Wild camping dartmoor threatened again

[Falstaff]

Sadly I don't think restricting usage and access is productive or positive. Education and changing public perception and behaviour is very hard, no matter the legal penalties. The self-entitlement to leave gear and rubbish at concerts shows what an uphill struggle it is/would be.
Unfortunately the "Right toRoam" is understood by some to include their campervans in beauty spots and anywhere else, often blocking up car parks for walkers etc etc. leading to overnight parking bans for those who wish to wild camp, or even going for a day walk. e.g. would you expect to find a campervan (s) on the Ridgeway, or multiples of them on a bridleway in Wiltshire*. - But they do, with tents. (* a regular spot for "fairies" they informed me, hopefully).

The Peak District reference was meant as an example of the damage caused by excessive numbers/usage. Opening up more areas might reduce it or it might not. Media influencers & TV etc tend to cause mass migrations of sheeplike behaviour to the same places/routes. Ditto the insistence on having a campfire or it's not a wild camp.

A Scottish friend of mine, now resident in the south, was very pro Right to Roam per the Scottish model. However, it didn't take long for him to get around, and having seen how the softy southerners campers and walkers conduct themselves, is now very against it.

 

[nigelp]

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.

That's an interesting one because when the case was first won the permitted wild camping area map was removed from the NPA website and at no point even after it was renegotiated did the DOC make a public statement, or commitment to allowing wild camping regardless. Unless I missed that in which case I'll stand corrected.

The DOC own a staggering amount of land in mostly the SW of England and yet the only land where they 'allow' wild camping is on Dartmoor because it is part of the Dartmoor Commons Act.

Allowing something is the not same as being made to allow it by law (Dartmoor CommonsAct), as now upheld by the supreme court. It can now not be taken away, or eroded.

As to the Right to Roam, despite the challenges faced I still support the right to increased responsible access to the countryside and increased access beyond the existing rights of way network. Those are challenges but the approach should be to compromise rather than allowing a minority on each side to gain say any talk because they don't like change or can find egregious examples of abuse.

There is more road side rubbish than in the countryside but I see no outcry and call to ban cars and roads! Although I would fully support the ban on the sale of plastic bottles and throw way coffee cups! More people live on the streets in tents and road side permanently in vehicles than 'wild camp' across England and Wales and in Scotland under the right to roam but again I see no outcry to solve that issue.

I have walked through farms where there are vast amounts of plastic detritus blowing about, run off from slurry and silt/soil running into water courses, fuel and oil contamination etc. However I know that these like the examples given to refute the right to roam agenda are not typical.

The majority of land owners are proud of where they live and work and those walking in the countryside also treat it with respect and care for it.

 

[TLM]

A little perspective from Finland where the "Everyman's right" is well established. I think it is mostly used for collecting wild berries and mushrooms. Those people usually do not litter and they are not any kind of a problem. In most areas very few just walk. Trekkers tend to use established trails in the south, in the east and north it is different. My own experience is that reindeer herders and other snowmobilers are the worst litter bugs, some years ago my son collected some 15 empty beer cans during a 4 day walk, that was about half what we saw.

There is a growing problem with reindeer herders, by the year they seem less and less able to walk and ATV tracks last a long time in the Lapland's slow growing vegetation.

 

[Nice65]

the real world, not some fantasy where everyone is lovely and Unicorns and fairies mix happily.

Well, that’s my day ruined! The main reason I’d want to camp out on the moor is to be a part of the unicorn and fairy mixing.

 

[slowworm]

There is more road side rubbish than in the countryside but I see no outcry and call to ban cars and roads! Although I would fully support the ban on the sale of plastic bottles and throw way coffee cups!

We have roads here in the countryside as well! Yes they are often covered in litter and yes people do moan about the drivers. But just like litter dropped virtually anywhere nothing is done about it. The difference with public places and private land is why should a land owner open it up in the full knowledge people will drop litter, or worse, and nothing will be done to stop it or pay to clear it?

I don't see why you seem to be splitting people into two separate groups, round here most open access land is driven to. So if someone is going to sling rubbish out of their car they are just as likely to drop it whilst walking. There's plenty of evidence of this.

I'm not reassured by the "we'll educate people" or "we might tighten the law" comments as I'm not naive and I know that means nothing will be done.

I also don't agree with the concept that constantly crops up in that just because one type of person does damage to the countryside we should allow other groups to. Round here there's a lot of industrial farming which does a lot of damage to the area, what small patches of land that aren't intensively farmed need to be protected and I don't feel allowing open access will do that.

 

[nigelp]

I don't see why you seem to be splitting people into two separate groups

What groups?

 

[Falstaff]

What groups?

The pro and against access minority groups you referred to. Both sides seem quite large but in terms of total population I agree they are a minority. Ever it was thus so.
There is actually a lot of pressure and Govt/local will to reduce/prevent tent encampments and van dwelling on road sides, probably because it embarrasses them and is seen as a political failure. Consequently, they spend a lot of money on it, not necessarily wisely or well.

It's out of context to this discussion, but the current govt. seem very keen on finding ways to getting rid of cars, plastic bottles and coffee cups ! But I'm not very happy with their perceived solutions! But as far as littering and flytipping, it's just hot air words and push it off onto cash-strapped councils.
Slowworm does have a point about the industrial farming, it can be very destructive. When we wild camp we inevitably try to seek out the few remaining wild pockets. Nobody wishes to wild camp in a big open crop field, even if we could!

 

[Moondog55]

I think all of this discussion is ignoring the really big elephant in the room, just like Australia your tiny island has a population in excess of it's real carrying capacity. Here in Oz we have a population of about 30 million in a country that can only truly support about half that. I think that the UK is even worse off

 

[nigelp]

I think all of this discussion is ignoring the really big elephant in the room, just like Australia your tiny island has a population in excess of it's real carrying capacity. Here in Oz we have a population of about 30 million in a country that can only truly support about half that. I think that the UK is even worse off

Because that’s a subjective comment, falls well within the realm of politics and will lead no where!