stall Moor but in any of the areas where declining & rare wildlife clings on.

Ground nesting birds | Dartmoor

_______________

www.dartmoor.gov.uk

Unfortunately I have witnessed all too often the ignorant, selfish and entitled letting their pet attack curlews, skylarks and more

Restrictions on letting dogs off lead in these periods should be applauded by anyone who cares about wildlife

 

[nigelp]

I’m 100% with you regarding dogs on leads. As you say the damage and disturbance they can cause is terrible.

 

[Woody girl]

Local South hams MP registered a £5, 000 gift from the landowner concerned.
He is refusing to comment on the situation or his gift.
Whereas other local MP' s are happy to comment, .... and largely support the pro wildcamping side.

 

[Ystranc]

Local South hams MP registered a £5, 000 gift from the landowner concerned.
He is refusing to comment on the situation or his gift.
Whereas other local MP' s are happy to comment, .... and largely support the pro wildcamping side.

It always seems a little mucky when politics gets dragged into public consultations.

 

[gibson 175]

Local South hams MP registered a £5, 000 gift from the landowner concerned.
He is refusing to comment on the situation or his gift.
Whereas other local MP' s are happy to comment, .... and largely support the pro wildcamping side.

How does one find such information? Was it hard to find?

 

[gibson 175]

MP who received donation from landowner refuses to criticise Dartmoor camping decision

Totnes MP Anthony Mangnall was given £5,000 according to parliament’s register of members’ interests in 2020

www.theguardian.com

MP who received donation from landowner refuses to criticise Dartmoor camping decision
Totnes MP Anthony Mangnall was given £5,000 according to parliament’s register of members’ interests in 2020
see also...
https://www.facebook.com/AnthonyMangnallMP/

 

[FerlasDave]

I have just seen an Instagram post promoting a mass protest on the 21st. They intend to wildcamp on the land in question.

I am not sure how this will help the situation.

 

[Laurentius]

You use the term “exclusive usage”, this isn’t strictly the case…there is still freedom for the public to roam over the part of DartMoor owned by the Darwall’s. The idea of applying punitive tax to the landowner who already bears the cost for maintaining the land and clearing up after the public who have free access seems rather unjust. Being rich enough to own large tracts of land isn’t a crime.

It may not be a crime, but it is not equity. Oligarchs are not confined to Russia, and I do not believe that you can acquire huge amounts of wealth without depriving somebody else. Whether it is inherited or gained by speculation in the money markets, I do not consider it to be honest myself. I do wish that some of the mega rich had a conscience to go with it, but it would appear for the most part the acquisition of wealth is more easily achieved without one. I am not saying that nobody should be wealthier than anybody else, but the disparities between the average and the super rich are extreme and disproportionate, and definitely not good for to quote Adam Smith "the wealth of nations"

 

[Ystranc]

So

It may not be a crime, but it is not equity. Oligarchs are not confined to Russia, and I do not believe that you can acquire huge amounts of wealth without depriving somebody else. Whether it is inherited or gained by speculation in the money markets, I do not consider it to be honest myself. I do wish that some of the mega rich had a conscience to go with it, but it would appear for the most part the acquisition of wealth is more easily achieved without one. I am not saying that nobody should be wealthier than anybody else, but the disparities between the average and the super rich are extreme and disproportionate, and definitely not good for to quote Adam Smith "the wealth of nations"

So how do farmers who‘s families have worked land for generations fit into that? Many farming families pre-date the national parks and some of that privately owned land is already enclosed (excluded from the open access areas shown on the OS maps).

The Blatchford estate that forms the part of Dartmoor in question last changed hands for five million, probably no more than the value of some of the farms. In modern terms five million pounds will buy you a nice terraced house in some parts of London. Hardly corrupt oligarch standard. Considering that no one actually knows what Mr Darwall’s motives are for this court action and he is still engaging with the park authorities and the Duchy estate this may all have been blown out of proportion. If you read the hysterical articles across the internet they’re full of opinions and assumptions but contain very few facts. Mass protest wild camps are unhelpful at best and likely to make matters worse because of the concentrated environmental impact, I’m sure the parks authority would oppose such action… let’s hope that all those protesters follow the mantra of “take nothing but memories and leave nothing but foot prints.”

 

[nigelp]

Fantastic news. An agreement has been reached following discussions.

https://mailchi.mp/dartmoor.gov.uk/agreement-reached-following-wild-camping-discussions?e=f7eb2c37e8