Wild camping law

[Tony]

Good point

 

[sandsnakes]

You got 'em bang to rites Dr Strange.

The mass trespass organised in the 30's and the 50's brought substantial changes to the law. The Ramblers Asscoiation achived this by direct confrontation with the authorities and land owners.

I would not adovcate this but would point out that a continual low key pressure is probably to our advantage. Sounds like its time to set up a fighting fund and wait for the inevitable court case.

I have been challenged several times, and my comment about clearing the area of discrarded cans and other crepe has always been well met. In fact I have had the comment of, if you go over ther no one willl bother you at all.

Sandsnakes

 

[Rod]

Couple of good points in all this - cheers. Like Demographic, I have wild camped in several National Parks. Providing you are above 450m sea level and are discreet, Wild Camping is OK.

I do some voluntary work for the FC and they are improving access to land and allowing people to use the woods - not just walk in them. They encourage responsible shelter building, foraging etc where I am. Fire, as has been mentioned, is a no-no. The Ranger here is very open to bushcrafting and is interested to learn more, and maybe look at getting some bushcraft events put on. I've been working on this for the last 3 years

 

[swyn]

There has been a legal presedent set recently with a landowner v a member of the public and a tree related accident. The member of the public won his case and set a lot of woodland owners and their legal advisers off on a tangent re duty of care and trees. This has brought liability to the foreground.
Consider if you do have permission to camp in the woods and have an tree related accident, the landowner is now responsible and a lot of permission is given without liability insurance. This is not too expensive, but needs to be paid for.
You have an accident, are off work and can not pay your mortgage. You loose your house.....
The accident mentioned relates to a duty of care on any public highway consequently this covers BR, FP and permitted public access. Huge potential costs to be bourne by land owners.
Here we are talkng about level 2 surveys possibly using ultrasound equipment on any veteran or older tree NOT obviously suspect. there are a lot of those! This will happen to all trees 25m from any right of way. Realistically this can't happen overnight but wheels have been set in motion. Sorry to be such a miserable b*****d, but I thought that you would like to know!
Swyn.

 

[drstrange]

Couple of good points in all this - cheers. Like Demographic, I have wild camped in several National Parks. Providing you are above 450m sea level and are discreet, Wild Camping is OK.

I do some voluntary work for the FC and they are improving access to land and allowing people to use the woods - not just walk in them. They encourage responsible shelter building, foraging etc where I am. Fire, as has been mentioned, is a no-no. The Ranger here is very open to bushcrafting and is interested to learn more, and maybe look at getting some bushcraft events put on. I've been working on this for the last 3 years

Firstly: I have bad knees so 450m bushcrafting is difficult for me.
Secondly: allowing 'me' to use 'my' woods (well gee thanks)
Thirdly: where you are? what about where I am, is this at the discretion of the 'ranger'? if so, why does his decision effect my freedom
Fourthly: "Looking at getting some bushcraft events put on". I don't want to do bushcraft at an 'event', I want some privacy and freedom.

I appreciate the three years effort, but I'm interested in law change.

 

[Doc]

The FC are shifting emphasis away from maximising timber production, and towards recreational use of woodlands. They have produced some excellent foot and bike trails, and educational stuff at their centres. The bad old days of rows of dense Sika spruce seem to be in the past.

Fire is a big issue and even under the Scottish access laws, fire is generally somewhat discouraged, and absolutely prohibited in or near a 'plantation'.

I would like to think that the relative success of Scotlands liberal access laws will be copied in England. Often Scotland is used as a test bed for legislation (we had the poll tax and the smoking ban before England).

However, I am not too optimistic. The culture is just different north of the border, where a right of responsible access was presumed by tradition for centuries.

 

[Toddy]

Firstly: I have bad knees so 450m bushcrafting is difficult for me.
Secondly: allowing 'me' to use 'my' woods (well gee thanks)
Thirdly: where you are? what about where I am, is this at the discretion of the 'ranger'? if so, why does his decision effect my freedom
Fourthly: "Looking at getting some bushcraft events put on". I don't want to do bushcraft at an 'event', I want some privacy and freedom.

I appreciate the three years effort, but I'm interested in law change.

Sorry about the knees, hills are no longer fun for many of us
2nd; They're not *your* woods , they are *our* woods and that means responsible use so the resouce is available for all.
3rd; The Ranger is the person that society has employed to not only educate, instruct and encourage the public but to have a care for the welfare of the woodlands.
4th; Privacy and freedom requires effort in a crowded island, you'll just have to share like the rest of us

cheers,
Toddy

 

[drstrange]

Sorry about the knees, hills are no longer fun for many of us
2nd; They're not *your* woods , they are *our* woods and that means responsible use so the resouce is available for all.
3rd; The Ranger is the person that society has employed to not only educate, instruct and encourage the public but to have a care for the welfare of the woodlands.
4th; Privacy and freedom requires effort in a crowded island, you'll just have to share like the rest of us

cheers,
Toddy

Firstly: My knees are worse than yours!
Secondly: This land is 'my' land, this land is 'your' land de de da dum dum (you know the song)
Thirdly: I don't need a ranger to educate me, or encourage me to care for woods, but thank you for pointing out that I pay his wages
Fourthly: Contrary to popular propoganda, this island isn't as crowded as we think, we are actually 'huddled and herded' into small parts of it, privacy is not difficult to achieve in the woods, if only we were allowed.

 

[Montivagus]

An eloquent post Drstrange. Not sure I agree with it though or should I say not sure I like it. In essence your saying the mob rules if it wants to and possession is nine tenths of the law. True I guess, I mean look at the French revolution…but is this the kind of thing you want to see happen in our woods? I certainly don’t! I like things as they are pretty much. By saying no to access NT FC etc. don’t have to pay compensation to Bushcrafty users of the wood (See Swyn’s post) should a branch fall on them etc. It discourages many people from using the woods, leaving them unlittered and unpopulated and a haven for wildlife…just how I like it. Unfettered access and the woods might well turn into the sort of sanitised public-campsite vision you outlined before, where rangers outnumber even the grey squirrels.
The current situation kind of leaves it to us to use the wood and the institutions to chuck us out of them if we’re out of line/behaving irresponsibly, if they want, if they don’t choose to look the other way, if you draw sufficient attention to yourself nod nod wink wink.

 

[Toddy]

Firstly: My knees are worse than yours!
Secondly: This land is 'my' land, this land is 'your' land de de da dum dum (you know the song)
Thirdly: I don't need a ranger to educate me, or encourage me to care for woods, but thank you for pointing out that I pay his wages
Fourthly: Contrary to popular propoganda, this island isn't as crowded as we think, we are actually 'huddled and herded' into small parts of it, privacy is not difficult to achieve in the woods, if only we were allowed.
Fithly: I am a last-word freak. (only kidding)

1st; Somedays you'd lose that bet
2nd; I'm a Scot, it's *our* land; that is, it belongs to us all
3rd; You may not, but others certainly do, and the Rangers are employed to deal with everyone that wishes to use our shared natural environment, and to work to maintain biodiversity, nurture and develop the woodlands. Sometimes that means people are the most destructive nuisance to the detriment of many other indigenous species and may best be excluded from vulnerable areas. The Rangers are supposed to see the bigger picture.
4th; Again, I'm a Scot, we live in the most urbanised country in Western Europe, and we have the law enshrined right of responsible access to our countryside. I acknowledge that we are very fortunate, but I know d*mned fine if I go up a hill, a walk in the woods, a sail on a loch, whatever...... I'll meet someone I know
5th; You're welcome to the last word; though we've usually all gone home by then

Cheers,
Toddy

 

[drstrange]

An eloquent post Drstrange. Not sure I agree with it though or should I say not sure I like it. In essence your saying the mob rules if it wants to and possession is nine tenths of the law. True I guess, I mean look at the French revolution…but is this the kind of thing you want to see happen in our woods? I certainly don’t! I like things as they are pretty much. By saying no to access NT FC etc. don’t have to pay compensation to Bushcrafty users of the wood (See Swyn’s post) should a branch fall on them etc. It discourages many people from using the woods, leaving them unlittered and unpopulated and a haven for wildlife…just how I like it. Unfettered access and the woods might well turn into the sort of sanitised public-campsite vision you outlined before, where rangers outnumber even the grey squirrels.
The current situation kind of leaves it to us to use the wood and the institutions to chuck us out of them if we’re out of line/behaving irresponsibly, if they want, if they don’t choose to look the other way, if you draw sufficient attention to yourself nod nod wink wink.

I understand much of what you are saying, and agree with some of it, but there are a couple of things in there that bug me.

1. This compensation thingy.

Compensation culture is the problem here, not wild-camping, and surely it is not beyond the imagination of ingeneous human beings to come-up with some kind of disclaimer form is it? I saw the post and it did look like a spanner for a microsecond, but then I thought 'are we realy going to let an issue like insurance stand in the way of access to woods and natural energy? You know: hey, lets all give up on our rights guys, the man from the pru doesn't like it. I'm sorry but this is just an obstacle, not a brick wall.

2. Mob Rule

In essence I am not saying that 'mob' rules, in fact, I am trying to elucidate the idea of individual responsibility and empowerment, this is the opposite of mob rule. In fact, the ignorance of the naturally free status of individual Human beings is what forces in-action and petrification. Mob rule is a phenomena which represents a sudden and unsustainable release of energy from a populous which has been inactive for a protracted period of time, because it has been conditioned to beleive that the state should act on its behalf. Yes, this is how revolutions occur, and just look at the mess that this kind of revolution causes.

3. Run to the Hills!

In general and alas, most people aren't interested in the woods. I don't believe that if the law was changed, everyone would all of a sudden get up of their proverbials, dump their pizzas and Hello magazines and get into wild camping. I think that generally speaking this is pure prop. Most people are so dependant on technological luxuries and socio-political pleasures that a trip to the woods would be about as interesting to them as a traffic cone.

4. As I said earlier: What's wrong with public campsites? (it's a joke for those who haven't seen all the posts in this thread)

 

[Toddy]

I do agree; even the guidelines for play provision for children clearly state that an element of danger ought to be part of their activity, if they so chose to access it. I don't see the difference between that and an adult going for a walk in the woods or hills.

Mob rules can be a different thing though; i.e. Loch Lomond is a beautiful place.....until the crowd of gang handed day-out, have a p*ss up, mobs arrive. They flock to certain locales and decimate these places. No one wants to see that in the woodlands too.

There's a great deal in what you say; most folk don't stir beyond the daily round apart from their fortnight in sunshine/cheap booze/do what I like no one knows me/ somewhere abroad. Pity really....bring back two channels and both with the test card after 9pm

Cheers,
Toddy

p.s. just re-read this sorry I sound so grumpy; I genuinely like people, I don't like their carelessness for our environment though.

 

[Glen]

Having just been speed reading the CROW act 2000 ( Countryside and Rights of Way ) I fear that technically things are worse than any of us thought.
The part that seems most relevant I've quoted from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000037.htm

Big disclaimer before reading further, I am not a lawyer and just stating what I see as possibilities.

SCHEDULE 2

RESTRICTIONS TO BE OBSERVED BY PERSONS EXERCISING RIGHT OF ACCESS

General restrictions
1. Section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he-

(a) drives or rides any vehicle other than an invalid carriage as defined by section 20(2) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970,
(b) uses a vessel or sailboard on any non-tidal water,
(c) has with him any animal other than a dog,
(d) commits any criminal offence,
(e) lights or tends a fire or does any act which is likely to cause a fire,
(f) intentionally or recklessly takes, kills, injures or disturbs any animal, bird or fish,
(g) intentionally or recklessly takes, damages or destroys any eggs or nests,
(h) feeds any livestock,
(i) bathes in any non-tidal water,
(j) engages in any operations of or connected with hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying of animals, birds or fish or has with him any engine, instrument or apparatus used for hunting, shooting, fishing, trapping, snaring, taking or destroying animals, birds or fish,
(k) uses or has with him any metal detector,
(l) intentionally removes, damages or destroys any plant, shrub, tree or root or any part of a plant, shrub, tree or root,
(m) obstructs the flow of any drain or watercourse, or opens, shuts or otherwise interferes with any sluice-gate or other apparatus,
(n) without reasonable excuse, interferes with any fence, barrier or other device designed to prevent accidents to people or to enclose livestock,
(o) neglects to shut any gate or to fasten it where any means of doing so is provided, except where it is reasonable to assume that a gate is intended to be left open,
(p) affixes or writes any advertisement, bill, placard or notice,
(q) in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does anything which is intended by him to have the effect-
(i) of intimidating those persons so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(ii) of obstructing that activity, or
(iii) of disrupting that activity,
(r) without reasonable excuse, does anything which (whether or not intended by him to have the effect mentioned in paragraph (q)) disturbs, annoys or obstructs any persons engaged in a lawful activity on the land,
(s) engages in any organised games, or in camping, hang-gliding or para-gliding, or
(t) engages in any activity which is organised or undertaken (whether by him or another) for any commercial purpose.
2. - (1) In paragraph 1(k), "metal detector" means any device designed or adapted for detecting or locating any metal or mineral in the ground.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 1(q) and (r), activity on any occasion on the part of a person or persons on land is "lawful" if he or they may engage in the activity on the land on that occasion without committing an offence or trespassing on the land.

3. Regulations may amend paragraphs 1 and 2.

4. During the period beginning with 1st March and ending with 31st July in each year, section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if he takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog which is not on a short lead.

5. Whatever the time of year, section 2(1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if he takes, or allows to enter or remain, any dog which is not on a short lead and which is in the vicinity of livestock.

6. In paragraphs 4 and 5, "short lead" means a lead of fixed length and of not more than two metres.

taking a few of them in turn, and most are open to interpretation.

e) Fire : Well no-one likely to get done for lighting a cigarette ( so long as they put it out responsibly and take any filters back out with them ) but where that leaves the sliding scale of cooking is not clear. At the extremes of that I'd expect a jetboil to be OK and an open fire a not.

f) disturbing any animal, if you startle a squirell accidentally them the chances of anything happening are pretty much zero, chase them and it might be a different matter.

j) now this one has with him ( presumable or her too and apperatus for fishing, now you'd proably get away with a survival kit that had a few hooks and lines in it but if you had a rod as well they might see it in a different light. It should be noted however that as stated the act just says has with him, not has used or even has intention to use.

l) remove, damage,destroy any plant etc. Could be open to extreme interpretations, any of our may not agree with a particular judge , not even between judges. eg chopping down a tree is an obvious no no but making pine needle tea might be OK

s) Now this was the one we started with, specifically camping, note nowhere do they define camping. I've been unable to track down a legal definition of camping, the dictionary ones do tend to refer to tents and huts ( which will almost certainly include Tipis for the pedantic ) They seem unclear about bivis, tarps and hammocks. Though note the Oxfod dictionary entry for bivouak http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/bivouac?view=uk refers to ( noun ) temporay camp without tents or cover (verb ) stay in such a camp. so kinda a sliding scale there too possible. Of course if you were sleeping under a tarp intending to argue it out ( like pointing out most organised campsite don't accept tarps and hammocks ) and breaking any of the other conditions they are more likely to be strict about those ones.

So seeking permision seems even more important for those that want to have themselves covered.

As for ways forward with National Trust and FC, I feel we could make some progress with them by drawing their attention to the things like most bushcrafters are pretty caring of their enviroments, to the extent that they tend to take out other people's litter ( withing reason ) as well as their own.

 

[drstrange]

Hey Toddy, don't you think that if there were more 'bushcrafters' in the woods, then these disrespectfull 8@$*'s would have more than rangers worry about?

I'm not a 'political' activist and I don't wear Che Guevara T shirts, I just want to be with the trees sometimes, and have a cheering little fire, and make a little tea.

Thanks

 

[Montivagus]

I understand much of what you are saying, and agree with some of it, but there are a couple of things in there that bug me.

1. This compensation thingy.

Compensation culture is the problem here, not wild-camping, and surely it is not beyond the imagination of ingeneous human beings to come-up with some kind of disclaimer form is it? I saw the post and it did look like a spanner for a microsecond, but then I thought 'are we realy going to let an issue like insurance stand in the way of access to woods and natural energy? You know: hey, lets all give up on our rights guys, the man from the pru doesn't like it. I'm sorry but this is just an obstacle, not a brick wall.

2. Mob Rule

In essence I am not saying that 'mob' rules, in fact, I am trying to elucidate the idea of individual responsibility and empowerment, this is the opposite of mob rule. In fact, the ignorance of the naturally free status of individual Human beings is what forces in-action and petrification. Mob rule is a phenomena which represents a sudden and unsustainable release of energy from a populous which has been inactive for a protracted period of time, because it has been conditioned to beleive that the state should act on its behalf. Yes, this is how revolutions occur, and just look at the mess that this kind of revolution causes.

3. Run to the Hills!

In general and alas, most people aren't interested in the woods. I don't believe that if the law was changed, everyone would all of a sudden get up of their proverbials, dump their pizzas and Hello magazines and get into wild camping. I think that generally speaking this is pure prop. Most people are so dependant on technological luxuries and socio-political pleasures that a trip to the woods would be about as interesting to them as a traffic cone.

4. As I said earlier: What's wrong with public campsites? (it's a joke for those who haven't seen all the posts in this thread)

1. Absolutely! Ideally! However not the reality. E.G. I can put a sign up saying beware the mine shaft…..you jump over the accompanying fence and fall down the hole to your death…..your nearest and dearest successfully sue me for not welding girders over the hole at my cost!?

2 Idealism? I just don’t see it. I think you’re assuming an overly high median IQ level and or education. Mob rule to me is simply what the mob do becomes the rule and I don’t think it has to be quick at all. Look at litter. The mob has been slowly increasing the amount of litter they throw into their own environment to such a degree that they do it openly and at all times everywhere.

3 G*d I hope not. Though here again I wonder. I’m a mountain man and have seen the number of hill walkers in high heels, throwing litter go up every year, exponentially, and such is the pressure they bring, the mountains are full of helicopters to ferry them off when they break themselves (all for free), helicopters bringing stone to give them a pavement to walk on etc. etc. weep weep.
:togo:

 

[falling rain]

Dr Strange quote - In general and alas, most people aren't interested in the woods. I don't believe that if the law was changed, everyone would all of a sudden get up of their proverbials, dump their pizzas and Hello magazines and get into wild camping. I think that generally speaking this is pure prop. Most people are so dependant on technological luxuries and socio-political pleasures that a trip to the woods would be about as interesting to them as a traffic cone.

I couldn't have put that better myself...................don't you think that the chavs in their 'Boks' and footballers 'wags' and people that holiday in 'Aya Nappa' and watch love island would forgo their burberry and louis vitton (after all they're at the cutting edge of fashion, so much so that everyone wears it ) in favour of digging a hangi and roasting rump of Roe though .....................it'd be a hard transition :togo:

 

[drstrange]

1. Absolutely! Ideally! However not the reality. E.G. I can put a sign up saying beware the mine shaft…..you jump over the accompanying fence and fall down the hole to your death…..your nearest and dearest successfully sue me for not welding girders over the hole at my cost!?

2 Idealism? I just don’t see it. I think you’re assuming an overly high median IQ level and or education. Mob rule to me is simply what the mob do becomes the rule and I don’t think it has to be quick at all. Look at litter. The mob has been slowly increasing the amount of litter they throw into their own environment to such a degree that they do it openly and at all times everywhere.

3 G*d I hope not. Though here again I wonder. I’m a mountain man and have seen the number of hill walkers in high heels, throwing litter go up every year, exponentially, and such is the pressure they bring, the mountains are full of helicopters to ferry them off when they break themselves (all for free), helicopters bringing stone to give them a pavement to walk on etc. etc. weep weep.
:togo:

As I said earlier, I wasn't talking about private property, but 'state' owned land, I think it's a different issue to private claims,

Concession to my understanding of mob rule (sorry, I mis-understood), I see what you are getting at there. As I just posted in reply to Toddy, perhaps the more 'Bushies' in the woods the better, then the mob can be told where to go with their litter bugging. Self-regulation is an emergent property of free-society, there are examples of this all across the world.

Hill-walking (I hope I understand this correctly) is a completely different ethos to BC, BCers whole activity is based on considerate co-habitation of the natural world, lots of them are Ray Mears Heads, and his message about respect is always loud and clear, and it is BCers who are petitioning for camping acess in the woods, not hillwalkers. Thats what's interesting about all of this, I think that the BC movement is unprecidented in modern British history, if anything group can effect a change then maybe this one can. Anyway, if people who are ill educated (this is not a classist term, I refer to self-education across the social spectrum) do give it a try they probably won't do it very often, because anyone who does this BC knows that you need to have your stuff together to be comfortable, and this requires an investment prohibitive to the casual taker.

Just a quick thanks to Glen for posting the legals a couple of posts ago, interesting reading.

 

[copper_head]

Hey Toddy, don't you think that if there were more 'bushcrafters' in the woods, then these disrespectfull 8@$*'s would have more than rangers worry about?

I'm not a 'political' activist and I don't wear Che Guevara T shirts, I just want to be with the trees sometimes, and have a cheering little fire, and make a little tea.

Thanks

Im with you there doc,

 

[Montivagus]

As I said earlier.....

Concession to my understanding .....

Hill-walking (I hope I understand this correctly) is a completely different ethos to BC,.......

Just a quick thanks to Glen for posting the legals a couple of posts ago, interesting reading.

Sorry, not clear maybe but my example was simply one to show to what ridiculous levels compensation culture is reaching, despite it being perfectly obvious that individuals should be responsible for their own misfortunes to a much greater degree. If that’s what can happen on private land then on public?

As for hill walking and its ethos….? I can only really speak for myself but my guess is in principle it would be the same as that purported by BC; A simple enjoyment of the natural environment and an absolute effort to minimise impact on that environment (More or less?). However I am sad to say that I’ve seen plenty of evidence of so called disciples of BC picking mushrooms before identifying them then throwing them away, using vast quantities of electrical energy in the elaboration of their so called natural products etc. and all this just on this forum. People are always saying respect nature and then driving 400 miles, contaminating it, to respect some of it at the other end of the country.

I’d love to agree with you…. honest!

 

[copper_head]

Yes I agree, I love both hill walking and Bushcraft I dont see the differance, except in the kit I carry. It is still as you say, a love of nature and your place in it. Altho when hill climbing you have to take certain items that distance you from your surrounding (tents, gas stoves etc). However I recognise that hill walking is more practised by the general masses than BC. Which I guess is due to the fear of the unknown, even taking when taking some of my 'newbie' mates out to the woods they dont trust the enviroment around them, (rabbit gets topped in the distance, screech etc; what the f@!* was that!) and they get all jittery . I cant see many familys of city folk camping out in the woods, altho ive seen many slogging up Pen-y-Ghent in flip flops with no water or protection for the elements. As long as they keep making Blair Witch movies, were ok I reckon