Wild Camping e-petition - England & Wales

[Bluefrog]

I was having this conversation with an American friend of mine; he didn't understand the population we have over here compared to the amount of forest and 'wild' locations there are in America. We came up with the idea of a licence to wild camp, a bit like fishing. The forest is being damaged anyway, a licence would proved an economy to help pay for damage. When applying for the licence initially it should be mandatory that a conservation course is taken at the expense of the wild camper educating about fires, leaving minimal impact and conservation. There could also be a code to remove others mess, site your fire on top of someone eases' old fire and completely tidy it after.

 

[mrcairney]

I like this little snippet regarding wild camping and the Swedish. Especially pertinent is what Lars says about respect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Hi_pgVlUC8Y#t=206s

 

[Martindav]

It would seem that those most against would appear to be those who already have permission for camping on private land/woods.

A change in the laws regarding the subject isn't going to create a new wave of irresponsible campers, they already exist and thankfully, like those opposed to the change in the law, they are so in the minority.

On the subject of land ownership, whose was it to sell in the first place and by what right?

 

[Martyn]

...thankfully, like those opposed to the change in the law, they are so in the minority.

I wouldn't say minority, the epetition has 67 signatures at the moment, I'd call that a victory for common sense.

On the subject of land ownership, whose was it to sell in the first place and by what right?

Possession of land was usually through the spoils of battle or at the point of a sword. It was a perfectly reasonable way of acquiring property 10,000 years ago. It's a little late in the day to bemoan the lack of medieval hippies and communists, as any that were around were probably seen as weirdos and fell to the axe. Ahhhh, I do miss some of the old traditions. Can we have an e-petition for the return of public beheading of hippies and communists? It'd probably do better than this nonsense.

 

[Martyn]

Firstly, let me say that I haven't read all of the posts, but understand and, to a degree, sympathise with all I have read above and agree with much of it.

Some of the remarks immediately put my hackles up though, like Gliderrider's "keep it north of the border"! I have no doubt he'd make full use of the rights others fought long and hard for, though! But if he has such an aversion to the idea of ordinary people going into the countryside, then he's perfectly at liberty to stay away.

What makes my hackles rise, is Scottish university fees being paid by English tax pounds, or Scottish prescription costs being met again by the English taxpayer, but those are different arguments and we could go round all day. I dont think the "keep it north of the border" comment was intended to be political, there is no need to go running for the Claymore and wode. Scotland has a much larger acreage of wilderness and a much lower population, which makes the right to roam far more viable. It has nothing to do with Anglo-Scottish politics.

 

[rik_uk3]

It would seem that those most against would appear to be those who already have permission for camping on private land/woods.

A change in the laws regarding the subject isn't going to create a new wave of irresponsible campers, they already exist and thankfully, like those opposed to the change in the law, they are so in the minority.

On the subject of land ownership, whose was it to sell in the first place and by what right?

Yep, maybe true, because we put some effort into finding a place and not just assumed its 'my right' to park up where ever I fancy

Nice first post of yours, how about a little introduction or have you been a member here before?


Martyn, whats all this talk of hippies and communists, they all gone mate, ain't any left.

 

[Martyn]

Martyn, whats all this talk of hippies and communists, they all gone mate, ain't any left.

Did they get eaten by the nationalists?

Sorry Rik, it's the whole "all property is theft" thing that makes my eyes roll. It's so incredibly naive, it's almost cute.

 

[mrcairney]

Scotland has a ... much lower population

This was the same thinking by my Dad (an Airshire lad) when he used to explain the failings of his national football team.

 

[Martyn]

This was the same thinking by my Dad (an Airshire lad) when he used to explain the failings of his national football team.

Well it's solid logic and though there are some notable exceptions, it generally runs true.

 

[pango]

That particular "solid logic" exists only in your imagination, Martyn.

And as for Scottish Education being funded by English tax £s, it was Westminster Gov'ts which ended grants and introduced Tuition Fees. If your issues are with English students being charged for education in Scotland, then I too have problems with that. But again, the decision came from Westminster and Whitehall to end educational reciprocal agreements with other European States, So I throw it back at you, why should Scotland fund education for English students?
But I think your issues really lie elsewhere. I'm afraid your "naivety" is all too apparent, and recommend a solid education!

Much of England was parcelled up in the Middle Ages, yes, but the theft of Common Land and private property from those without Law Making capacity is relatively recent, from the later stages of Agricultural "Improvements" up to the Victorian Era. The Land Grab was performed in a slightly different way in the latter part of last century, through contacts in Government enriching private individuals and bent politicians selling off State Assets to their pals for paltry sums. It's called corruption and Britain is as rife with it as any Banana Republic!

The Scottish experience was, as you'd expect, different, with a massive clamour of a Land Grab a couple of hundred years ago, mostly from friends and family by those entrusted with its stewardship -they're now called The Aristocracy-, although in the last century the pattern closely resembles that of the rest of Great Britain.

There was a book published last year,
Wightman. Andy, The Poor Had No Lawyers; Who Owns Scotland, And How They Got It. (Birlinn Ltd. Edinburgh, 2010)
ISBN: 978 1 84158 907 7
Although the routine, England, Wales or Scotland is similar and the net results the same, you probably prefer your unfounded assumptions to that of the facts of how land was acquired, but in the event that you do wish to be informed, I suggest you read it.

I would guess that the 67, I think, signatures is more symbolic of a half-baked campaign than of English public opinion. Again your naivety regarding the pitfalls of questionnaires, opinion polls and petitioning has exposed your lack of knowledge and experience!

I haven't signed the topical petition as its none of my business, just as the Scottish Right to Roam is none of yours.
If you don't like it, then don't use it and nobody will miss you!

But with obviously prejudicial, resentful and spiteful attitudes like yours, it might be in your best interest not to voice your opinions around a bothy or campfire in England, Scotland or Wales.

Apologies to all for allowing myself to rise to the bait.

Pango.

 

[British Red]

Come on Pango - your posts are just as resentful if not more so - loaded with emotive terms, conspiracy theory and prejudice.

I have no dog in this fight, but you can hardly launch a hugely political diatribe and then object to Martyn responding in kind.

When you argue authorities have a "hidden agenda" and things are "spreading like a cancer" that things in England are more difficult due to "backward thinking" you invite a robust reply.

Martyn is just as entitled to make a post as you are and he is every bit as entitled to voice that opinion - indeed his opinions seem no more "resentful and spiteful" than yours.

As you say English people should make English law - and Scottish people Scottish law. They are unlikely to want or make the same laws. I know very few people in England who would endorse "right to roam" (other than the tiny minority who wish to wild camp). Whilst it might be nice to be able to walk around more freely, I for one feel that the risks - and mainfest outcomes in places like Loch Lomond - show that such a system causes damage to the land. As a man who invests his time and money making my tiny bit of land wildlife friendly, I would vehemently object to the trees I plant being chopped up, hedgreows and wild flowers trampled and the log piles I create for beetles etc. burned.

Does that make me selfish? Or does it mean that I am delighted to invest my sweat and money in the land - but not for it to be destroyed by those who make no such investment?

I'll let you decide, but perhaps we can discuss the issue without resorting to personal insults?

Red

 

[sapper1]

I've been reading this thread with interest.
Ignoring all the political angles,I would love to see all of England and Wales open to wild camping .
BUT
I don't think anybody wants other people to have free access to their land,I certainly don't want strangers being given the right to use my land for camping,mainly because it's mine.If you want to wild camp then buy some land and help yourself.

 

[Doc]

I think there are cultural differences between Scotland and England regarding how land ownership is viewed. The right to roam in Scotland has been traditional for centuries, although only recently enshrined in law.

After all, what is 'land ownership'? - you can't exactly possess it in the way you possess a watch or a knife.

Instead ownership means you have certain rights over the land. But even these are restricted: you cannot build anything you want, or change its use - you need planning permission for that, to protect the public interest. You can't mine gold or silver - the rights to these belong to the Crown, not the landowner. You can't prevent aircraft overflying it - the public need for air travel is more important.

In Scotland the right to roam is simply seen as a public right, rather than the landowners right, in much the same way as overflying private land in England is a public right. It's not particularly controversial here. I think the difference is more one of historical attitude and tradition, rather than population density (which is one quarter of England's).

 

[British Red]

I think there are lots of reasons Doc., those you mentioned plus there is considerably more open rough grazing and moorland as a proportion in Scotland than England - areas that lend themselves to "roaming". Intensively farmed arable and vegetable fields do not. Interestingly in areas like the Lakes and Dartmoor that are similar in nature, attitudes are more aligned.

There are also social and political differences which probably should not be touched on here for fear of fuelling the flames.

For me though, both approaches can work, but each country trying to impose its desires on the other is doomed to controvesy.

In answer to your question of "what is land ownership"? In my case, its thousands of pounds invested in "digging soup" to instal land drains. Hundreds more invested in native hedging, hand pulling hundreds of invasive Himilayan balsam, re- seeding the grass after eliminating the invaders. building and erecting bird boxes, decaying woodpiles for invertebrates, bat boxes etc. Then we commenced finding and sourcing historic fruit tree varieties, planting native wildflowers to encourage the insects.

Some of the land is growing sustainable crops - heirloom varieties to minimise seed manufacture, "lost" crops such as Oca (blight resistant), Yacon (sweetener useful for diabetics and a variety of other purposes)...I could go on

Next year I will, for another year, forego holidays. This will be to dig a wildlife pond and, hopefully, to begin work on conserving another historic building.

Now, I am new to the game of owning even a (pocket hankie) sized bit of land, but I can say, with I feel some justification, that I am doing my utmost to invest my efforts into leaving it better than I found it. My neighbours have generations of sweat and blood invested in theirs.

I cannot imagine opening my tiny bit of land to be hacked, burned and defecated on by any that feel like it. I could likely persuade authorities that my tiny plot is a very large garden, but that misses the point. I know how much time and money efoort and heartache goes into trying to be a good custodian of the land and I would like to ensure that those who use it are responsible.

That's how I define "land ownership". I know others feel one should not "own the land", and they are entitled to their view. But if this land was not "mine", to be passed onto to my family, it would still be swampy, running with human sewage, and massed with invasive plants. Now it is a haven for mistle thrushes, gold finches, sparrow hawks, marsh harriers, curlews and snipe.

"Land ownership" is having a stake and a say in the land - so that you can pour your lifeblood into it

Red

 

[Martyn]

But with obviously prejudicial, resentful and spiteful attitudes like yours, it might be in your best interest not to voice your opinions around a bothy or campfire in England, Scotland or Wales.

Pango.

Actually, the point I was making pango, was that political comment of the kind you offered, are irrelevant to this thread and that robust opinions like those I used to echo your own by example, are purely invective and inflammatory in this context. This thread is about whether or not we should allow wild camping in England, not about the wrongs of our medieval ancestors. While whipping up the old feuds might make for a good bit of pre-election rabble-rousing at your local SNP rally, it serves only to fuel bigotry and doesnt have any place in rational debate.

Oh and for the record, if it is what Scotland wants, then I am 100% in favour of devolution - providing of course, we have some fairly cast iron guarantees that when the new banana republic of Scotland inevitably spends itself into a black hole, it doesnt come back begging to suck off the English nipple.

See - we can play this game all day.

 

[Toddy]

So we go from bothies, in *England* Scotland & Wales to Scottish Devolution ??????

Thread closed.

M