Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[British Red]

That's not a defence of shooting but more a comment that most people will not pay the extra for conservation.

Actually, it is. It's undeniable that more diverse woodland habitat has been maintained by game shooting than any other group. Its equally true that anglers do more to maintain rivers and police water quality than any other group.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have no desire to participate in driven game shooting or catch and release angling - I find both distasteful - but I'm also objective enough to recognise the benefits of the pastimes.

Isn't that exactly what they are doing with grouse moors?

Oh goodness me no, that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of shooting. If you think a day's grouse shooting is free, you are woefully misinformed. It's also a very different type of driven shooting to pheasant and red legged partridge - but of course you knew that didn't you?

 

[British Red]

Isn't that exactly what they are doing with grouse moors?

I'm very sure that if you are willing to compensate the landowner with a similar sum to wild camp, they would be happy to accommodate you.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Presumably no-one expects landowners to maintain woodland at their own expense as a playground for others?

If by maintain you mean pick up people's rubbish then no, absolutely no land owner should have to do that.
But if you mean maintain woodland to a certain standard, from an ecological and conservation point of view, and provide a degree of access, I don't think that's so far fetched. Any property ownership comes with certain rules responsibilities so why not. Ask anyone who owns a listed building.

It's a hard thread this, because I think different issues are being debated under the one topic; the objections/resentment of people even owning large amounts of land in the first place; issues around conservation and whose responsibility it is; right to privacy; access rights - to who, to what degree, at what cost; leisure activies - wild campers Vs shooters... Could through mountain bikers into the mix, cavers, god knows who else. Land usage too. On that note, perhaps it should be prohibited to convert any woodland to any other use.

A bit of a tangle really.

 

[British Red]

. Ask anyone who owns a listed building.

That'll be me then. I live in and have fully restored a listed building to standards far exceeding those required by building regulations, conservation and heritage officers or planning regulations. But you know what, no-one comes along expecting to be able to use it or worse yet damage it, as a right, whilst contributing literally nothing to it's upkeep.

 

[Ozmundo]

Well whaling was a great support of the economy in its time but ultimately doomed when most of the whales were wiped out. There is a difference between wanting to keep the pigeons and the rabbits off your crops or stopping the deer from destroying your woodland and the maintenance of unnatural environments purely for sporting purposes and I include golf courses in that category

I don’t think whaling is a good analogy.

Whaling still goes on, as does live capture. It had to be banned to largely put a stop to it. Otherwise it would have continued until all the great whales were gone.

The whaling industry never did anything to support any ecosystem at all or even remove human detritus from the marine environment.

 

[Tengu]

What about study the beasts?

Anyhow, on another tangent, I have been studying Llangorse crannog, a fragile site situated in a popular watersport lake.

Balancing all interests in interesting.

 

[Herman30]

MSN

www.msn.com

The pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Herman30]

Domestic cats being a huge culprit there!… Yet nobody seems to complain about those.

In Finland there is, a lot of people complain the kill birds.

 

[Dugs]

I would recommend reading 'The Book of Trespass' by Nick Hayes.

The way we (the commoners) view ownership has be formulated by hundreds of years of oppression and theft from the aristocracy. People talk of rights and possession as immutable facts but the reality is actually far more nuanced.

Why should we not be permitted access or the right to camp on lands that, in some interpretations, are 'ours' by birth right. Especially considering that these estates are a so frequently ill gotten, stolen, or funded by slavery and plunder. Many of the government acts that made our current land ownership situation possible were enacted in a time were most of the country were disenfranchised. A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

 

[Broch]

Sorry, when did your people take possession of Pridain? There are no rights to land; the place would be a tip if it was distributed to 70 million people!

 

[Herman30]

A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

Yeah! A communistic revolution is needed! All power to the people and madame guillotine erected on Piccadilly Circus.

 

[Tengu]

Too messy.

Blood would get into the utilities below the circle and bring everything to a halt.

 

[slowworm]

A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

Funny you should say that. I was thinking the land around here should have more native woodland and heathland on it. However, it's owned by one of the worst people for reducing biodiversity and industrialised destruction - the Forestry Commission. I.e. the state and the people and in England you can't wild camp on it either.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

Funny you should say that. I was thinking the land around here should have more native woodland and heathland on it. However, it's owned by one of the worst people for reducing biodiversity and industrialised destruction - the Forestry Commission. I.e. the state and the people and in England you can't wild camp on it either.

Which goes to show it isn't an issue of who owns the land. It's an issue of conflict of a whole variety of different interests, and the rules and regulations governing what can and can't be done on land.

 

[Suffolkrafter]

If you look on a map at the area of Dartmoor in question, and then zoom out, you see just what a tiny fraction of land it is that people are fighting over. I know to an extent that it is symbolic, but I find it quite depressing.

 

[Mesquite]

Funny you should say that. I was thinking the land around here should have more native woodland and heathland on it. However, it's owned by one of the worst people for reducing biodiversity and industrialised destruction - the Forestry Commission. I.e. the state and the people and in England you can't wild camp on it either.

The FC don't own any land or woodland. They advise the landowners, both public and private and may manage it on their behalf

All public woodland in England is owned by the Secretary of State for Evironment, Farms and Rural Affairs

 

[Ystranc]

That isn't quite the full story on that either. The 2026 date was to record footpaths not yet registered as rights of way. Most of those paths are between farms and never were used by the public; the farm workers used them to get from job to job. Now, paths that go straight into and through private property are being listed by people that think they have a 'right' just because there's a dotted line on a map! The 2026 date has been put back because there are too many submissions for the local authorities to cope with

Those of us that live amongst the paths use them anyway because we are walking between neighbours, taking favours, checking on health, delivering wrongly delivered parcels, going to help with a task. I'm not worried, the local council just doesn't have enough money to keep existing rights of way open let alone deal with opening up the unused paths and, what money they have, should be spent on schools, care homes ....

If people want to use these forgotten paths, put some money in a collection box!

Remember, in life, there's always a third truth. To find that you have to walk in both pairs of shoes. Here's another take on it:

Dismay over scrapping of recording ‘lost’ footpaths deadline - Farmers Weekly

Landowners have slammed a decision to remove the cut-off date for adding historic unrecorded footpaths in England to the Definitive Map – the legal record

www.fwi.co.uk

Many of those paths are classed as easements rather than as rights of way. We have one that runs from our house, across two fields and down some council maintained steps to the pavement by the main road into town. While it is not a classed as a highway the people residing in our house or visiting can cross and re cross the fields on foot…the fact that I now own those fields is beside the point, the easement is written into the conveyances for both the houses and the fields. Our neighbours are also entitled to make use of this kind of easement to get access to the main road on foot. They date from the days when large estates had workers with families and their children might go to church or school by these paths. An easement will list the limits of the rights that are bestowed in the text of the conveyance…eg to cross and re-cross, with workmen and tools, carriages or wheeled contrivances etc…it has to be mentioned specifically.

 

[Ystranc]

Because it costs money to own land - in rates, insurance and upkeep. If you remove the primary source of income landowners will seek the next available source of income. The current best returns on land are arable farming. So that's what they will do.

Presumably no-one expects landowners to maintain woodland at their own expense as a playground for others?

While I shoot for the purposes of pest control I don’t really support the idea of driven shoots. Pheasant releases have been a real pain in our area, when they turn up in my garden I do shoot them in season. I then eat them, as I will cheerfully eat any rabbits that I shoot.
An interesting fact about woodland and north facing slopes, north facing slopes are generally less productive and historically were turned over to woodland. Finding an alternative income for such land is almost impossible so felling and removing stumps isn’t necessarily economically viable. It isn’t a fáit accompli that all woodland would be felled. There is also the fact that landowners are limited to felling five tons per year unless they seek a felling licence…you can’t just clear fell on a whim.
I’m somewhere in the middle in this debate and I must admit to being rather conflicted.
In Sweden they have Allemansrätten, the right to walk into the wilds and enjoy nature, never disturbing and never destroying. There is an extremely strict set of rules. Never approach a residence, travel in small groups, avoid cultivated or enclosed land, never disturb wildlife, never disturb other peoples quiet enjoyment of the wilderness. Then I looked at the YouTube video of the Dartmoor protest march of between two and three thousand people trampling and destroying as they marched en mass across the moor making as much noise as they could…As much as I would like it, I’m fairly sure that the British public are not ready for allemansrätten. Moreover, allemansrätten isn’t a licence to go where you want or do what you want, a municipality may impose limitations on both landowners and the public in order to protect vulnerable habitat or species.

 

[British Red]

A redistribution of land is required, from the wealthy one percent to the state and by extension the people - making it common land once again.

It was tried

Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and again

Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

and again

Hunger in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suppose it could be tried again, expecting a different outcome.

 

[Ystranc]

It was tried

Soviet famine of 1930–1933 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and again

Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

and again

Hunger in Zimbabwe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suppose it could be tried again, expecting a different outcome.

Human nature is to repeat the same old mistakes… if they redistributed my land it would almost certainly be built on, that would probably break me. I’ve planted the woodland and nurtured an orchard of ancient varieties…it’s important to me.