Special Permission
- Thread starter Atellus
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
It can be frustrating not being able to do many of the things that Ray shows us and inspires us to want to try (e.g. make bow, kill deer, process deer, eat deer), but that is the glass-half-empty response (of which I am often guilty). With a glass-half-full attitude, Ray is actually opening doors for us. We just have to have the courage, determination and willingness to step through them.
I think if we were to discuss this fully we would have to get political, and, having burnt my fingers already once here, I don't want to do it again.
But I do wish people would distinguish between owning property and owning the produce of a property, which is really what farmers are understandably concerned about. There's nothing really controversial about that when we think of the right to roam and so on.
That is of course not a blank cheque for vandals and those who would, without consideration for others and the environment, rip up scarce plants, damage trees or unjustifiably scare or kill animals.
As for Ray Mears, well some people regard him as a saint when in fact he is only one of many people earning their living teaching about Bushcraft.
Ray Mears is not popular because of anything special that he does, but because he was chosen by the BBC to be their "Bushcrafter" due to his conservative and non-controversial views.
Hence it is futile to expect Ray to protest about knife laws and right of access to land and so on. He was chosen by the BBC precisely because he is not that type - remember he works closely with the army and special forces and so on and therefore is an "establishment" person rather than a person of the "folk".
That's just he way he is, just as the way we are all different and I like him, and I like his style, but I think it is absurd to idolise him as a pioneer in bringing Bushcraft to the public, as if other Bushcrafters weren't doing the same.
I think we should be idolising Baden-Powell and the scout movement.
[EDIT: and I think Ray would agree]
But, be warned, I'm and anarchist (horror!) and I think people should have the right to "use" the land but I don't think they should have the right to "own" it and tell people where they can go or not. (exceptions, obviously, being the areas of the personal and family sphere, house, garden etc.). BTW, the Bible backs me up on this.
<runs for shelter>
But I do wish people would distinguish between owning property and owning the produce of a property, which is really what farmers are understandably concerned about. There's nothing really controversial about that when we think of the right to roam and so on.
That is of course not a blank cheque for vandals and those who would, without consideration for others and the environment, rip up scarce plants, damage trees or unjustifiably scare or kill animals.
As for Ray Mears, well some people regard him as a saint when in fact he is only one of many people earning their living teaching about Bushcraft.
Ray Mears is not popular because of anything special that he does, but because he was chosen by the BBC to be their "Bushcrafter" due to his conservative and non-controversial views.
Hence it is futile to expect Ray to protest about knife laws and right of access to land and so on. He was chosen by the BBC precisely because he is not that type - remember he works closely with the army and special forces and so on and therefore is an "establishment" person rather than a person of the "folk".
That's just he way he is, just as the way we are all different and I like him, and I like his style, but I think it is absurd to idolise him as a pioneer in bringing Bushcraft to the public, as if other Bushcrafters weren't doing the same.
I think we should be idolising Baden-Powell and the scout movement.
[EDIT: and I think Ray would agree]
But, be warned, I'm and anarchist (horror!) and I think people should have the right to "use" the land but I don't think they should have the right to "own" it and tell people where they can go or not. (exceptions, obviously, being the areas of the personal and family sphere, house, garden etc.). BTW, the Bible backs me up on this.
<runs for shelter>
Swampy, if I worried about what other people thought of my posting, I'd throw me laptop in the bin, mate. To hell with it, man, we're all ears.
ps, good luck in Ossy.
Why make those exceptions? How would you define when a "garden" becomes an "estate"?
Not sure what that's got to do with anything!harryhaller said:
I think part of the OPs comment does kind of make sense, if you are looking at ray's programs in the light of them being intended to accurately reprisent real bushcrafting in it's pure form.
what he is demonstrating is often bushcrafting techniques, and outside of the technique he is going to demonstrate, other aspects kind of need to be ignored, in order to best demonstrate the aspect. other parts are closer to a nature program, than bushcraft.
so for example when he cooked prehistoric aborigional food using modern cooking equipment, I would see it as that the cooking equipment was there more to allow the techniques used, and food created, to be easier shown, rather than complicating things futher by including how they got around the lack of pans ect, which might require whole side topics to sprout up, making the program longer, or more confusing.
what he is demonstrating is often bushcrafting techniques, and outside of the technique he is going to demonstrate, other aspects kind of need to be ignored, in order to best demonstrate the aspect. other parts are closer to a nature program, than bushcraft.
so for example when he cooked prehistoric aborigional food using modern cooking equipment, I would see it as that the cooking equipment was there more to allow the techniques used, and food created, to be easier shown, rather than complicating things futher by including how they got around the lack of pans ect, which might require whole side topics to sprout up, making the program longer, or more confusing.
Be fair - all good Anarchists need a set of rules to live by!
Nothing funny about that Red - it's true! The community decides the rules - whether it be pygmies, aboriginies, bushmen and so - but they don't have rules imposed from above. Anarchism does not mean "no rules" or "chaos", it just means no government.
Well, you used the word estate as opposed to a garden, so you know the difference. It's about land that is being used economically and land that is for the personal domestic use. I really don't think most of us have difficulty spotting the differences.
Well said - that is what it's about - David Attenborough and others have to sometimes contrive a shot, in order to make something that happens naturally, clearer to the viewer. Maybe Ray mentioning "special permission" is also a sort of marketing trick, telling the viewers that what they are seeing is exclusive and special?
I think Ray sometimes, but only sometimes, has an unfortunate way of expressing these things. Instead of saying "special permission" he could just say that because it was the BBC and it was for a TV programme, they were allowed to use the land whereas we probably wouldn't be so lucky.
"Special Permission" sounds so stuffy, like being allowed to enter the inner temple of some secret religion. But that's the way the BBC like it - stuffy. You see that often on BBC documentaries - they visit some museum and we are told that the TV was allowed exclusive access to some secret document or are shown some object that the museum never shows to the public.
Oh - so everybody votes on everything? No chiefs or tribal council then? I'm sure that isn't my understanding of many cultures. There is no difference between a chief and a tribal council and a government except size.
Oh - and there is something funny - what input does a modern community have on what is written in the Bible? If the answer is none, then it is most certainly not a community decided rule - it most certainly IS imposed from above (in a quasi literal sense)
Red
I just don't get this whole concept. The man was quite plain in saying "we had special permission" what's not to understand? What's the problem with this?
Ray Mears's "staff" get permission to film an item to show the public some technique or other, or use some natural resources that most cannot get access to in this part of the world. He does so in order to show the technique or method or whatever, that's the point. Why the problem with how it had to be set up or where he had to go in order to best film it, the important thing is the technique, not the location. Yes a well known face and a film crew in tow will always open doors.
If you remember a series some years ago called "Challenge Anneka" where Anneka Rice was set a task of building/rebuilding/repairing/ renovating a particular place that was required by a local charity group, or family for some reason or other. Well she would get local tradesmen/women in to assist with the building works using materials provided by local suppliers and she had to do this all with no budget or money to spend on it, everything, labour and materials had to be provided free. She managed this because of her celebrity status and the goodwill of the community. For sure my local builder/plumber/electrician/bricky ain't gonna give me the time of day without charge and Jewson sure ain't gonna deliver 6 ton of building material free of charge cos I need a new extension on my house and can't afford it. No sirrreeee Bob but they did, week after week after week for Anneka, why, cos she was who she was. The important factor is this, the needed building was repaired, built, renovated at no cost to the group or individual, and not that it was a celebrity who managed to pull it off and get it done.
To be able to do some of the bushcraft techniques shown by Mearsy you would have to go to the Amazon, Spice Islands, Australia, Tazmania, New Zealand, Canada, Alaska or any of the other exotic location where his programmes were filmed. Or you could get "special permission" to do the other things which he had to get permission to do, where's the problem.
Definately the wrong end of the stick, possibly the wrong stick altogether.
Ray Mears's "staff" get permission to film an item to show the public some technique or other, or use some natural resources that most cannot get access to in this part of the world. He does so in order to show the technique or method or whatever, that's the point. Why the problem with how it had to be set up or where he had to go in order to best film it, the important thing is the technique, not the location. Yes a well known face and a film crew in tow will always open doors.
If you remember a series some years ago called "Challenge Anneka" where Anneka Rice was set a task of building/rebuilding/repairing/ renovating a particular place that was required by a local charity group, or family for some reason or other. Well she would get local tradesmen/women in to assist with the building works using materials provided by local suppliers and she had to do this all with no budget or money to spend on it, everything, labour and materials had to be provided free. She managed this because of her celebrity status and the goodwill of the community. For sure my local builder/plumber/electrician/bricky ain't gonna give me the time of day without charge and Jewson sure ain't gonna deliver 6 ton of building material free of charge cos I need a new extension on my house and can't afford it. No sirrreeee Bob but they did, week after week after week for Anneka, why, cos she was who she was. The important factor is this, the needed building was repaired, built, renovated at no cost to the group or individual, and not that it was a celebrity who managed to pull it off and get it done.
To be able to do some of the bushcraft techniques shown by Mearsy you would have to go to the Amazon, Spice Islands, Australia, Tazmania, New Zealand, Canada, Alaska or any of the other exotic location where his programmes were filmed. Or you could get "special permission" to do the other things which he had to get permission to do, where's the problem.
Definately the wrong end of the stick, possibly the wrong stick altogether.
Cool I live somewhere exotic....
Here in NZ things are a bit different especially in relation to Department of Conservation Land.
As a regular person I can access most DOC land without any hinderence and go about my business and 'bushcraft' till my heart is content If I want to film or generally make commercial gain on DOC land then I need a concession (or special permission) from DOC.
So in this case the rights of a film crew are more restricted than the average person...
Cheers
John
In a real survival situation, such as a plane crash or marooning, special permission will be irrelevant. If my plane goes down in a private/ restricted/ special area I won't be looking for permission, I'll be surviving and thanking Ray for showing me how. Well one would hope so!
Okay, this has clearly gone too far. Much farther than I imagined it would. I think I'd better respond to this thread (and hopefully put it to bed) before I hear the bolt on Sniper's rifle click.
I posed the question because it had occurred to me before and thought it might get two or three informed responses. What's to understand? Well, actually, Peter_t came closest to it in his reference to SSSIs and other conservation areas, which means I didn't articulate it very well in my original post.
Some have wondered whether the problem stems from the fact that you can simultaneously view these programmes as a how-to guide, or as a more cerebral documentary. Perhaps it comes down to asking the producers what genre they think they're working in? Is it Nature documentary? Archaeology? Re-enactment? Well, no. It's a brand new one encompassing all three and bits of others. That would be Bushcraft, obviously.
I tend to be of the view that they are both, but that they are more of a how-to guide. Let's say 60:40 how-to:documentary.
Take the Wild Foods series. That content could just as easily be presented as a dry, intellectual documentary study of current theories on the kitchen habits of mesolithic man. Instead, the subject is made more engaging and interactive by taking a reality TV experimental bushcraft fly-on-the-wall approach. The key there is engaging and interactive, which encourages the viewer to have a go at some of the things they've seen. Many pedagogical experts would agree that this is one of the most effective means of teaching a subject. So one could argue that the emphasis is towards imparting skills and knowledge, in that order.
But one could equally argue the reverse.
And frankly, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to reject the whole topic as being ultimately futile. Wish I'd done this thinking earlier!
Disclaimer: I think Ray Mears is cool and has been fortunate enough to be granted the opportunity to promote a fascinating and otherwise very exclusive subject to the wider world, which in turn has increased the wider world's engagement with, and appreciation of, the natural environment. I know I have learned things from his programmes. But Ray Mears is human and no human is beyond criticism, except perhaps the BBC producer responsible for Bushcraft.
Amen. Now, I'm going to bed.
I posed the question because it had occurred to me before and thought it might get two or three informed responses. What's to understand? Well, actually, Peter_t came closest to it in his reference to SSSIs and other conservation areas, which means I didn't articulate it very well in my original post.
Some have wondered whether the problem stems from the fact that you can simultaneously view these programmes as a how-to guide, or as a more cerebral documentary. Perhaps it comes down to asking the producers what genre they think they're working in? Is it Nature documentary? Archaeology? Re-enactment? Well, no. It's a brand new one encompassing all three and bits of others. That would be Bushcraft, obviously.
I tend to be of the view that they are both, but that they are more of a how-to guide. Let's say 60:40 how-to:documentary.
Take the Wild Foods series. That content could just as easily be presented as a dry, intellectual documentary study of current theories on the kitchen habits of mesolithic man. Instead, the subject is made more engaging and interactive by taking a reality TV experimental bushcraft fly-on-the-wall approach. The key there is engaging and interactive, which encourages the viewer to have a go at some of the things they've seen. Many pedagogical experts would agree that this is one of the most effective means of teaching a subject. So one could argue that the emphasis is towards imparting skills and knowledge, in that order.
But one could equally argue the reverse.
And frankly, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to reject the whole topic as being ultimately futile. Wish I'd done this thinking earlier!
Disclaimer: I think Ray Mears is cool and has been fortunate enough to be granted the opportunity to promote a fascinating and otherwise very exclusive subject to the wider world, which in turn has increased the wider world's engagement with, and appreciation of, the natural environment. I know I have learned things from his programmes. But Ray Mears is human and no human is beyond criticism, except perhaps the BBC producer responsible for Bushcraft.
Amen. Now, I'm going to bed.
Don't worry, Atellus, this post is strictly off topic and tidies up some loose anthropological debris left over from the thread.
I shouldn't answer but I'll bite. hunter-gatherers are generally excepted as egalitarian societies with no leader or chief. And I was referring to hunter-gatherer societies when I referred to the pygmies, aboriginies, and bushmen.
Settled people are different, but even there I would disgree with your interpetation of the elders and the general use of the word "chief". As I understand it, when Stanley crossed Africa, most of those settled tribes were also egalitarian and had at most their council of the old people or a chief to act as spokesman when white explorers turned up. But the elders were all the the old people and were deemed, rightly because of their experience, as wise people to go to to settle disputes and discuss matters. I don't think you will find that they were telling people what to do.
But Stanley was supposed to have said that those few tribes that did have kings or real chiefs (in the western sense) were the real trouble makers who would do nasty things to their own people and were not too hospitable to strangers.
But it was the hunter-gatherers I was referring - as was clear in the post. I don't know much about settled people because I'm not interested in them - after all, we too are settled people
The Bible was only mentioned because of the rules in it regarding private property sale and so on - mentioned only as a provocative curiosity for those who care about such things.
I shouldn't answer but I'll bite. hunter-gatherers are generally excepted as egalitarian societies with no leader or chief. And I was referring to hunter-gatherer societies when I referred to the pygmies, aboriginies, and bushmen.Settled people are different, but even there I would disgree with your interpetation of the elders and the general use of the word "chief". As I understand it, when Stanley crossed Africa, most of those settled tribes were also egalitarian and had at most their council of the old people or a chief to act as spokesman when white explorers turned up. But the elders were all the the old people and were deemed, rightly because of their experience, as wise people to go to to settle disputes and discuss matters. I don't think you will find that they were telling people what to do.
But Stanley was supposed to have said that those few tribes that did have kings or real chiefs (in the western sense) were the real trouble makers who would do nasty things to their own people and were not too hospitable to strangers.
But it was the hunter-gatherers I was referring - as was clear in the post. I don't know much about settled people because I'm not interested in them - after all, we too are settled people
The Bible was only mentioned because of the rules in it regarding private property sale and so on - mentioned only as a provocative curiosity for those who care about such things.
Sorry Attelus, no offence intended bud, merely that it's a fact of life that money and status do open doors and talk louder than Joe Average. The fact that I see his programmes as informative and well presented and I have to say I have learned a few things from his programmes and enjoyed doing so. It didn't matter to me where he was or what he had to do to bring this information and enjoyment into my home, merely that it happened, and the fact that no one was harmed in doing so.
I agree. Problem is that, whilst you can actually go out and practice 99% of what you see Ray Mears do, you just can't do it in the same places!
Similar threads
