Wild camping dartmoor threatened again
- Thread starter Woody girl
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
Possibly, on the other hand possibly not. I come from a family heavily involved in organic farming, a sibling is world famous in regenerative agriculture, and I practise self-sufficiency from a C17th house made of oak trees, mud and hazel sticks and off grid apart from a cold tap above a Belfast sink. For 'work' in the last few years I've been involved in a project reducing the UK's dependency on organic non-ruminant feed from imported soya in favour of home grown legumes, which is now taking off.
No stranger to Dartmoor either, I skived off most of a 3-year degree to wild camp, cycle, hike, climb, boulder and kayak on the moor.
My view is that a similar right to roam act as Scotland/Scandinavia needs to be implemented in England, along with education about responsible behaviour/land use/dog handling.
No stranger to Dartmoor either, I skived off most of a 3-year degree to wild camp, cycle, hike, climb, boulder and kayak on the moor.
My view is that a similar right to roam act as Scotland/Scandinavia needs to be implemented in England, along with education about responsible behaviour/land use/dog handling.
You've edited your post to add a curious last comment, I assume you are suggesting people tend to get 'brainwashed' at university and emerge as liberal animal rights/climate activists?
I was rather too busy studying naval architecture to be be brainwashed, or rather as hinted at in my previous post I wasn't doing either, but treating it as a three-year all expenses paid holiday on Dartmoor. My opinions on land ownership, use and access are formed not from the opinions of others, but from my life experiences. Which, incidentally which sound like yours- a lifestyle where it is great to be inside for once, rather than having to make an effort to get out and enjoy the outdoors!
Why thank you, I consider that a compliment, but not as arrogant as the reply I had.
It was still total and absolute rubbish though.
You might need to read the judgement properly and see what the implications would have been if wild camping was excluded from the Dartmoor Commons Act as a form of ‘open air recreation’.
I've seen scramblers on footpaths in I think Kentmere or Longsleddale. However I'm not sure anyone could do anything about it as one was the farmer's son and the others were his mates. They were not working just hooning around and having fun. It was the family farm so I guess the had the right to do it.
Is it still illegal even if your own land or you have permission from the landowner? I guess if there's a TRO on the route it is but not otherwise.
On your own land you can. They would still have to be careful if it was a ROW because if they hit someone they could in theory be liable.
Oooh Arr, I'm zummat of a stranger to rooral loife. Here I am harvesting organic beans undersown with a lovely old variety of longstraw wheat, having stripped and reassembled a large part of the combine to replace a broken drum shaft and rebalance the impeller. Real responsible land use, grown without chemicals or factory manufactured fertilisers to feed hens which live their lives on pasture.
Nigel, it was never a threat to ban wild camping per se, the major landowner the Duchy of Cornwall would never seek to ban wild camping, or change the areas agreed with the DNPA, it is woven into the fabric of Dartmoor, and I am so pleased the ruling went the way it did, but yes, things could have escalated had it gone the other way, I do agree.
Wild camping was available on that piece of land before they came along, so if they don’t like it, they can do one as far as I’m concerned, interfering incomers.
But “Right to Roam” is a very, very different thing. These people are politically driven and eaten with envy and jealousy. No one should have the right to just go or camp where they want, purely ridiculous, and if you have seen what I have seen……..You would agree I’m sure.
And yet it works very well in Scotland and Scandinavia- do you have any direct experience of land access in these countries?
And having described public land use and access rights in Scotland and Scandinavia as 'purely ridiculous' three times now, can you go into any more detail as to what you mean?
The growing number of English residents who want to see a 'Right to Roam' act in England come from all walks of life. Some are members of the Ramblers, some are members of the group 'Right to Roam', some are members of the Open Spaces Society, some are members of none of these. Some are landowners and millionaires, some live in tower blocks. Some are politically active, some are not. Unsurprisingly, those trying hardest to make the change they want have to be politically active, given that change will only happen through the political system.
Stating that everyone who wants a Scottish-style right to roam in England are 'politically driven and eaten with envy and jealousy', and referring to them as 'these people' suggests you are not aware of any of the above.
I fully expect to see a right to roam in England in my lifetime, and I'd rather it was sooner than later! Public attitudes are changing, thankfully, and the value of connection to nature is slowly being recognised...
So we are all pleased at the Supreme Court outcome, but someone has given a reasonable note of caution as to the real extent or limits of the judgement. This then highlighted the differences of understanding and the vagueness of some of the popular terms used.
Right to Roam has become a popular term that lacks definition and consequently means different things to different people, the same as Black Lives Matter does. It causes an uneasy balance between public access and land use rights. Inevitably, politics and received political dogma cloud issues and cause disagreements.
I don't like to see forum members waiving their credentials at each other to try to claim some superior point, it don't work like that.
Anybody who cares enough to want to change the law and public perception has to be somewhat driven and obsessive in order to do so. Their reasons and drivers are many, emotive generalised name-calling is just inaccurate supposition and prejudice. (Woody Girl has experienced that as a "biker bird"). The rest are just along for the ride.
The awareness and reality of land ownership and farming vary widely, as do the experiences positive and negative. The reality is that all land is owned, by State or individuals, and while they own it, the land comes with certain responsibilities and also rights, both legal and moral.
It cannot be right for the public to cause expensive and costly damage to land at the landowners expense. Any more than it is for landowners to seek to block existing rights or to selfishly seek more for themselves. Sadly, I've seen too many who have succeeded in business because they are arrogant, aggressive and selfish, do it now and argue it away afterwards.
Scotland is not a good example. It worked while the numbers exercising theirs rights were low. As the numbers and misuse/damage increased, it has caused landowners problems and restrictions have had to be brought in. E.G camping and fire restrictions on Loch Long, damage in passes on the Northwest trail, local ire at campervans. Further south closure and repair bill for popular Peak District routes, ditto the Ridgeway.
Even if more access rights are granted, if numbers across them and populations rise it will not be enough. I foresee that it might become a bit like fishing rights, with some form of permits and passes for a fee, to limit numbers and protect the countryside.
Right to Roam has become a popular term that lacks definition and consequently means different things to different people, the same as Black Lives Matter does. It causes an uneasy balance between public access and land use rights. Inevitably, politics and received political dogma cloud issues and cause disagreements.
I don't like to see forum members waiving their credentials at each other to try to claim some superior point, it don't work like that.
Anybody who cares enough to want to change the law and public perception has to be somewhat driven and obsessive in order to do so. Their reasons and drivers are many, emotive generalised name-calling is just inaccurate supposition and prejudice. (Woody Girl has experienced that as a "biker bird"). The rest are just along for the ride.
The awareness and reality of land ownership and farming vary widely, as do the experiences positive and negative. The reality is that all land is owned, by State or individuals, and while they own it, the land comes with certain responsibilities and also rights, both legal and moral.
It cannot be right for the public to cause expensive and costly damage to land at the landowners expense. Any more than it is for landowners to seek to block existing rights or to selfishly seek more for themselves. Sadly, I've seen too many who have succeeded in business because they are arrogant, aggressive and selfish, do it now and argue it away afterwards.
Scotland is not a good example. It worked while the numbers exercising theirs rights were low. As the numbers and misuse/damage increased, it has caused landowners problems and restrictions have had to be brought in. E.G camping and fire restrictions on Loch Long, damage in passes on the Northwest trail, local ire at campervans. Further south closure and repair bill for popular Peak District routes, ditto the Ridgeway.
Even if more access rights are granted, if numbers across them and populations rise it will not be enough. I foresee that it might become a bit like fishing rights, with some form of permits and passes for a fee, to limit numbers and protect the countryside.
Isn't that an example of problems arising and being dealt with, surely a productive and positive process? I can't deny that there needs to be greater education or even legislation to promote responsible behavior though, but that stands in England now, whether access is opened up or not.
Stating the obvious but campervans have nothing to do with right to roam and wild camping and are clogging up beauty spots in England too. Peak district footpaths and the Ridgeway suffering from heavy use are nothing to do with increasing access. In fact the exact opposite would be the case- more access would potentially take the pressure off these places.
I found it funny, at least.
Similar threads
