What would a 'Bushcraft Code' for the United Kingdom include?

[P Wren]

There has been a lot of discussion over the last week or so in the threads entitled " You are not alone.... " and "National Parks" about the lack of areas for 'Bushcraft camping' in England .

There seems to be a feeling within the Bushcraft Community, expressed in these forums, that we do not have legitimate access to areas where we can camp legally and that there is a need to engage with the relevant authorities to bring about some fundamental change.

The discussions have revolved around the roles and responsibilities of various authorities that control and manage the forests in the United Kingdom and how best to meet the needs of the 'Bushcraft Community'.

One (of I many I suspect) ways forward, could be for the Bushcraft Community in the UK, to establish a clear identity for itself, to enable Authorities, insurers and the wider public distinguish it from other 'Outdoors' organisations - it could do this by establishing a 'Bushcraft Code'.

A 'Bushcraft Code' could distinguish it's own specfic needs from those other organisations. It could emphasise the strong environmental aspects of Bushcraft, its minimal/ zero impact on the environment in which it is practiced, the sustainable use of resources, and requirement for practitioners to put back whatever is used (by planting/seeding etc) and emphasise the responsible nature of those practicing it.

I'm sure that such a code would strike draw parallels to the vision that Government and the Forestry Commission and its agencies have for our forests.

So,

1) What do you think such a code would contain?
2) What do you see as the specific needs of the Bushcraft Community?
3) Do Bushcrafters in the UK need a governing Body or Association to act on it's members behalf and champion the cause of Bushcraft.
4) What would Bushcrafters require ? (eg. an area set aside in suitable forests, perhaps only accessible by foot, which 'Bushcrafters' could use. These areas could be planted or already be populated with trees that could be used with hammocks, provide the material for debris shelters and be suitable for small fires)

5) How do members think that this agenda could be best taken forward?

What do people think ?

P Wren

 

[spamel]

Its a a difficult one. I think it is terrible that Britain has ended up this way. Woodland free of kids on motorbikes and dogs fouling all over the place (which is the owners responsibility to clear up, I've got nothing against dogs!) would be great, but how would you be able to turn some folk away legitimately? What would be great would be a large forest of mixed woodland, with boar and deer running free throughout. Then a ban on dogs and motor vehicles would be justified. This would then leave people on foot. If tracks are put through the woodland, the average person out for a walk would follow the path, this would allow us to get off the beaten track and be out of the way.

The only thing I see wrong with this idea is the people who wish to take their dogs when they go bushcrafting!

Another problem arises, how many bushcrafting areas would there be, and where?

 

[leon-1]

Hi Paul, good question, a couple of them being about bushcraft code and governing bodies.

Effectively if you set up a code you would be setting up a set of rules, this in itself would suggest that there was a governing body that set the code.

Designated areas, would mean that they would quickly turn into a campsite probably doing more harm than good as bushcrafters from all over the place flocked to some of the few legitimate sites that they can go to and it is not strictly the fire that is the problem, it is its sighting and the amount of them.

It would be good to have areas opened up for wild camping with the condition that regulations for the use of fire are adhered to (a new paragraph entered into the country code defining clearly where and how fires can be set) and that what is carried in is also carried out (this includes waste, refuse and human waste inclusive), this stops our wild areas from becoming land fill or one giant cess pit.

A no cutting rule for greenwood unless it is properly harvested.

I am also of the belief that people should inform and request permission from the authority that owns the land that they will be there (this includes numbers of the party) and for how long (it shows a level of responsibility and care) and it also means that those that may not be taking the same care as you can be identified when caught as the culprit.

Naturally for anything like this to work there would have to be a number of test cases, this then means that if permissions are denied then it is strictly the fault of those people carrying out the test case.

Initially any and all authorities would have to monitor numbers (only so many people and so many cases per month) and route plans and traces would have to be supplied, if it goes well the authority could then increase the numbers gradually untill they think that the area has maxed out and that any further increase would impact the areas themselves.

Further to this, I would say to give something back that the bushcrafters could undertake studies of the flora and fauna in the area bringing back , samples of water, photographs of plant and insect species and filling in questionaires on thier return.

Large groups hold a much larger problem, national and large meetings to be held on privately owned land and that a tariff is payed to the landowner to pay for work required on the site.
The site should have proper facilities for hygiene and waste.
The site should also have facilities for fires, some being properly lined fire pits (for large communal gatherings) others being trays held off the ground dotted around the site (for smaller parties and groupings) so as to keep damage to the ground to a minimum.

Sorry I could go on forever and probably would

 

[P Wren]

It would be good to have areas opened up for wild camping with the condition that regulations for the use of fire are adhered to (a new paragraph entered into the country code defining clearly where and how fires can be set) and that what is carried in is also carried out (this includes waste, refuse and human waste inclusive), this stops our wild areas from becoming land fill or one giant cess pit.

Leon this is very much what I had in mind - Wouldn't be wonderful to think that the Forestry Commission or similar agencies could set aside specific controlled and monitored 'enclosures' in forests, preferably well away from roads ensuring only the committed bushcrafter ventured there.

I am also of the belief that people should inform and request permission from the authority that owns the land that they will be there (this includes numbers of the party) and for how long (it shows a level of responsibility and care) and it also means that those that may not be taking the same care as you can be identified when caught as the culprit.

This is a smashing compromise to the permit idea that was discussed in the "You are not alone.... "And "National Parks" threads. And I for one would have no problem packing my empty containers with whatever waste I created after all that's what the crews of the Apollo Space flights did - Sandwiches out - waste bags in.....

Initially any and all authorities would have to monitor numbers (only so many people and so many cases per month) and route plans and traces would have to be supplied, if it goes well the authority could then increase the numbers gradually untill they think that the area has maxed out and that any further increase would impact the areas themselves.

'Pilot schemes' corrrr Government and Agencies love these - I know - and the issue of regulation is fairly close to my heart. I agree that the authorities would need to monitor progress on such schemes, but I also think that somehow the Bushcraft community has to take 'ownership' of some of the issues involved in order to reassure the authorities that the practice of Bushcraft in designated areas is sustainable. I think this is probably best done under the auspices of a representative body or association. I also have no problem with the Forestry Agencies strictly limiting the numbers of Bushcrafters per season/year. After all, I have to wait until 2064 before I can get a place on certain Bushcraft courses - and I'll need that long to save for it too.

Further to this, I would say to give something back that the bushcrafters could undertake studies of the flora and fauna in the area bringing back , samples of water, photographs of plant and insect species and filling in questionnaires on their return.

Again I think this is a smashing idea - Sometimes I this the organisations that manage forests could take a leaf out of my local Bird Sanctuary/Reserve and do more to encourage and advertise what is 'showing' in a particular area or during a particular season. I'm not the worlds most chatty or sociable animal and reporting what you've seen or asking what's about breaks the ice if you're talking to a stranger/warden/ranger.

Large groups hold a much larger problem, national and large meetings to be held on privately owned land and that a tariff is payed to the landowner to pay for work required on the site. The site should have proper facilities for hygiene and waste. The site should also have facilities for fires, some being properly lined fire pits (for large communal gatherings) others being trays held off the ground dotted around the site (for smaller parties and groupings) so as to keep damage to the ground to a minimum.

I agree. But how wonderful would it be if for example to have a permanent equipped enclosure of a few acres were set aside for group Bushcraft camping. Forestry Commission hosted meets, where demonstrations of traditional Bushcraft skills could be given, and the representatives of the authorities could engage with Bushcrafters and talk about the management of the forests and future strategies for sustaining the flora and fauna. Clearings for fires and if necessary chemical/permanent toilets facilities (like they have at Bolderwood in the New Forest).

Given that there is no true wilderness left in the UK is this too Eutopian a vision for Bushcraft in the UK?

 

[R-Bowskill]

While I can understand the desire to see more land made available to bushcraft I am extremely wary of the establishment of a national organisation or going down the legislative route. I've seen how this can lead to factions and splits with other groups when things don't take the direction hoped for by one section. These are seldom events where mutual respect is the way of doing things.

Also, as there is no clear cut definition of bushcraft, how can we begin to agree what should or should not be listed as 'legitimate' bushcraft activities?
Vegetartian bushcrafters may argue that hunting / trapping or cooking meat should not be on the list while others might have that as a large part of their bushcraft.

Who would decide on these issues? What would happen to people who disagree with the decisions of what is or is not bushcraft? There are wider implications, If cutting greenwood or hunting disqualifies the person from being a bushcrafter then what is the status of people in other countries who do this as part of their life, are they parcticing bushcraft or not?

 

[leon-1]

Pretty much any legislation that has been metioned in my previous is govermental type. NOT imposed by an organisation in charge of Bushcrafters.

"No cutting of greenwood unless properly harvested" was the statement made and not a blanket ban.

A lot of the national parks are currently covered by byelaws and it would be worth reading them as a suggestion like this could be easily placed into a byelaw, we talk about protecting our enviroment yet if you check through different laws in different parks there is nothing to say that people cannot cut what they want in a lot of cases. What would be your excuse for cutting greenwood anyway "it's for my fire", when most national parks do not allow open fires anyway.

All of my suggestions are actually implimented by a national authority, like the parks association, then the only people who can mess it up are the people that are using those areas for bushcraft. if you get in touch with the parks authority and they say yes they provide you with the rules and you stick to them, that is it. The emphasis is back on the individual where you have to take responsibility for your actions.

Now since there is and was no mention of a "bushcraft" ruling authority in my prior post I can't see where the vegetarians, omnivores, carnivores, herbivores and vegans come into it.

Vegetarian bushcrafters I would of thought would be enlightened enough to be tolerant to others beliefs as are the non vegetarian bushcrafters. In the end I do not preach to them I do not see why they should preach to me and I prefer to keep it that way.

You are talking about legislation in the UK, this cannot and will not effect the rest of the world. You also mention about people that hunt and kill to live and how it will effect them, it shouldn't.

However the people that hunt kill and trap to live / exist I wouldn't class as bushcrafters, they are subsistence hunters and todays modern bushcrafters couldn't and shouldn't compare themselves to them. It is an insult to them.

Remember that bushcraft is a phrase often coined, but there are very few people who actually live by the letter of it any more, all of us can always go home at the end of the day, but to the likes of the San that is home.

Just a few thoughts

 

[Fluxus]

Remember that bushcraft is a phrase often coined, but there are very few people who actually live by the letter of it any more, all of us can always go home at the end of the day, but to the likes of the San that is home.

Just a few thoughts

Sadly to many many bushmen it is no longer allowed to be home. A bit off topic here but since the San were mentioned - I thought many would be interested in this:
link to survival international article

 

[leon-1]

Fluxus, I know what you mean, the San have had legislation placed on them, but it was not by us or by a Bushcraft authority, it is by thier own goverments (more's the pitty) I am talking mainly of the bushmen in Namibia as these are people I have met and it is a crying shame.

The fact that they are now having the same sort of rules bandied at them in Botswana is terrible and the fact that they are evicting them for pure political and financial gain is criminal.

However I still do not believe that Bushcrafters could or should compare themselves to the San or peoples who live in this way because they have to because we don't.

To me they live it and we are really playing at the edges.

 

[P Wren]

Thanks for the link Fluxus. I wasn't aware of that organisation - I have added it to my favourites and will follow it with interest - desperately sad reading about the Gana and Gwi Bushmen.

I agree with you leon. I have utmost respect for anyone who manages to live by their own means an develop the necessary skills and methods to enable them to live by their own means of the land - for those of us who live permanently in developed countries like the UK and who have regular jobs and homes, it’s a way of life that I think is hard for us to fully appreciate. Our version of 'bushcraft' is worlds apart from proper Bushmen.

I understand your sentiments about representative bodies R-Bowskill, but I wonder how 'Bushcraft' can be practised legitimately in this country and what identifies and separates Bushcraft as practiced in this country from other form of outdoor activities such as regular camping and re-enactment fairs/event etc.

I don't know that there are 'definitive' answers to these questions and that is the reason I started this thread was to try and find out what other members believe distinguishes their version of Bushcraft from other outdoors activities.

 

[leon-1]

I think "low impact" is one of the major things in bushcraft, preferably it would be "no impact", but the likelyhood of this is very unlikely.

How do people class camping nowadays, people now have tents that are larger than my garage, or they camp in thier trailer or camper vans, the impact of which is considerable. People like thier creature comforts, gas burners (multi ring with a grill), folding chairs that could not be easily carried, televisions and camp beds.

Bushcrafters tend to have a more simplistic idea of creature comforts, thier stoves tend to use renewable sources of fuel and are small and compact. Our shelters are normally tarps or compact tents that would fit into many camping tents many times over in floor area and sometimes 2 or 3 times in height. Chairs tend to be little stools or a therma rest chair unless we are at a camp site with the car.

People tend to be solitary on camp sites now, they stay in thier little group and do not mix overly well. Bushcrafters that are meeting at a site for the first time make everything very communal and people pitch in more, they tend to be more open and can be bold as brass.

I wouldn't say that bushcraft is more affordable, because with its increasing popularity prices on things have gone up as they did with climbing and walking when they went through a boom, but bushcraft can be as expensive as you want to make it because good kit is still out there for bargain prices or you can learn to make your own.

I can't comment on re-enactment because I do not know many people that do it and haven't done it myself (my apologies to the guys here that do re-enactment), but I would imagine it is very much down to the time frame/ era and region of the re-enactment.

 

[gregorach]

How do people class camping nowadays, people now have tents that are larger than my garage, or they camp in thier trailer or camper vans, the impact of which is considerable. People like thier creature comforts, gas burners (multi ring with a grill), folding chairs that could not be easily carried, televisions and camp beds.

OT, but I once saw a family on a campsite in Tasmania that had a full size upright fridge-freezer hooked up to a genie outside their palatial "tent"...

As for "low-impact", it has to be remembered that leaving "only footprints" is still a significant impact if you get enough people through an area - you only need to look at some popular hill tracks to see that. I think that's a fundamental problem with trying to set up a Bushcraft association - either there are too few "bushcrafters" to be taken seriously, or so many that their cumulative impact would likely be significant. It would take some very pro-active land management to handle it in a sustainable manner unless you've got access to a very large amount of land.

These problems have been wrestled with in Scotland for some time. We're very, very fortunate in the land access rights we have, but it's not without problems. For example, I can remeber when the Clachaig Flats in Glencoe was a very popular place to camp, but several years ago the NT had to impose a "no camping" rule because of the cumulative errosion of the area. And that's with people just pitching tents - no fires, no cutting wood, no taking a dump in a hole (well, it is less than a hundred yards from one of the best pubs in Scotland). We can only get away with the situation we have up here because the density is so much lower (in most places) and thanks to the stirling efforts of a lot of conservation volunteers.