Inspired by the thread on the forestry comission and legality of camping, I'd love to hear all your views on access and protection of land in the UK. I know this can get contentious and arguable, but if we try and keep it under control
It seems to me that we have a fairly unique situation regarding land in the UK.
Firstly, there is little land (in the UK as a whole, although admittedly Scotland is very different to say England) that is 'wild' land - that is, uncultivated, public land. Public as in how it used to be in prehistory - without any laws over it.
We have forests that are Forestry Commission (very tightly controlled, and enforced), and those owned by other forestry companies like Sylvanis and Fountain Forestry (varying but usually like FC land), and forest owned by farmers. Lastly, we have forest in designated national parks.
But is there any sense in controlling land so tightly? So much so that nobody can properly enjoy it? Do we run the risk of having a countryside behind a sheet of glass, look but don't touch?
There are hundreds of ways of categorizing land. We have SSSIs, AONBs, Nature reserves, Conservation Areas, of course National Parks, Access Land, etc, etc.
National Parks seem to be one of the highest forms of protection. At least, what are called National Parks in other countries are very well protected, most notably those in Eastern Europe such as Bialowieski in Poland, Synevyr in the Ukraine, etc. But in the UK all sorts seems to be allowed, like the Whinash windfarm by the Yorkshire dales (ok this isn't yet), or Hope Quarry in the Peak District. But in the same breath camping is very restricted - even with the new CROW act it's limited to a few nights and only in some areas. This flies in the face of countries like Sweden and Norway, who with their Allemannsretten allow wild camping literally anywhere - and yet they have no quarries or windfarms by their parks.
So what should we do about National Parks? Should they be opened more, or protected more, or just changed?
Another great problem in the UK (having so little hikable land and such an enormous population - remember 1% of everyone in the world is British!) is path erosion. And irresponsible tourism. Should paths be repeatedly restored, and who should fund it? Do diggers and cranes have any place in the parks?
Should we restrict access to stop erosion?
In some countries, the problem does not exist because of their terrain (the Norwegian idea of a path is often an amusingly sadistic red T painted in a boulder field with stones the size of a car!), and in others because there aren't enough hikers - but the fact is it does exist in the UK. Do we just accept it as a natural process?
I could go on all day (there's a lot to say on the subject I think!) Your thoughts please
It seems to me that we have a fairly unique situation regarding land in the UK.
Firstly, there is little land (in the UK as a whole, although admittedly Scotland is very different to say England) that is 'wild' land - that is, uncultivated, public land. Public as in how it used to be in prehistory - without any laws over it.
We have forests that are Forestry Commission (very tightly controlled, and enforced), and those owned by other forestry companies like Sylvanis and Fountain Forestry (varying but usually like FC land), and forest owned by farmers. Lastly, we have forest in designated national parks.
But is there any sense in controlling land so tightly? So much so that nobody can properly enjoy it? Do we run the risk of having a countryside behind a sheet of glass, look but don't touch?
There are hundreds of ways of categorizing land. We have SSSIs, AONBs, Nature reserves, Conservation Areas, of course National Parks, Access Land, etc, etc.
National Parks seem to be one of the highest forms of protection. At least, what are called National Parks in other countries are very well protected, most notably those in Eastern Europe such as Bialowieski in Poland, Synevyr in the Ukraine, etc. But in the UK all sorts seems to be allowed, like the Whinash windfarm by the Yorkshire dales (ok this isn't yet), or Hope Quarry in the Peak District. But in the same breath camping is very restricted - even with the new CROW act it's limited to a few nights and only in some areas. This flies in the face of countries like Sweden and Norway, who with their Allemannsretten allow wild camping literally anywhere - and yet they have no quarries or windfarms by their parks.
So what should we do about National Parks? Should they be opened more, or protected more, or just changed?
Another great problem in the UK (having so little hikable land and such an enormous population - remember 1% of everyone in the world is British!) is path erosion. And irresponsible tourism. Should paths be repeatedly restored, and who should fund it? Do diggers and cranes have any place in the parks?
Should we restrict access to stop erosion?
In some countries, the problem does not exist because of their terrain (the Norwegian idea of a path is often an amusingly sadistic red T painted in a boulder field with stones the size of a car!), and in others because there aren't enough hikers - but the fact is it does exist in the UK. Do we just accept it as a natural process?
I could go on all day (there's a lot to say on the subject I think!) Your thoughts please