UKC

You may be aware that whilst it is legal to wild camp in the National Parks and open land in Scotland, with the exception of much of Dartmoor, it is not in England and Wales.

The following link takes you to a petition on the Government website asking for Wild Camping to be made legal.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/68882

Hopefully like me you will agree with the petition and consider it worthwhile signing the petition and forwarding to interested parties.

Petitions reaching 100, 000 signatures are debated by parliament.

I am aware of the cynicism around government ePetitions but for minimal effort you can at least try and push this in the right direction.

---

Ed: We've published opinion pieces that make the case both for and against this idea.

Here's Adam Woolf for the Yes camp: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/page.php?id=6910

And Richard Prideaux for No: http://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/page.php?id=6909

In reply to TMM:
Can I ask why do you think it needs to be made legal? I wild camp a lot in England everywhere from mountain tops to canal towpaths to farmers fields in central England and river banks when out in the canoe etc and have never had a problem in England. It might not be legal in that that the law allows the land owner to take a civil case against a person for damages. Unless you fly tip or burn their farm down how are they going to prove damage even on balance of probabilities, its a tough ask.

Its one of those things for me in that we might not have a legal right but its tolerated all over the country if people take care. In the real world you can pretty much wild camp anywhere in the countryside and as long as you don't camp in groups, destroy the land, litter, set fires etc etc no one really cares! In my experience of course.

With how much of the countryside in England is accessible to millions of people I think a legal right to wild camp could be abused more so than in Scotland near honey spots. Just look around Loch Lomond for evidence etc. I witnessed a group of lads cutting down a tree on a campsite for a fire once. Imagine that in the wider countryside. Its a balancing act and I don't quite know what the answer is.

I am tempted to sign but then again Im not

In reply to Alan M:

Pretty much the same for me. I probably wild camp, in England, half a dozen times a year, mostly lowland. Nobody ever knows I've been there once I've left.

In theory, it sounds great to make it legal, but if people start to think they can just party out in our "wilds", which are all owned by somebody and not that wild, we'll have a big problem.

So, haven't yet signed it, and not decided.

Now, if I thought that other laws on littering, damage etc, would be regularly enforced when people abused the wild camp laws, I would be more positive. Unfortunately, I can't see that happening.

In reply to Mal Grey:




I agree in theory it sounds great but not sure it would be in practice. From personal experience other than not having a written legal right in practice I don't actually think the current set up is that prohibitive to anyone wanting to wild camp in England If they take precautions and not do stupid things like fires, litter, parties, large groups, setting up base camps etc etc to name a few


Same here, tempted but not convinced its the right move just yet.


My thoughts also.

In reply to TMM:

I too don't find any problems with the current situation. I'm also a little confused by the claim in the petition that "Current legislation is ineffective & prevents teachers & leaders educating the young / interested on how to preserve & treat the environment with respect. As a result when people do ignore the current law & wild camp, they have no concept of what to do & often leave large amounts of mess / litter."

I find it hard to understand how legalising wild camping will alleviate this problem - it's certainly had no impact in Scotland where so great has the problem in certain areas become that wild camping is now being restricted by bylaw in these places.

In reply to Mal Grey:


I've decided. For the reasons you've given, I think it's a bad idea; so no signature from me.

T.

In reply to Welsh Kate:


Alas the dickheads spoiled it for everyone on the East of Loch Lomond, and , against my previous long held views, I recently found myself writing to the Loch Lomond NP, asking them to take action on the West side of Loch Lomond, before that too is despoiled.

(I got a response that they are looking to provide ' wild camping' areas, and free parking for camper vans away from the lay-bys)

The vans in the Lay-bys stay for long periods , they put up awnings, block the cycle path with their chairs etc , and leave rubbish everywhere. There ARE campsites of course, that they don't use, and I whilst do worry where their chemical toilets are emptied, I'm pretty sure some of them end in the Loch.

In reply to TMM:
Again, for the reasons outlined above, I'm not signing. The situation is fine as it is. Jim C mentioned Loch Lomond, it was the same when I passed Loch Venachar. Like a refugee camp with Tennents Super and burning plastic. The AONB near me has issues with crap left when people have barbecues on the beach. I can only imagine what it'll be like when they set up camp because it's "f*cking legal, innit?"

In reply to Ridge:

I am not signing for the reasons given above by others. Also for me the clue is in the word "wild". The status quo is fine, where those who do it, on the whole, exercise discretion. If possible I ask permission from the land owner and have never been refused. More often though there is no one obvious to ask, but on the very few occasions that I have been "discovered" by a land owner/keeper I have been polite and I have never been asked to move on.

Lets keep it "wild" and not encourage a mass invasion of wild camping locations.

In reply to TMM:

I'm not signing - for same/similar reasons others have outlined.

As others have mentioned access in Scotland is covered by the Land Reform Act - interpretation is 'simplified' via the Scottish Outdoor Access code. So camping takes place within that framework. There are issues with so called 'wild' camping - most especially Loch Lomond NP- which is caused by people camping by roadside and dumping their rubbish and crap where they camped. For true wild camping i.e. when you are walking a distance into somewhere, setting up your tent at dusk and taking it down at dawn and on your way, using 'leave no trace' principles there is no great issue. I'm pretty sure if you properly wild camped south of the border as I described there would be no issue. Legalising 'wild camping' seems to me to be carte blanche for all sorts inappropriate camping behaviours!

In reply to TMM:

I haven't got too much time to reply now but I am interested that many of the concerns are based on the recent behaviour of a minority of NP users around Loch Lomond.

Should wide access enshrined in legislation be restricted as a result of minority of irresponsible users?

Also worth noting is that these issues do not appear to be such a problem where 'wild' camping is permitted.

In reply to TMM:




Its not only recent behavior. Its been going on for ages, that's why they finally decided to ban wild camping there.

I think the general feeling is that anyone who is a "responsible user" can wild camp pretty much anywhere in England anyway, so why open a path for the irresponsible users?

You do see rubbish left in popular wild camping spots too. Last time I was in the Lake District I had to carry a bagful of rubbish out that was left around a wild-camp spot.

In reply to TMM:


Whilst Loch Lomond has been quoted as an example, it seems that the main objection to the proposed legislation is that it's unessessary. With very few exceptions the status quo works, As has been pointed out drawing attention to wild camping through legislation may just open the flood gates and it will cease to be a discreet wild pastime which is what makes it so magical now. Why would you want to legislate for something that works so well on an informal basis?

In reply to TMM:

I wild camp around Wales without problems. Not so sure I would want the situation made officially legal and all the camping public becoming aware of it. Outdoor magazines jumping on the bandwagon and promoting "20 best camping spots in...,..". Think I'm happy with the status quo.

In reply to TMM:

I think Lomond is an example of what I'm worried about, yes. And I see Lomond's issues being very much linked to the proximity of large populations. Unfortunately, most of England is close to large populations, even many of our wilder spots are within an hour's drive of major cities. Wales might get away with it more easily.

In principle I'd love to have wild camping legal for all, and it would be fantastic to be able to tell youngsters that they're able to just walk/canoe out into the countryside with a tent as long as they behave with respect to people and the environment.

I guess I may even be a little selfish here - I camp in these places as I know few others do, which in turn makes them feel a little more special to me.

As most of my camping is by canoe, I can get to spots where there are no rights of way too. It does mean I am camping on somebody's land without permission, but it will always be in an appropriate spot, e.g. a little scrap of rough land or corner of a woods, where no damage is done, and I'm out of sight. In common with many of the other folk who camp responsibly, I will carry spare bin bags and clear up any litter I find.
Saying all that, I have camped in some surprisingly public places with no problem.

In reply to TMM:

For me when I used Loch Lomond as an example it was more about how a site could be abused.  Loch Lomond is easily accessible to a large population and a small group of users have been totally irresponsible.  All of England’s national parks etc are easily accessible by an even larger population.

The risk of damage is greater just because of the potential numbers that could use it.  I would think those going out in the hills i.e. wild camping on the Great Moss for example will probably be the same people camping there after a law change as now.   The damage won’t be done to places like that it will be the banks of places like Windermere, Wastwater etc that take the brunt.



In principle I agree that there should be a right to wild camp etc.  However in practice I don’t think it would be a good idea and not a law that is needed.  I would only sign the petition if I believed that it was a law that would actually make a difference and for the better.

The informal route works well in England and I believe it should be maintained.  On paper the Scottish right to wild camp looks better than England’s but in the real world when you actually access the countryside to undertake wild camping they add up to the same thing.

In reply to TMM:


You're mistaken; the problem and the concerns are *definitely* not restricted to Loch Lomond.

Parts of Glen Etive were a tip when I last looked; likewise Loch Earn; Loch Lubnaig was getting out of control until the authorities stepped in; etc. etc.

The problem in this respect is that the Scottish Land Reform (2003) legislation is well-intentioned - but only works if/when people behave 'reasonably.'

In reply to TMM:

I too won't be signing.

Anyone who is willing to make a little effort can easily find details of how to wildcamp safely and responsibly within the current system and issues with landowners asking people to "move on" are rare where camping is discrete and of minimal impact.

'Legalising wild camping; could well have two adverse effects -
Firstly it could lead to a marked increase in people deciding to go wildcamping because "No-one can stop us" and not abiding by the currently accepted "leave no trace" ethos.
Secondly it could raise the awareness of landowners in 'suitable' areas and could potentially lead to popular sites being reclassified either as 'commercial campsites' which could be charged for, or to restrict access altogether.

In reply to TMM:
The issue of 'over-use' of wildcamping sites (particularly with reference to outdoor educational centres, 'Challenge' groups, DofE etc) was discussed recently at the North Wales Environmental Charter Group meeting, and an interesting revelation was the fact that Natural Resources Wales are likely to look favourably on any requests to use their Forestry Estate (i.e. what was previously Forestry Commission land in Wales) for 'wild camping', which may offer opportunities for educational and challenge groups to give children an outdoors camping experience in areas away from the more pristine mountain sites.

In reply to TMM:

I agree with all the above, making this issue public is only going to draw attention to, what, at the moment is not a problem.

River access on the other hand.....

In reply to TMM:

I wouldn't sign it for all the reasons given by everyone else here, and I do a lot of wild camping in discrete locations.

Once people think it's OK without planning / knowledge or the right equipment , there'll be plastic spoons , beer cans and sh*t everywhere , and there's already enough of that.
You should see the state of some of the camps I've stumbled on in my travels. I'm also sick of picking up and disposing of other peoples rubbish

It would be like open season on our countryside I'm afraid.

In reply to butteredfrog:

Don't get me going on river access!!!

In reply to TMM:

What's the definition of Wild Camping? The petition is not very clear......

In reply to TMM:

I won't be signing either, for all the reasons stated above.

You only have to walk around Buttermere and Crummock in the summer and see the mess that some people have left the place in after they have camped out overnight - burnt out patches of grass, beer cans, glass bottles, etc. strewn all round the place. Don't get me started on disposable BBQs. On one litter pick around Buttermere and Crummock we picked up over 30 of things that had either been left on the grass, or the side of the lake, or chucked in the bracken.

I remember one day last year we collected two full black bin liner bags of rubbish, including a metal BBQ rack, half a bag of charcoal briquettes, cans, bottles, half eaten jacket potatoes in tin foil that had been chucked to one side, all from an area at the back of Haystacks in the Lakes.

I don't believe that giving someone the legal right to do that makes any sense whatsoever.

In reply to Removed Userlorraine1620:

Giving someone the legal right to camp is not the same as giving them the legal right to drop litter

In reply to TMM:

I shallnt be signing for the reasons other people have mentioned.

In reply to TMM:

There are plenty of locations in which to carry out training in bushcraft and associated skills, without throwing the whole country open to wild camping.

In reality, within a week of becoming law we'd see a new "What Wild Camping" appearing on the magazine shelves, Go Outdoors offering a vast range of tat that is "essential" wild camping gear and Kinder plateau ablaze from uncontrolled fires.

So not for me

In reply to TMM:

I do agree with this petition and have signed it. I am aware of a number of occasions when wild campers have been moved on. In case you are in any doubt here is what the UK Gov. website has to say:
https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam
What you can and can’t do
You can use access land for walking, running, watching wildlife and climbing.
There are certain activities you can’t usually do on access land, including:
• horse-riding
• cycling
• fishing
• camping
• taking animals other than dogs on to the land
• driving a vehicle
• water sports
But you can use access land for horse-riding and cycling if:
• the landowner allows it
• there are existing rights or local traditions, eg it’s an event that’s taken place for many years
• public bridleways or byways cross the land – horse riders and cyclists can ride along these

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


Giving someone the legal right to carry automatic weapons is not the same as giving them the legal right to machine gun the general public, but I still don't think it'd be a good idea.

In reply to TMM:

What about the effect on mountain aesthetics of legalising it? Currently, whilst 'wild' camping is not 'legal', many people tend to camp without advertising their presence, so that the sense of solitude is not eclipsed for others. I wonder if the same restraint would be exercised if camp where you want is introduced.

Of course, not everyone's discreet - as evidenced by shocking photo's of the after effects of 'people' who feel they can camp where they like, do what they like...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisyourpark/15233484099/in/photostream/

In reply to TMM:
From the petition:

As a result, when people do ignore the current law & wild camp, they have no concept of what to do & often leave large amounts of mess / litter. Genuine outdoor enthusiasts are put off by fear of 'getting into trouble' leaving our green places the domain of those who don't care about the law. This is unjust.

I don't know about unjust, but it sounds like bollocks. So current wild campers are clueless idiots who don't care about the law?

Current legislation prevents the people who could & would have a positive, voluntary impact on the environment from enjoying it. It is unpoliced and is ignored by louts, teenagers & drunks. It keeps the good out while the bad ignore it. Current legislation needs to be changed.

Alternatively people who care about the environment enjoy it discreetly, and a significant number of those who don't care probably wouldn't even think of wild camping. The premise of the petition seems to be the law is ignored by some, so if we abolish it...er...everyone can make a mess legally

In reply to TMM:
I did a blog post about this today actually... Speaking to other mountain-friends up here in North Wales there doesn't seem to be much support for it from those who regularly wild camp:

http://www.originaloutdoors.co.uk/blog/wild-camping-not-signing-petition-ye...

In reply to richprideaux:

Indeed, and this thread backs up others I've read.

It is, though, different amongst many of my friends who are "outdoory" but don't wild camp, most of whom seem to think it will be wonderful to be able to legally camp anywhere. Now these are folk that would be responsible, but it does show that slightly less knowledgeable folk will jump on the bandwagon, particularly in these days of constant petitioning.

In reply to richprideaux:

As someone who both wild camps and is a farmer, I am not in favour of the petition. As others have mentioned the status quo works fine at the moment. Also with my landowner hat on, I am already in the situation where if someone dumps rubbish on my land I am assumed to be responsible unless I can prove otherwise. I have to pay the cost of removing any dumped material, unless I can find and prosecute the perpetrator. The chances of being able to do this are close to zero. Neither the police or the Environment Agency have any interest in trying to catch or prosecute offenders.

In reply to TMM:

Done, long way to go to get to the 100 000 though! Come on the rest of you.

In reply to Removed Userlorraine1620:


I think you, and others, have misunderstood the petition, it is not asking for littering to be made legal, only camping.

As most posters on this thread say they do this anyway there would be no change for them... and littering would still be illegal. The people who at present are scared to camp because they are particularly worried about respecting the law are the ones who have something to gain, and these people don't litter either.

A few landowners with an overblown notion of property may object too, but they wouldn't be posting on this thread, I imagine?

In reply to TMM:

Not going to sign. Don't want more people camping. Selfish but true.

In reply to Ridge:


Would you also support the repeal of the right to roam on the basis that you don't want your house to be burgled?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


It seems that you and I are the ones who have misread. It would not only make littering legal, it would also allow the machine gunning of the general public.

In reply to TMM:

I am with those who say this is misguided. How many people are really scared off by the thought of getting into trouble? If they are that concerned, they could ask permission. And how often do wild campers get turned off? Most landowners aren't bothered if it is remote and discreet, and even fewer are going to spend their evenings patrolling the hills
.
The present system works fine in practice, it is not a criminal offence although you are trespassing (which comes under civil law). However the need to be discreet discourages large groups and encourages campers to find out of the way places. If people have a right to camp they will feel entitled to do it where and how they please, to the detriment of the rest of us. Sadly, these days people seem to be more conscious of their rights than their responsibilities.

In reply to TMM:
As a regular wild camper with my 2 springers, I have never had a problem and do not believe this kind of publicity will help us.
At the moment, landowners don't know that we are there overnight when the camping is done properly, (I don't see the point in camping with others around a tarn, I am always alone) and so ignorance on the landowners part is bliss.

If a law were even proposed, then landowners would fight it and I wouldn't blame them seeing as the petition is worded to encourage more folk to do this, especially groups of kids. This would mean we are more likely to get hassle whereas now, if done properly, we get none.

Wild camping being illegal means people make the effort to be discreet and hide.
Wild camping being legal means there will be more people, and some people will take the mickey camping in less discreet places believing the law protects them so they can do what they want regardless.
This is not a good way for us to have good relations with landowners imho (as someone who works with them daily).

Regards,

AK.

In reply to TMM:

This country needs LESS legislation and LESS rules, not MORE, but more personal responsibility.
It also needs less filth being tipped all over the place by campers and visitors.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I haven't misunderstood the petition at all. I'm not against wild camping as such and know that there are a lot of people who wild camp responsibly. At present, wild camping is tolerated in England and Wales because most "proper" wild campers make an effort to find a remote place.

I just feel that if it was legitimised then any chav would be able to pitch up wherever they like, be that at the side of Buttermere lake, in lay-bys, or elsewhere, and just trash the place. If anyone does that now in the Lakes, the National Trust and Lake District National Park Rangers can ask them to move if they are spotted in time.

I've seen the mess on the side of Loch Lomond, and would hate that to happen in the Lake District.

In reply to AndyKeen:


This is the point. I am not in favour of the petition for this reason.

I make every effort that no-one knows I've been camping somewhere (apart from some squashed grass); if I left behind even the corner of a chocolate wrapper it would be a failure. This is respect for the hills, not the legal situation. But although I assume most of UKC is similar to this, some people aren't, and legalising wild camping would increase volume which in turn increases the number of careless people in the hills and that causes environmental problems. Mess from a campsite is probably the most disagreeable thing to find in the hills.

In reply to TMM:

Trollage.
aicmfp.

Really? I see the current situation as ned deterrent.
Long may it continue.

In reply to Removed Userlorraine1620:

Any legislation could be written to exclude lay bys and the like, in the same way that the Open Access legislation excludes farmers' fields and people's back gardens.

In reply to TMM:
I am abosuletly gobsmacked!
Almost the whole of UKC (apart from Bruce!) in agreement??

A first

Ps I too will not be signing. Situation fine as it is

In reply to Kimono:

I'm absolutely gobsmacked too, the majority (not all) of posters on a a climber's forum who want to keep free camping illegal!

Mind you maybe I shouldn't be surprised after seeing the thread about the majority of climbing being indoors nowadays Nor the incredibly frequent questions about problems concerning buying and selling property... have climbers become crew of land owning indoor gymnasts?

Stop the world I think I want to get off!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Yet weirdly almost all of these land-owning indoor gymnasts profess to being frequent or occasional wild campers. We must want to eject ourselves from our own land or something.

Anyway, you're slipping. It's not a proper "what's climbing coming to" rant without a few irrelevant pot shots at gear manufacturers, glossy magazines and "sponsored heroes" as well.

In reply to Kimono:

I'm sure Bruce was ready to come out against this petition until he saw the opportunity to be contrary to the rest of the thread

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


You're getting mixed up with the Right to Carry Kalashnikovs legislation. Murder would still be illegal, but for some mysterious and baffling reason there'd be a sudden increase in bullet ridden corpses about the place if such hypothetical legislation were ever put on the statute books.

It seems most people can see the blindingly obvious consequences of legalising wild camping. The whole premise of the petition seems muddle-headed, and the significant issues encountered around Loch Lomond and the Trossachs etc illustrates what the impact of this legislation would be.

The general consensus seems to be there are no practical barriers to wild camping provided you behave responsibly, and the existing legislation provides a deterrent effect that mitigates the issues encountered in Scotland.

In reply to TMM:
A simple condition like wild camping being allowed provided it was at least 1km away from any car parking would solve most of the problems.

In reply to TMM:

I Googled the petitioners name (Neil Robinson) and I found this: -

youtube.com/watch?v=s090pSX1VeQ&

Wonder if it's the same bloke?


Additionally, you can't have a discussion about wild camping, without having some womble action courtesy of Eddie and Richie: -

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22gbhh_bottom-season-2-episode-6-s-out_sh...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Hmm - just trying to decide if this comment is even more moronic than one of yours I highlighted in a recent thread. Yes, on balance I think it probably is. Well done!


Perhaps that would be for the best.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


But it might mess up driving somewhere and sticking your tent up by the car for the night. Or is the idea that you would still get away with that by arriving late and packing up and leaving early?

In reply to FactorXXX:





Most probably. The campaign is quite popular on the bushcraft forums etc.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Next to your car and arriving late and packing up early would be no more illegal than it is now

The idea was that the litter problem in places like Loch Lomond is roadside wild-camping near a city which brings too many people with too much stuff and the park's idea of having an exclusion zone for camping up to a certain distance from the road wasn't a bad compromise.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

But it might be more vigorously enforced.

My preferred option would be to build an impregnable wall around Glasgow and lock all the gates for the duration of all bank holiday weekends to keep the Weegees safely inside.

In reply to TMM:

I too will not be signing the petition.

In reply to TMM:

No signature from me, see above.

That epetition is dead in the water anyway.

In reply to malky_c:


No, I signed the petition after reading the OP, I read the ridiculous thread afterwards. On many threads Scots have made fun of the English climbers for living in a country where free camping, what we all used to do, is still illegal... and they are right. In England landowners are getting more and more difficult, footpaths I used to walk freely are fenced off and things are generally stricter - can you still camp above Bosigran and Baggy Point for free? - and what do I find, a bunch of people who claim to be climbers and claim to camp freely yet want this practice to be illegal!!!

Truly the mind boggles.

In reply to Ridge:


Absolute bollocks, every time I go to places I used to camp in the 70s I find them wired off and access tracks barred. We did it then without leaving litter BTW. The sort of attitudes expressed on this thread by many are just giving ammunition to land owners, and they have more than enough already.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Why, if it's true that you can do this at present with no problem as many are claiming why would it change if a new rule was introduced? In both cases it would be "illegal". Just because there has been a bit of trouble in a few places in Scotland are Scottish climbers calling for their right to camp to be abrogated? Can you give me a few names of people or organisations (not of land owners) who are?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

>>I go to places I used to camp in the 70s I find them wired off and access tracks barred

But if they are wired off and the access barred they obviously aren't on Open Access land anyway, so legalising the right to camp on access land wouldn't restore your access to those places !! (or alternatively they ARE on access land in which case the legal access right is being ignored so adding a right to camp still wouldn't make any difference)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I think you need to make the distinction between car camping which probably has become more restricted (boulders, ditches, fences to prevent off road parking) and backpacking which is as effectively as unrestricted as it ever was. Some people use the horrible term "wild camping" for one, some for both.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I'm just speculating that with all camping illegal, a reasonable blind eye might be turned to discreet campers, but with a legal alternative and a shiny new law to police, they might do just that.

Don't get me wrong; in principle I'm all in favour of the freedom to camp legally anywhere I might reasonably wish to do so, but I'd hate to see the Lakes trashed by morons in the same way as every lochside in the Southern Highlands is every bank holiday.

In reply to Mal Grey:
I remember driving round a bloke in a bivi bag who had been sleeping on a busy roundabout. That was in the Lakes.

In reply to Ridge:


These consequences apparently being that people who currently don't wild camp because it is illegal, will start wild camping if it is allowed, and while doing so will drop loads of litter and other things that are illegal.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


So if they are law abiding people who don't camp outside campsites (can we avoid this "wild" camping term, it already prejudges the choices - it's a translation from "camping sauvage" and came into GB in the late 70s or 80s, it wasn't used before, you just went "camping") then all of a sudden, when the law enables them to camp lawfully they will suddenly become unlawful louts and start throwing litter every where? I agree it doesn't sound likely does it?

I take it this is what you mean? Irony isn't always obvious on a thread - and certainly will escape half the posters on this thread

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Hmm, the people who drop litter as a matter of course tend IME to be those who don't abide by rules anyway or think that such rules don't apply to them. Legalising "wild camping" would only really affect those who keep within the law.

In reply to TMM:

It's not just a perceived litter problem though, would new campers know how to "behave" in a responsible way when camping away from sites?
Just thinking about unsuitable camp fires, having a dump, livestock, noise, probably more. Perhaps my cynical mistrust of the majority of other human beings to behave themselves is unfounded, but at least I'm not alone in this.

In reply to Bob:

Yes, that's the point I've been trying to make

In reply to Moley:


I agree with your cynicism. Most people in the UK aren't deliberately criminal, but they are generally pretty thick and self centred. Most think dropping litter is fine because people are paid to pick it up, and "My taxes pay their wages". Chuck in "It's legal therefore Human Rights mean I can do what I want", and I think the majority of posters here can recognise what the end result would be.

In reply to Ridge:

When CRoW was proposed there were dire warnings (from guess who) about the great unwashed wandering at will over the countryside, bashing through the heather disturbing the game birds ...

Err, stop there! Have you every tried walking through heather? After 50 metres, 100 if you are thick you will have turned round and continued on the path.

So just how far do you think your average joe will walk from the road to camp?

In reply to Bob:


Not far. If it's like happens in Scotland they will camp right by the road and leave the place a tip.

In reply to Robert Durran:

So given that any wild camping legislation in the rest of the UK would almost certainly exclude roadside camping, we have nothing to fear.

In reply to TMM:

With rights come responsibilities.
http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/43910/vi-camping_boo...

The camping code of conduct as advised by the Dartmoor National Park provides the kind of common sense approach which would negate most of the concerns raised by other posters on this thread.

I am struggling with the argument that somehow legalised access will increase littering. If people are currently not camping in the hills as a result of confusion over the law it seems unlikely that these will be the same people who given the confidence that legal certainty provides would then abuse the position by littering. If there are arseholes who entirely disrespect the environment I don't buy that they are the same people who have waited for legal sanction before camping and trashing the place.

In reply to TMM:

I can't see why people who don't usually camp would suddenly start camping, especially concerning camping outside campsites where no facilities, water, toilets etc. are provided. This is just a fantasy.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

In that case, no, I don't think we do. People would just continue camping in the hills like they have always done - so is there any need for it?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Because campsite fees are extortionate?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Why would that change if camping outside commercial sites in certain areas became legal? If anything they would have to drop their prices as obsessively law-abiding people would have an alternative choice, although as I have already said, I don't think the same publics are concerned.

In reply to TMM:

I don't think the change in law in itself would make a great deal of difference. But the publicity which comes with the change would perhaps be interpreted as an invitation to camp anywhere and not worry about the consequences.

I'm not sure what the effect of the 2003 access laws in Scotland had on the sort of camping that people are worried about, but I know that antisocial behaviour and mess was an issue up the east side of Loch Lomond long before then. Glen Etive, Loch Lubhnaig, Loch Tay, Loch Doon etc also have these problems, but were they as widespread before the change in access legislation? I don't know.

Away from the honeypot areas and towns, legal camping makes sense, but then in practice it was probably no different before 2003. I have occasionally backpacked and camped south of the border and haven't had any concerns about putting the tent up discretely.

So I'm on the fence really, but not about to sign any petition. It would be good if the legal right to camp on wild land came as a small part of some much larger access law changes down south perhaps.

Mind you, I can see the concern with the type of camping Bruce is referring to. The land around the Clachaig used to be an unofficial free camp site, and by the mid '90s it was used by dozens of people at a time and was covered in litter and shit. The toilets in the Clachaig were also struggling to cope, being used as unofficial camping facilities. Now that has been banned and cleaned up, the Clachaig is a much more pleasant place.

In reply to TMM:

"If people are currently not camping in the hills as a result of confusion over the law ... "

Is there any evidence that significant numbers are deterred by the current situation? It doesn't take a lot of Googling to establish that camping is not a criminal offence, that ideally you should obtain the landowner's permission but if not be discreet, pitch late and leave early, and be willing to apologise and move on if requested (which shouldn't happen very often if you've been careful about where you pitch). What problem is this trying to fix?

In reply to Howard J:

I think it's trying to say that if you are responsible and don't cause any problems to the landowner then it's fine. A bit like the de facto situation really. Maybe it's commercial concerns who wish to assure their clients that it's legal.

pre-post: for the purposes of this argument let's simply the 'wild-camping-isn't-illegal-but-it-isn't-necessarily-legal' to 'not legal' (not a right enshrined in law; you can be prevented from doing it).

I understand the motivation, but I think it is incredibly hypocritical for people to say that they they do wild camp but don't want it to be legal. Would these people still be saying this if there was a sudden crackdown and people were being moved on regularly, or would they suddenly be clamouring for access rights? If you are doing a thing, and you think that is OK, then everyone should be as free as you to do that thing as you. If this causes problems, then you should take your fair share and nothing more.

As someone who generally avoids breaking laws the fact that wild camping is not generally legal puts me off doing it. Yes I know that if you are sensible about it there is rarely an issue, and I did it when I was younger, but I would avoid doing it and I would be nervous doing it today. This situation discriminates against the more law-abiding...

In reality with a simple distance-from-road restriction legalized wild camping will not be a problem.

In reply to andrewmcleod:

Often "things" are tolerated that aren't legal, it depends on a large degree to the attitude of those involved. Discrete camping away from potable water sources isn't much of a problem most of the time but if you are the fiftieth person/group this year to use a site then relations with the landowner could get a little strained.

We'd get regular (but not common, maybe once a year) requests to put a tent up for the night on our land, the requests would come from a wide range of types, from knackered DofE groups to middle aged couples who'd got lost or whatever. My dad would always say yes but to camp away from where you could be seen from the road. Not being a licensed site meant that we shouldn't really have let people camp but sometimes the law gets in the way of common sense.

In reply to Bob:


The "de facto" situation is that in England and Wales there has been a progressive tightening up of where you can walk and camp, even overnight. You can often get away with it but can always run the risk of an angry land-owner throwing his weight around and make you move in a hurry - no major hassle when a teenager perhaps but embarrassing and disturbing in front of partner and children. Basically this change in law brings England and Wales in line with Scotland and would make such stroppy behaviour a thing of the past. There has always been a struggle between land-owner and everyday citizen, which seems to be going the wrong way for most of us S of the Border for a while, this change would even things up a bit.

NB. For those of you with gardens it wouldn't bring hordes of drunken louts into your flower beds, your wives would not be raped on their deck chairs, nor would your cats be tampered with, you really have nothing to worry about, cool down a little and think of the greater good.

In reply to Bob:


Well this change would take your worries away, wouldn't it?

Whatever, I don't think the proposal concerns camping on cultivated land so this wouldn't apply to your farmland, I think. At present people are getting het up about something which hasn't yet been formulated in any precise way. I would have hoped that the general principal would be acceptable to most people, especially climbers - most of us have had problems camping at one time or another and most of us believe fully in the idea of not harming the country side or hills (except bolters and chalk users, of course, but that's a different debate).

In reply to Bob:

After more than 4 decades of backpacking and camping all over the hilly bits of northern Britain not once have I experienced any situation that would have me foaming at the mouth to have this 'legalised'. If you have the gumption to do it you will know how to do it the right way - 'no trace'. What has dismayed me was the increasing evidence of inconsiderate and selfish behaviour on the part of some folks up Lomond/Trossachs way where it actually eventually became legal. The abuse was building up long before the Scots access law came into force. Considering the English/Welsh CRoW situation, my feeling is that some landowners have become entrenched in their views as a reaction to having this forced on them. Recently, we were accosted up on Bowland when we were actually on access land and had a legal right to be there. My fear of legalising this situation would be to make incidents like this more common. The keeper who confronted us knew he was in the wrong (I showed him the OS map) but the reality in the field was he was there and no-one could prevent him from acting the way he did. No police for at least 10 miles and do you think they would nip up and sort it all out for us just because it was The Law? Camping considerately and inconspicuously may not be 'legal' but it isn't burglary or anything serious enough to warrant a law being enacted. There are far more important things that need fixing.

In reply to Lankyman & BH:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against wild camping, I've done plenty in my time. I was just pointing out one or two reasons (or excuses if you will) as to why some landowners/farmers aren't happy with it. As with any group of individuals, there's a wide range of attitudes, my dad was at the liberal end I suppose - his attitude was that he was lucky to live where we did and wouldn't want to live in a terrace in a city so if those people wanted to enjoy the countryside then that was fine so long as they didn't get in the way of him doing his job. The estate in the Forest of Bowland is at the other end of the spectrum and is very much 19th century in its attitude to access and conservation.

In reply to Bob:

If you got the impression I was saying otherwise, apologies Bob - I admire your Dad's attitude and more often came across this on the very, very few occasions I was ever challenged. I was a keen caver for much of the same time and usually got similar responses from farmers and keepers when we rolled up without a CNCC permit - as long as we were polite and reasonable. What really got backs up was insisting on our 'RIGHTS'. This always got you the bum's rush.

Ironically, 'conservation' was one of the reasons given by the keeper for denying our access (we were on the typical Bowland wet moor of no more conservation value than virtually any other).

In reply to Bob:

Another thought, if it were legalised would a landowner such as yourself then have some kind of "duty of care" towards campers on his land?
Opening another possible can of worms?

In reply to Bob:

As I said I don't think it would apply to cultivated land, I would think moorland, cliff-tops where at best a few sheep could feed, so for most farmers I don't think things would change much, if it was a field it would still be for the owner to give permission, as your father does.

The differences between land use in England compared to Scotland would doubtless influence the actual wording - it would seem reasonable for some kind of limitation that would define a distance between the camping area and a house for example. Most of us can see no problem with camping on open moorland miles from anywhere but that's where problems often arise. A change in the law would oblige keepers to have a more reasonable attitude. Apart from this the changes would not be earth shaking though as most family campers prefer organised campsites, astonishing though it may seem to many of us.

In reply to TMM:

The only people I can see benefiting legalisation are commercial concerns offering 'organised wild camping trips' I'm definitely not voting for something that isn't currently a problem but which could become problematic if legalised

In reply to Moley:

No, unless he created facilities that were then proven to be defective in the event of an accident. Basically if it's natural (I know hardly any terrain in the UK is truly natural) then it's at the user's risk.

An example would be a footpath crossing a stream: if I twisted my ankle crossing the stream then tough luck. However if the farmer had built a bridge across the stream as a facility and while crossing it a plank broke and I was injured then I could claim against the farmer.

To Bruce Hooker:

As my father did, he died twenty years ago, it's my brother who runs the farm these days.

In reply to GrahamD:


Sorry, but this is not true. As I said above can you camp at nowadays on the rough grass above Bosigran or Baggy Point? You could before and we did frequently but the last time I went that way you couldn't and those are just two flagrant examples there must be many more. The present situation is that the norm is camping not allowed, a change in the law would reverse this and landowners would need to show there were special conditions that gave them the right to prohibit camping, a world of difference. We have lost our freedoms slowly but surely over the last few decades time to call for a stop - just as they have in Scotland with no catastrophic results.

In reply to GrahamD:


Commercial concerns are excluded from the CROW legislation so they could equally be excluded from any wild camping legislation

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


What worked in the past is not always going to work today. The problem with places like Bosigran and Baggy Point is likely to be an increase in numbers of campers due to a larger population with more leisure time and more disposable income to get out and do things.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The norm isn't 'camping not allowed'. Bosi and Baggy point are not the norm, though. They are highly popular 'hot spots' on highly popular walking trails. The fact that camping is restricted here is a good thing IMO. Those environments simply couldn't support all the mess and shit left by an entire bank holiday weekend of climbers.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:


If that's the case I really can't see the the point of the petition from anyone's perspective

In reply to GrahamD:

The initial support behind the petition is those who favour woodland and forest camping. Rather than 'wild camping' as mountaineers and walkers would see it, i.e. in the mountains and open spaces, they want to be able to set up and light a fire in woodland areas.

This distinction doesn't change the arguments for or against on this thread but the distinction IS important. I think that is why the 'fear of being caught' has come into it - they are more used to setting up in Epping forest or private estate woodland where the chances of being moved on (or, at most, under prosecution for 'Armed Trespass on Crown Property') are much higher than spending the night in the Carneddau.

In reply to richprideaux:

Genuine non-polemical question, when did you first hear this term "wild camping"? Everyone seems to use it now yet it was unknown when I left England back in the 70s and now seems common. The French used the term and have done so for a long time but it seems inappropriate - what's wild about putting up a tent on a lay-by when you are fed up with hitching? Or on a bit of heath out of sight for the night? It seems to add a pejorative note to what, IMO, is just ordinary camping. I reckon at some point in time over the last 4 decades someone has translated it from the French and it's slipped into the English language.. but when? And why?

In reply to richprideaux:


What could possibly go wrong?

In reply to TMM:

Hi,
I've wild camped regularly for 20 years in England and Wales and never been asked to move on once. Wardens often say hello and them walk on knowing that I'll take my litter and leave no trace. They make that judgment at their discretion.
If you take away the wardens powers to stop people camping in National parks then be prepared to do your future wild camping with a soundtrack of drunken roars. You might also want to buy a mattress and tent repair kit because you will be camping on shards of broken glass for evermore.
It pleases me to see groups of young people in the mountains on their DofE course or school trip. They are forming an appreciation of our beautiful lands that will last a lifetime and it's these people that will protect the wild environment in the future. Unfortunately the majority of UK teenagers aren't as responsible and respectful as our DofE groups or Swedish youth who can be trusted to have a beer and a fire (yes! a fire as long as you are not in sight of a road or house) and clean up in the morning. Too many of our teenagers are bored and just looking for a location to drink away from home.
Deregulation will bring a new breed of Mountain 'users' who will have little or no respect for the location they are in, or the other people that use it. After a few years you might also find that there is an increase in the number of car break-ins.
I consider any change in the current legislation to be a threat to the already fragile tranquillity of the natural environment and the beginning of a downward spiral.
Is it possible to petition the Government to keep thing as they are? Otherwise the Government won't be aware of the strong opposition to change.
Adam,
Elite Mountain Supplies

In reply to TMM:

Hi,
I've wild camped regularly for 20 years in England and Wales and never been asked to move on once. Wardens often say hello and them walk on knowing that I'll take my litter and leave no trace. They make that judgment at their discretion.
If you take away the wardens powers to stop people camping in National parks then be prepared to do your future wild camping with a soundtrack of drunken roars. You might also want to buy a mattress and tent repair kit because you will be camping on shards of broken glass for evermore.
It pleases me to see groups of young people in the mountains on their DofE course or school trip. They are forming an appreciation of our beautiful lands that will last a lifetime and it's these people that will protect the wild environment in the future. Unfortunately the majority of UK teenagers aren't as responsible and respectful as our DofE groups or Swedish youth who can be trusted to have a beer and a fire (yes! a fire as long as you are not in sight of a road or house) and clean up in the morning. Too many of our teenagers are bored and just looking for a location to drink away from home.
Deregulation will bring a new breed of Mountain 'users' who will have little or no respect for the location they are in, or the other people that use it. After a few years you might also find that there is an increase in the number of car break-ins too.
I consider any change in the current legislation to be a threat to the already fragile tranquillity of the natural environment and the beginning of a downward spiral.
Is it possible to petition the Government to keep thing as they are? Otherwise the Government won't be aware of the strong opposition to change.
Adam,
Elite Mountain Supplies

In reply to elitemountain:

Why do you think that you are so much better behaved than other? Seems a bit arrogant to me.

As for wardens they would still exist precisely to make sure litter louts (who can be quite active without camping) are not any more active than they are now.

All this anti-freedom campaigning smells a bit fishy to me, it wouldn't be land owners on the sly by any chance would it?

In reply to elitemountain:

Adam,

And I'm sorry I'm venting my spleen at you but what the hell.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh. 'Deregulation'. What deregulation?

There is NO law against wild camping in the UK(Mr Hooker - 'camping in remote areas'). Find me one! Show me a single UK law that references 'wild camping' as a crime. Wild camping is NOT 'illegal'.

It may be the case that you are committing trespass by putting your tent up on the mayor's lawn but trespass 'is a civil wrong and not a crime'.

It may be that 'camping' is an 'excepted activity' under CRoW legislation. What that means is that you cannot cite CRoW to justify camping (or swimming, or commercial activities). It doesn't mean that camping is in any way 'forbidden'. Or are we saying that having a dip in Stickle tarn after a good day on Pavey is 'illegal'? A criminal activity? Get real.

If camping was 'illegal' would it be possible for a landowner to permit it? 'Hey. I know I've just killed that dude. But the landowner said it was OK. So it's cool?'


Sorry. I'm calmer now.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

On this one, Bruce, I'm afraid you are dead wrong. We HAVE freedom. We can go camping right now. Pretty much where, and when we want. We need to observe sensible parameters but are currently free to just get on with it.

What the fear is that the call for 'legislation' will lead to exactly the regulation that might curb that freedom. Can you imagine the law that 'allowed' wild camping that might be framed AFTER the land owning lobby had their way?

'Wild Camping is legal only during the hours of daylight and providing the wild camper has secured suitable hygiene equipment to prevent any soiling of the land.

Any Wild Camping may not take place in any area where ground nesting birds may be present.....

No Wild Camper will be allowed to ..........'

P.S. In terms of 'land' I own doodly squat

In reply to andyathome:

Sorry if I'm being dense, but you seem to be saying that there should be no law to confirm the right to camp in order for us to be sure of having that right?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Bruce,

I'm awestruck by your apology for being dense !

And to paraphrase your question; what I am saying is - 'we do not need a law to enforce a 'right' to camp when there is no law that forbids it'.

There is no law that says I must be allowed to breathe. Should I campaign for a law that says it is my legal right?

In reply to andyathome:


Is this true though - I thought folks who wild camped in the Peak were invariably moved on, unless they were somewhere well out of the way?


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Chris, I think that comes under 'sensible parameters'. I too have been told to bugger off from below the Foxhouse whilst using an orange tent. I was 16 and learning.

There are also people who regularly camp on the high dark peak with no hassle at all.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Let's think of a parallel.

I am given to understand that there is actually no law in France that enshrines a legal right to eat. My colleague assures me that the French legislature have failed to make a legal provision for that 'right'.

Should you be currently pursuing the development, in France, of a law that says that eating is, actually,not illegal?

In reply to andyathome:

Sorry, wrong there, in France such things are covered by the constitution. I think you are wrong about camping in the uk too, all you seem to be saying (in your following posts) is that camping is ok as long as no one sees you - hardly the same as saying we already have a right to camp where we want (doubtless under certain conditions - not in cultivated land or gardens, for example), as in Scotland.

A law to confirm rights of campers would only extend freedoms, it wouldn't take away existing ones - like your right to "camp in the bushes with a camouflaged tent between the hours of midnight and three in the morning so as not to be seen".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The French constitution says that you have a right to eat enshrined in law? Bloody hell. That Napoleon was pretty far sighted!

There is a real confusion in this thread between 'the legal right' and what is 'illegal'.

All I have said is that camping in the UK is NOT illegal. There may be other laws / civil wrongs that apply however.

When I was moved on from below the Foxhouse 45 years ago this was as a result of a NP ranger asking me to. No police, no threat of legal action. Because there couldn't have been; I was breaking no law.

And because of his polite request and my appreciation of the situation I complied

And in terms of your contention that 'a law' would only extend rights I would point you at the CRoW Act which quite carefully limits 'rights'. Swimming in tarns is not allowed any more?

In reply to andyathome:
Here you are, it comes from the "DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DE L’HOMME
ET DU CITOYEN DE 1789" which is included in the constitution of the 5th Republic.

"Article IV
La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui : ainsi,
l’exercice des droits naturels de chaque homme n’a de bornes que celles qui
assurent aux autres Membres de la Société, la jouissance de ces mêmes droits. Ces
bornes ne peuvent être déterminées que par la Loi.

Article V
La Loi n’a le droit de défendre que les actions nuisibles à la Société. Tout ce qui
n’est pas défendu par la Loi ne peut être empêché, et nul ne peut être contraint à
faire ce qu’elle n’ordonne pas".

Rough translation:

Article IV
Liberty consists in being able to do everything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law .

Article V
The law has the right to prohibit actions harmful to society. All that is not forbidden by law can not be prevented, and no one can be forced to do what it does not order. "

In reply to andyathome:

The constitution of the 5th Republic was drawn up on the 4th October 1958. The bit we are cincerned with (I think, I'm not a lawyer) is taken from the original text of the "Declaration of the rights of man" from 1789, the French Revolution. It contains some fine lines, in Article IV , for example, given above.

In reply to andyathome:


Was it "allowed" before and, using you system of "not seen no bother" what stops you doing it more now than before?

PS. Maybe you should start a petition to legalise swimming in tarns? I'd sign it, though I wouldn't do it... too cold.

PPS. I'm off to bed now, got to get packed tomorrow for a trip to Blitey... I won't be camping though or swimming in tarns.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I want this to happen.

Should it?

No..

We aren't ready.. The issues bruce rants about are valid... but not relevant..

As t stands we can wild camp UK wide easily.. the issues remain about access..

In reply to andyathome:

Ref: Subject mater and title of forum:

You may be aware that whilst it is legal to wild camp in the National Parks and open land in Scotland, with the exception of much of Dartmoor, it is not in England and Wales.

The following link takes you to a petition on the Government website asking for Wild Camping to be made legal.

etc

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Its about National Parks isn't it? .... and how best to preserve them. There are no landowners involved

In reply to elitemountain:

Don't think so, "camp in the National Parks and open land"... note the "and open land", so now you can quickly sign the petition

In reply to elitemountain:

National Parks still have landowners.

In reply to elitemountain:
I am fully aware of the situation in Scotland, ta. Lucky buggers, them.

I am afraid that with regard to your statement regarding England and Wales, that it is 'not legal' to wild camp, I am aware of no such thing. As you are talking drivel. Can you point me to the law that says that it is illegal to wild camp in England and Wales, please? I firmly believe that there is no such thing.

There is a 'wrong' called trespass - and you might well be trespassing if you are wild camping. There may be the odd local by-law (and whether that can supersede national law is something I know nothing of - if a parish council declares coughing as a breach of the by-laws....) but there is nothing, just nothing, in statute that declares wild camping illegal.

In reply to elitemountain:


What???!!! National Parks own nothing but relatively restricted holdings - often the estates within which their headquarters are based. They seek to manage the environment within their 'park' but within that 'park' all of the land is owned by somebody! If you look at the Lakes then the National Trust is a major landowner with many private owners; in Wales much of Snowdonia is in private ownership. Have a quick look at Pembroke and suggest to me how landowners are not involved in the preservation of the park and access to it.

I'm afraid that I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you actually know very little about the reality of the current law and land management.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Bruce, I know that this is from a long, long way back. But, please trust me, wild camping in England and Wales is NOT illegal.

You got doubts - give the BMC access officers a bell.

In reply to andyathome:

It is the title of this forum post. Please address comments to the post author, TMM.

In reply to elitemountain:

eh?

national parks don't own much land..

camping is legal.. the current system works.