Sickened by vandals again

[Stringmaker]

This is a depressing thread; it is so disappointing that so many idiots out there are trashing a scarce enough resource.

I experienced a slightly more unusual event a few weeks back. The FC site we use for our schools project has a number of structures on it built over the years by the youngsters, and is tucked away in a sheltered spot down the access track.

I was on site one Saturday morning and found the remains of a fly tip fire consisting of a mattress, old desk and a wooden door. The odd thing was that the culprits had to do the following:

1.Dump the rubbish at the track by the roadside (the track gate kept the vehicle out)
2.Drag the rubbish about 75 yards along the track (I saw the marks)
3.Set the fire in the open fire pit in the clearing as opposed to just torching it in the woods/buildings

I guess if people are going to do that kind of thing, then we got off very lightly. I checked around the rest of the site and it was untouched.

 

[British Red]

This is a depressing thread; it is so disappointing that so many idiots out there are trashing a scarce enough resource.

.

Just the way things are sadly - nothing new in it, there always have been, and always will be, vandals and people who don't care about nature. Its probably quite a good thing for us to see the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be in an idealistic way.

In many ways I think the land is better held by "stewards" (owners) rather than rights of access to all - including those who treat it badly as shown in the OP. When you invest your hard efforts, your money and your own future into a place it has a meaning, purpose and beauty that others will never understand. We were leaning on the fence rail yesterday chatting with the old widowed farmer next door and his friend - both in their eighties. They were smiling at the new foals they described them as "great timewasters". When I cocked an eyebrow, the farmers lady friend said "we can spend hours just watching them run and play" . Anyway we were talking about a little orchard we have planted. When my wife mentioned a pear tree, the lady said "well, you won't get much from that, still you plant pears for your heirs.

What a great expression! Sums up so much in a single phrase. Also sums up how it would feel if someone cut down that tree after a decade to try out a saw . The funny thing is these great people are fine with responsible people. We take them small gifts - a bowl of fresh strawberries and a big bunch of sweet peas yesterday - and they bring us the odd cauli. If they had woods (they don't) on their farm I'm sure they would be absolutely fine with us using them - because they know we respect their land. So its not as if people would never use the land - when I was kid, we used to knock on a farm and ask permission to camp. We were frequently directed to much nicer places than we had found! All very "famous five", and we would never have dreamed of leaving a mess, they would have known who did it! So there was a check, some control, and people taking care of the land that feeds us all. I think that's a better way than most

Sorry for the ramble!

 

[treadlightly]

In many ways I think the land is better held by "stewards" (owners) rather than rights of access to all - including those who treat it badly as shown in the OP.

Maybe it is the other way round. People vandalise land they feel they have no connection to? Engage them with the land and they might treat it more respectfully.

 

[Stringmaker]

Maybe it is the other way round. People vandalise land they feel they have no connection to? Engage them with the land and they might treat it more respectfully.

I think it is even simpler than that.

These are the kind of people who go through life never considering the consequences of their actions. Their entire world is what they want to do, when and where they want to do it. There is no forethought, planning, laziness or malice; that is because there is no thought at all.

It is almost at the level of single cell organisms, but that is being unfair on the amoeba.

 

[British Red]

I've heard the argument Treadlightly - and to an extent I agree. But on an individual basis. If people are "engaged with the land" that means they are working with it, conserving and developing it. That's what brings a sense of engagement - not just rocking up and using it without giving anything back. Its fairly widely demonstrated that people value what they invest in - be that investment time, money, effort or thought. Many members here are land stewards without being land owners - be they rangers, volunteers, species surveyors or what have you. They invest their work and knowledge and have access to land. Its a social contract that they don't abuse - a blend or rights with responsibilities. I think that's as it should be.

 

[treadlightly]

I've heard the argument Treadlightly - and to an extent I agree. But on an individual basis. If people are "engaged with the land" that means they are working with it, conserving and developing it. That's what brings a sense of engagement - not just rocking up and using it without giving anything back. Its fairly widely demonstrated that people value what they invest in - be that investment time, money, effort or thought. Many members here are land stewards without being land owners - be they rangers, volunteers, species surveyors or what have you. They invest their work and knowledge and have access to land. Its a social contract that they don't abuse - a blend or rights with responsibilities. I think that's as it should be.

Simple enjoyment of the land can bring an engagement too, it doesn't have to involve working on the land or striving to preserve it. Maybe enjoyment should be the starting point?

 

[British Red]

That's where I don't agree Treadlightly - universal "rights" to enjoy something without responsibility to it is what leads to the vandalism shown by the OP. Not from everyone but from a significant minority. We have seen it in more than one post on here, at Loch Lomond and many other places.

The facts show that people do damage trees, leave rubbish, fly tip etc. That is grossly unfair on the people who invested time, sweat and money on maintaining and improving the land. So why not let people invest their effort, and therefor value what it takes to maintain the land?

 

[treadlightly]

That's where I don't agree Treadlightly - universal "rights" to enjoy something without responsibility to it is what leads to the vandalism shown by the OP. Not from everyone but from a significant minority. We have seen it in more than one post on here, at Loch Lomond and many other places.

The facts show that people do damage trees, leave rubbish, fly tip etc. That is grossly unfair on the people who invested time, sweat and money on maintaining and improving the land. So why not let people invest their effort, and therefor value what it takes to maintain the land?

I agree with your point about rights and responsibilities. But people need to be encouraged to become involved with the land as most are now completely out of touch with it in our urban society. Enjoying the land, which can be done in a number of ways, helps to produce good habits which, in turn, might lead to them working with the land in some productive capacity

 

[Niels]

I've been wondering about the following:

countries that do have great freedoms when it comes to wild camping and making use of nature, such as Sweden for example, do they suffer from as much vandalism in their forests as we do in ours? And if not (I don't know if this is the case, but I suspect it is), how come? How come some nations manage to teach their children respect for nature whilst our countries fail to do so?

Maybe children in these countries are more involded in nature from the start. So maybe we need to get school children outdoors more. Let them plant trees, teach them that these things take time and effort, and that it's wrong to damage nature.

I would think twice about restricting your English forests and land access even further . You'll get what we have here, large enfenced unenjoyable woods that are very poorly managed and maintained.

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

I've been wondering about the following:

countries that do have great freedoms when it comes to wild camping and making use of nature, such as Sweden for example, do they suffer from as much vandalism in their forests as we do in ours? And if not (I don't know if this is the case, but I suspect it is), how come? How come some nations manage to teach their children respect for nature whilst our countries fail to do so?

Maybe children in these countries are more involded in nature from the start. So maybe we need to get school children outdoors more. Let them plant trees, teach them that these things take time and effort, and that it's wrong to damage nature.

I would think twice about restricting your English forests and land access even further . You'll get what we have here, large enfenced unenjoyable woods that are very poorly managed and maintained.

From my understanding no, but this is from my Family in Sweden who mostly live either on the family estate or in a university town (Linkoping). They do see some acts of vandalism such as graphiti and damaged bus stops etc, but no ware as much as in England (Dundee and Liverpool) and my cousins about my age have made the odd question about it (is this a dangerous area etc) but I have never asked about ecological stuff but I will do next time I call.

As for a connection to the land, well in the cases I have sited it's public spaces so I don't reel feel that flys and when I have seen it in other places it was either fly tipping OR ideological based (Trashing of Pheasant pens, feeders, Fenn trap box etc) but I am starting to see a more than just seasonal uptake in the amount of cut grass and bits of tree end up getting snagged on my line when out fishing.

 

[Ronnie]

Like Sweden, Scotland also has more freedom to use the countryside, and I believe less abuse of the natural world than England. However, like Sweden, Scotland also has a hell of a lot less people. It's difficult to separate the effects of policy from the low population density.

 

[huntergathereralex]

I've heard the argument Treadlightly - and to an extent I agree. But on an individual basis. If people are "engaged with the land" that means they are working with it, conserving and developing it. That's what brings a sense of engagement - not just rocking up and using it without giving anything back. Its fairly widely demonstrated that people value what they invest in - be that investment time, money, effort or thought. Many members here are land stewards without being land owners - be they rangers, volunteers, species surveyors or what have you. They invest their work and knowledge and have access to land. Its a social contract that they don't abuse - a blend or rights with responsibilities. I think that's as it should be.

British Red, this is an interesting thought, and led me to thinking: Do your communities in the U.K. have mandatory community service? Where I come from, high school students cannot obtain their graduation credits without doing X number of community hours...whether working for let's say a library or a conservation program. Might be a way, if applied over there, to wed community service/cleaning up trashed woodlands and such, with engagement to the land. May foster the respect of the land in our sometimes overly urbanized youth.
Something to ponder.
Cheers
Alex

 

[British Red]

Most of the damage caused Niels (that I have seen) is in areas close to cities (say an hours drive) - even more so if its walkable from a town. It is generally not real hikers or people out for a wilderness trip that do it. It is people having "parties" in the woods, bored youth messing about and scummy older people with cars doing fly tipping. Go a mile from roads and you are unlikely to see much damage.

Because we are a small country most land is close to towns or cities.

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

Like Sweden, Scotland also has more freedom to use the countryside, and I believe less abuse of the natural world than England. However, like Sweden, Scotland also has a hell of a lot less people. It's difficult to separate the effects of policy from the low population density.

That is a factor I have not considered before now in this case, but I have previously noted the population desaty is directionally proportional to number of people I want to punch in the face for being horrible human beings.

But I also know the nordic right to roam has protections built in so if idiots are found to be causing damage they get a legal kicking.

Most of the damage caused Niels (that I have seen) is in areas close to cities (say an hours drive) - even more so if its walkable from a town. It is generally not real hikers or people out for a wilderness trip that do it. It is people having "parties" in the woods, bored youth messing about and scummy older people with cars doing fly tipping. Go a mile from roads and you are unlikely to see much damage
Because we are a small country most land is close to towns or cities.

Hugh, you already know my feelings on vandals an trespassers and my general temperament can I just ask say you happened on a group of people abusing the land how would you deal with it?

 

[British Red]

I can't imagine chap - suffice it to say I would endeavour to ensure that they saw the error of their ways!

 

[British Red]

British Red, this is an interesting thought, and led me to thinking: Do your communities in the U.K. have mandatory community service? Where I come from, high school students cannot obtain their graduation credits without doing X number of community hours...whether working for let's say a library or a conservation program. Might be a way, if applied over there, to wed community service/cleaning up trashed woodlands and such, with engagement to the land. May foster the respect of the land in our sometimes overly urbanized youth.
Something to ponder.
Cheers
Alex

Its a good idea Alex, but its certainly not mandated here. You tend to find that the good kids, raised with some standards from their parents, do it anyway - through Scouts, cadets, work experience etc. My daughter was working at stables (for rides not money) long before she was allowed a Saturday job by law (11 or 12 I think). She was driving tractors and quad bikes, mucking out, seeing to fences etc. It was all fun to her, but she learned a great deal about the hard work that goes into keeping even a field of grass in good condition!

Sadly of course, the good kids are not the problem.

 

[Ronnie]

A lot of European countries have a system of national service which constitutes a year or two in the military, or alternatively community service doing something more peaceable. The evidence that programmes like this reduce crime and antisocial behaviour is mixed:

http://www.lemaire.dk/CrimeMilitary_WP.pdf

http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/02/09/does-military-service-lead-to-crime/

All the research seems to focus on the military aspect, rather than community service

 

[huntergathereralex]

Not meaning to hijack the thread, my buddy and I were pretty troublesome when we were teens, not a lot of vandalism per say, but heading down the wrong path. My buddy's dad was the head security guard at a provincial prison not far from where we lived. One day, not telling us where we were heading, he took us for a 'special' tour of the institution. We used to think we were big sh*t. During 'the tour' I'm telling you I was never so scared in my life, even with that crowd being behind bars!
Needless to say that 'old fashioned' therapy had it's desired affect. Didn't realize I could tuck my tale so far between my legs...
Tough love, sorta?
Alex

 

[treadlightly]

I've been wondering about the following:

countries that do have great freedoms when it comes to wild camping and making use of nature, such as Sweden for example, do they suffer from as much vandalism in their forests as we do in ours? And if not (I don't know if this is the case, but I suspect it is), how come? How come some nations manage to teach their children respect for nature whilst our countries fail to do so?

Maybe children in these countries are more involded in nature from the start. So maybe we need to get school children outdoors more. Let them plant trees, teach them that these things take time and effort, and that it's wrong to damage nature.

I would think twice about restricting your English forests and land access even further . You'll get what we have here, large enfenced unenjoyable woods that are very poorly managed and maintained.

A little while ago I met a Swedish girl while we were both walking our dogs and we got chatting. The conversation turned to the litter that you find everywhere in London's green spaces and she said that in Sweden it is much less of a problem. She said they are all educated on the subject from a very early age so it becomes second nature to take litter home, to be responsible for keeping the countryside clear of it. She said she it was so ingrained that she could never imagine doing otherwise.

I think part of our problem is that most kids now grow up completely separated from the natural world.

 

[mountainm]

Im sorry but if you need to be taught that littering is wrong then you have a seriously low IQ. The problem stems from a complete lack of respect, laziness and selfishness driven by a consumerist disposable culture. Long working hours, and long distance journeys to work erode any sense of community and pride which compounds the issue.

To put it simply people just dont care anymore.