UKC

Ours is a country increasingly divorced from nature, where most of the land remains out of bounds; but pressure to improve public access is gaining political momentum. Eben Myrddin Muse argues it's high time for radical, Scottish-style access reform south of the border.

Read more

The single biggest theft act in British history were the Enclosures Acts, first in Elizabethan times and the in the 18th century. I can distinctly recall starting my grammar school history O Level (Social & Economic) with this topic. The word was unfamiliar and little did I realise at the time what this represented. It was masked at the time as a better method of farming, rather than the Strip farming of Feudal times. But this single act, precipitated by the landowners in Parliament was legalised theft. Overnight the English common vanished. Sheep had to be enclosed although they had managed to prosper quite well before that. Even the tops of mountains were traversed by walls and barbed wire.

The nations largest landowners today mostly acquired their land and subsequently even more wealth in this legalised robbery.

However this debate is not all one-sided. Last year I revisited Dovedale, a frequent climbing venue when I lived around Manchester. I was appalled at the vast quantities of litter left by the present generation that has apparently little respect for our countryside. Pizza boxes were pile six deep. Visitors had picnic Ed and left black bin-liners of rubbish in piles, that is the few that could be a least a little bothered. The river was a cesspool. It was totally depressing. And let us remember this is a premier "beauty spot". I've seen less litter in the back streets and 'cricks' of Handsworth (B'ham). On the plus side I must admit that the summits of both Yr Wyffda and Scafell Pike were remarkably litter free, excepting for the odd banana skin festering in some crevice. So if we want to reclaim the countryside we have to get our own house in order first.

Thanks for writing a very well considered and researched article. We have a 'mountain 'to climb' as far a access is concerned, and if improving land by covering it in cattle-shit is a symptom of the fight ahead, it not be easy.

A good, detailed article.

Perhaps the BMC should join forces with the Ramblers and others to fund some Parliamentary lobbying.

Excellent article, that raises many interesting points.

Regarding the financial benefits of good access - we rented a house on a farm in Devon for a week last year, and specifically rejected several areas where there was poor access to the countryside.

Stuff like this:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/outdoors-for-all-prime-minister

And these:

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/outdoors-for-all-a-manifesto-for-the-outdoor-secto...

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/nature-2030-campaign-launched--people-and-nature

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/the-future-of-access-rights

It sounded like the BMC was making some great headway last year, particularly with Labour, unfortunately the whole "green backlash" and climate scepticism within the Tory party took hold again after the Uxbridge by-election and Labour got frightened off pushing on anything which looked too environmentally focused.

Thanks Eben.

One big issue you overlook is how busy traffic on roads has reduced our effective access in modern times. Too often these have become almost 'no go areas' for much slow traffic (be that pedestrian, horse, bike or wheelchair). I believe we could make massive improvements if we had multi-use pavements or parallel link paths where footpaths or bridleways end at such roads, to link to the next path away from the busy road. Small changes could make a massive difference to the utility of some of our path network.

This is true in Scotland too.  All too often a length of busy road like the A9 or A90 has to be used to link minor roads or tracks.

Go Eben. Great article.

Thanks for the kind comments, and also thank you for reading it, I know it's a bit of a slog. We are working with the Ramblers on things like the historic path registration deadline (and the Open Spaces Society), but they don't hold the same position as us on 'Right to Roam' so opportunities on that specific campaign are fairly limited at the moment. That's not really a criticism of them, by the way, they both do amazing work and I'm really glad to have had the opportunity to learn from some of their staff over the years as a young person coming into this job.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's a good point but just not something I was able to get into in the article as I felt it was already too long by far! We proposed a pilot scheme in Wales for shared use of paths on publicly owned land a year and a half ago now, after being told that access reform was in the long grass and that we should work within existing legislation (as members of the National Access Forum). This was us, Cycling UK, Ramblers, British Horse Society, Canoe Wales, and a few others). It was quite a detailled proposal but we haven't really had  a proper response as the brief has been tossed from one minister to the next without much interest (currently I'm told it's one of Lee Waters' many hot potatoes).

Your point reminds me of an interesting figure I saw the other day from the Dutch Cycling Embassy showing how creating a positive environment for active travel (I think the concept can be extended beyond bikes) can open things up pretty drastically.

Does anyone know how access laws work in Scotland relating to races?  I've spent years trying to organise more fell races in County Durham, but the ownership structures and number of SSSI's just make it impossible. 

In brief.

As soon as the race goes off a PROW I need land owner permission.  Assuming I can work out who the landowner is, they aren't interested in helping either because of ground nesting birds which they want to shoot or because of SSSI's.  When I push I have once after months of effort managed to get the land owner to ask Natural England for permission for my race to pass through a SSSI, and after further long discussions Natural England have agreed.  This was for a race which passed through one SSSI.  All longer race routes I have considered pass through multiple SSSI's so it's just not feasible to go through the whole process multiple times with multiple land owners.

I assume this is all a lot easier either in National parks or areas which aren't as covered in SSSI's and that the North Pennines manages to sit in an unfortunate middle ground.

It would be amazing for fell running in the North East if things could be simplified to the point it was practicle to put on some more races.

To be honest, I'm not sure what the answer is to this. I'd contact Peter Mackie who's the convenor of the Scottish Hillrunners, I'd imagine they'd be able to help: convenor@scottishhillrunners.uk

I share your pain on the difficulty of tracking down landowners though. The land registry is a woeful resource, and incomplete.

Occasionally complicated.

https://theferret.scot/access-fees-and-rules-pentland-event-cancellations/

That's really interesting, thanks for sharing. 

It varies. Although there is a right to access, there are restrictions when significant numbers of people are involved in an organised event. Permission is required from landowners, which is often forthcoming without conditions. My club (Strathearn Harriers) organises two races on local hills and trails, and we always ask for, and receive, permission from the local landowners. We did have to rearrange part of one race a few years ago when the King of Spain was visiting and the landowner who was hosting him asked us to change the route of one of the legs of our hill relay.

Other races have had some difficulties. One of the other popular hill relays on the Lomond Hills in Fife has had to be radically changed because of landowner issues, and the Pentland Skyline race was cancelled last year because of difficulties in reaching agreement over payment for access. This particular case was discussed at some length here last year.

There is guidance available online here:

https://www.outdooraccess-scotland.scot/doc/guidance-outdoor-events-scotlan...

As is generally the case with access in Scotland, the presumption is to allow access for races, with access only being denied in exceptional circumstances.

Spent a weekend in Copenhagen and in city centre the worst car congestion seen throughout the whole weekend was a traffic lights queue of 10-20 cars seen once. Far less than what I'd see in a similar sized city in the UK.

Cycle infrastructure and huge numbers of cyclist open up the roads for cars too.

You'll find most of them on the House of Lords!

There's a reason for the lack of litter on Scafell Pike. Last summer I spent a week climbing in Wasdale based at Brackenclose, every day there were crowds of "3 Peakers" heading up the hill past the hut. There were also a couple of people who seemed to be making the same walk every day and we got chatting. These unsung heroes had taken it upon themselves to do a  daily litter pick. I regret I never asked their names. 

Excellent article. 38 Degrees are running a campaign endorsing the idea of right to roam with a petition, nearing 30,000 signatures, which may be of interest.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/unlock-england-s-countryside-introdu...

There used to be a guy who did much the same on Yr Wyddfa, and of course with the railway bring vast numbers up to the summit which undoubtedly results in much more litter. Obviously when I was up there last November there is no train which is probably a blessing. When I lived in Nant Peris I often went on a Poop Scoop around the parking area where  the bus also stops on its way to Pen y Pass. I often filled 2 carrier bags! As for the problem in Dovedale, I can only conclude that there must a been a recent Rave or suchlike event. The amount of litter visible was depressingly extreme, reflecting the apparent disregard by the miscreants for any care and empathy for such a beautiful environment.

If one was a middle aged lady fell runner, you've met the 'Wasdale Womble' (although she also ranges into urban areas).

Really nice work. Enjoyed reading that.

But I'm not convinced it's anything like simple, as others have pointed out. 

If we had the Scottish rules in England, loads of our favourite places would be like the Tuesday after Glastonbury in no time. I don't like how it is but I don't want that. Loch Lomond proved that even Scotland isn't immune from dickheads, so there's no hope further south. There's no magic wand that will undo the years of catastrophic deterioration in attitudes and behaviours. We need something different. Maybe a system where the law remains an ass but if you leave no trace and don't upset anyone, you don't really ever get impeded....?

There were a couple of specific areas on LL with real issues and the problem has been largely solved with the local bylaw. I think the way to go is for open access to be the rule and tighter restriction the exception rather than the opposite as is the case now.

I'm not convinced this is really a thing, there have always been issues with clatty campers etc it's just that we hear more about them now.

Moving slightly off topic I must recommend the cycle track from the centre of Glasgow to Loch Lomond which is virtually all traffic free. Just brilliant!

I'm definitely not saying that it'd be simple - but maybe a law that is simpler than CRoW is simpler to communicate.

In the BMC we are not opposed to restrictions on access where appropriate - in fact I'd go so far as to say restricting access is something we're widely known for (via the BMC RAD). A default of access, with reasonable exclusions is what we're asking for.

If I'm looking at going camping somewhere in Wales and I see a sign that says "NO ACCESS! TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED" I'm probably thinking that this is just a landowner who wants exclusive access to their property, and I might just crack on with the hope of not getting caught. If I'm in Scotland and I see "No camping, delicate habitat", I just move along and camp at an appropriate spot. I'm not suggesting everyone would do this immediately but if we're serious about shifting culture then we have to start by trusting people.

National parks are buckling under the strain post-covid, but this is as much due to real-terms cuts in funding as it is in masses more people spilling out of the city. We also have a higher population than in years gone by. I very nearly wrote a section about 'honey pot' planning and Michael Dower, but thought I was already in too deep.  

Here's some info on him for those interested:
https://campaignerkate.wordpress.com/2023/02/22/michael-dower-doyen-of-the-...

He was the son of the architect of the National Parks Act and was influential in shaping today's policies around visitor management. 

The byelaws have resolved on Lomond, but displaced to elsewhere. It used to be that Lomond, Loch Earn, Bridge of Orchy and Glen Etive were essentially sacrificed as a buffer zone.

With camping byelaws and improved transport, bad behaviour is now common around Arisaig, even Ardnamuchan and often present elsewhere in the Highlands.  More landowners, tenants and crofters are following the Perthshire example of trying to prevent by blocking verge side parking, and putting up fences.

The problem with hotspot controls is if that hotspot moves it’s very hard to argue against controls at the new venue. If bad behaviour needs controlling at the  road, then logically if it happens up a roadless glen then landowners can argue controls are also appropriate.

So ultimately access will be eroded piecemeal. Its naive  to think if you ban it at the road it will stop, it will reduce, but NEDS can still walk. I’ve seen the remains at all sorts of place an hour away from the road, Camasunary, even one third the way up a Loch Quoich Munro. Granted damage and litter are commonly superficial.

In Scotland we are starting to see some trying to make both roadside reasonable and anti-social behaviour, a political discussion point.

Fully support this. In Finland we have a thing called "jokaisen oikeudet" ("everyone's rights"), which mean that nearly all land areas are free to roam. Not only that, but you are allowed to forage and even camp on anybody's land, as long as you do it within a respectful distance from buildings etc.

Agreed I guess we can seperate out the right to roam from the right to camp laws anyway. Its currently the case with England and Wales access land in any case in general. In this case it could be an idea to add very specific areas where it would be OK to pitch a tent under varying rules (like there already are in dartmoor and to a lesser extent in  the lakes) which would rule out the problem of roadside camping / parties etc that have caused 99% of the issues in Scotland. Lets face it people using the Right to Roam laws in Scotland do not camp most times they access the land anyway (probably over 99.9% of land access does involve camping IMO).

The camping issue is quite different to England though, Finland has a low population density and England has a high one. Scotland especially well outside the central belt has a fairly low population density ofc.

Eben !!! 
WELL DONE !

As someone who was lucky enough to grow up in a country where you can go basically anywhere you want I was totally baffled by the concept of “private farm land “ that can’t be “walked through” , the concept made zero sense to me and that hasn’t changed after living in Wales and England for 10 years. 
Yes ALL of the farm land in Bulgaria is privately owned and no one seems to care about access with some exceptions ( cherry farm during the harvest season- 30 days ) . You get the point. 
Yes of course there are lots of issues that could and do prevent that to happen here, however I’m 100 % confident if we as a COMMUNITY focus on finding solutions rather than just stating why nothing will change etc there is most definitely a way to improve the situation. 
Have a great weekend everyone!

Yeah. To me as a Swede enjoying the freedom of "allemansrätten" it is almost hard to emotionally fathom that land can be off-limits. 

It doesn't really feel real that there are forests and land that you can't walk in. By what right can you be barred from vast swathes of your own country? I don't get it. 

My thoughts too (from Glasgow).

Sometimes I think England loves enclosure the way the US loves guns.

The landowners certainly do. Scotland isn't exactly short of wealthy residents keen to close off huge tracts of land either.

There is a significant problem with near roadside camping in England in spite of the law. For instance in the Peak this is particularly the case in the woods off the Snake Pass and the woods in Burbage valley.

Having laws against wild camping does not prevent adhoc camping by people happy to light fires and leave litter. Having laws which allow wild camping (whilst also prohibiting lighting fires and leaving litter) will not prevent this either, but in all fairness should not be blamed for it. It's largely a side issue related to people's attitude towards the outdoors.

It's a little like the arguments around the legal status of certain drugs. 

I agree: Saboteurs and irresponsible people will exist either way, so all that anti-access laws do is keep the good people who don't want to break the law out.

I think it's more than that. Having legal access for wild campers who behave responsibility will inhibit poor behaviour from others (often just not educated on the issues) and act as witnesses on the smaller minority who just don't give a shit.

I wish I shared your optimism. There is no way that increased access won't increase littering and antisocial behaviour. Do I want to see increased access? Absolutely. Do I think it will have a detrimental effect? Again absolutely.

Not sure I agree, currently its prohibited to road side camp which will deter a lot of people. If its allowed you'll get more people doing it and a host of new issues. One of them can just be shear numbers of people (rather than litter or noise). That's already becoming a problem wrt to pollution from lack of public toilets in fairly remote areas of Scotland including Glen Etive.

In terms of wild camping I don't think it would be unreasonable to require a minimum distance from an inhabited building or road, to be honest.  I'd agree some of the roadside camping and vanlifing in Scotland is getting rather out of hand, and I can't see any sense in it being allowed in cultivated fields either.  It's about the high fell really.

It should be noted that in Scotland there are concerns from landowners that the right to roam is no longer fit for purpose:

The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an unprecedented increase in the volume of the public taking access to the countryside (many of them for the first time).  Organisations, such as NFU Scotland, have been reportedly inundated with complaints from landowners of hundreds of visitors taking access every day, gates being left open, dogs being out of control and broken fences and litter left in their wake.  In addition, there have been increases in sheep-worrying and fly tipping, wild camping, access to farm buildings and private gardens.

This, ultimately, led to NFU Scotland conducting a survey in November last year.  Respondents described the Code as no longer being effective for landowners and requiring modernisation to reflect the scale and type of access now being taken by the public.  Many are looking for the Code to be reviewed. It has not been formally reviewed since it was first approved by Parliament in 2004.  NFU Scotland have asserted that the increased public access seen since 2020 has shown that more needs to be done to protect Scottish farmers and crofters’ “ability to safely produce the high quality, sustainable food and drink expected by consumers”.

https://www.dcslegal.com/scottish-outdoor-access-code-no-longer-fit-purpose...

Of course, there may be an element of "they would say that, wouldn't they?".  Nevertheless these concerns cannot simply be dismissed. In much of England in particular the countryside is farmed far more intensively than most land in Scotland, and even without a right of access farmers are already experiencing the sort of problems described above. To believe a right to roam won't make things worse seems like wishful thinking. Political reality dictates these issues must be addressed, preferably with hard evidence, if a right to roam has any hope of being achieved in England and Wales. 

I'm unimpressed with the video the BMC has put out to support this campaign. For a start, at nearly 7 minutes it is far too long for a campaigning film, and doesn't really get to the point until nearly the end. I'd lost interest long before then.  It looks very pretty, but does nothing to grab the viewer's attention. It may be very affirming for those who already support a right to roam but I doubt it will change many minds among those who are neutral or opposed. 

The subjects are hardly models of responsible access, the film starts with them climbing over walls and fences and ends with them having an argument with the farmer. Whilst that may reflect how things are under current access laws, I can't see how that is going to persuade landowners that it would be a good thing to allow more of these outdoor types onto their land.

Thanks for the feedback Howard. The film has had fairly positive reactions elsewhere and we've had several requests for it to be featured at various showings around the country. I showed it last week at a panel event in Abergavenny last week along with a couple of other more long-form flicks, and it served as a springboard for useful discussion with those present which included several local farmers. The idea was to try and tell a story which many of us can relate to, and I'm sorry we seemed to have missed the mark with you. I would say though that most stories and films come to some sort of crux near the end - it's not that rare!

I've seen a couple of people comment on the fence climbing but I feel that critique is somewhat missing the point of the film. It is a deliberate inclusion that is consistent with the themes of the film. At no point is the film presented as an example of good practice in the outdoors (we release many of these, all the time). It's a film showing the obstacles people face when trying to get out - these include locked gates and fences. I've certainly climbed my fair share of them, when no other options are available. It's also a fictionalised narrative which we tried to insert some kind of conflict into (after all it would be fairly even more boring without) - the landowner at the end of the film has probably seen a lot of people climbing fences and damaging walls, and he's got a right to be agitated and there's a communication gap. What we tried to present was that the status quo doesn't address these issues (which are clearly present in the absence of a 'right to roam') and what is needed is proper, considered, co-designed reform. 

The film wasn't made with landowners in mind though - they aren't our core viewership, really, although we obviously do work with them. I don't think affirming our membership and audience is necessarily a bad outcome to have in mind, and we've had a lot of people follow the call to action and contact their local MPs, which has been a useful thing.

Cycle touring.  Trips to England often require hiding somewhere at night.  Fortunately unlike a certain part of Scotland, you cannot get done if caught.

Depending on bike, it is not always too easy to get far off the road.

(And how far into the rear view does 2020 need to go before the opportunist gomls stop trying to use it as a tool to bring back the right to hog everything for oneself.   The situation out there is very different to 2020, at least in East Lothian).

In Nick Hayes book Trespass all he seems to want to do is kip n the woods, light a fire, and drink beer. Not the best recommendation for open access.  

I bought the book hoping it would complement  the book 'Who owns Britain' but it doesn't.

John

I can certainly relate to the scenario shown in the film, and I've also climbed a fair number of fences in my time and had words with one or two farmers. I'm just not clear what the film is meant to achieve, and who it's aimed at.  The BMC's core audience is well aware of the issues and is probably largely supportive of a right to roam - we don't need it. I don't feel this is going to get the attention of the wider population for whom this isn't a burning issue. A campaigning video needs to be shorter, punchier and to the point - this isn't. 

From the perspective of climbers and walkers the film shows two people who just want to enjoy the countryside in a respectful way and causing minimum impact - something we can all relate to. Seen from another perspective, it shows two people who disregard property rights, ignore a "no camping" sign, and get into an argument when they are asked to move on.  I can't see that winning hearts and minds among those we most need to persuade if a right to roam is to become a reality.

I just watched the video. Not sure how I feel about it either. It's well made and will-intended, but it certainly doesn't make me think that's the right way to campaign.

If they'd pitched late and struck early there would have been no confrontation, everything would have been fine.

If when confronted they'd said "didn't mean to upset anyone, we'll be on our way", everything would probably have been fine. Remember the penalty for trespass is...... well, nothing. 

If we're campaigning for a law to say you're in the right when you piss off a farmer and have a shouting match about it, not sure that's such an easy sell, nor is it really what I want to see changed.

In reply to Howard J:

I hear you - perhaps our upcoming plans for 'punchier' more short form videos will cut through more and reach further. If you were coming up with a video to convince the unconvinced, how would you go about it?

What I would say about the approach we took is that over the last few years of working in access and the last 6 months of actively campaigning on this, is that it's not only the majority of climbers who support the right to roam, it's the majority of the voting population:

https://pollingreport.uk/articles/voters-of-all-major-parties-support-right...

What is less widespread is an energized base of campaigners, and a more in-depth knowledge around the issues with CRoW and what it would mean in practice. The video doesn't tackle the latter at all, that's what I tried to do with this article, although it became a bit of a monster - I found it difficult to cut down. But we have seen huge amounts of engagement with the shortened version of the film that was shared on Instagram - it shot within a week to become the BMC's most liked, and most viewed instagram post ever, and it's not particularly close (in second place is our Outdoors for All film which similarly attracted quite a bit of criticism as well as praise). Whether Instagram likes, shares, views, are a good metric to measure a campaign's impact, is up for debate - but it is one metric by which the video is overperforming. I don't think all of those interactions translate to full views of the video (in fact I know it doesn't per the numbers) but they are all people hopefully thinking, talking, signaling their investment in this campaign.

I've been thinking about the length of the video and I don't feel that a longer campaigning video is outside of the norm - Patagonia produce films of this length or longer campaigning against bottom trawling, plastic waste, to promote green travel. Mountain bikers are adept at using long-form narratives to talk about issues such as the impact of climate change on trails networks, or in asking for access reform. My own view is that hopefully there's room for both.

In reply to Longsufferingropeholder:

Also fair enough - there are lots of ways to campaign for access and lots of ways that we are consistently just working on in the background. This week I'm finalising the BMC's response to the Welsh Sustainable Farming Scheme of recent notoriety. I'm planning on reaching out to more neutral publications to see whether they'd be willing to publish something, and I'd love to run more panel events like I did in Abergavenny - there is an appetite for it and people who aren't your typical 'right to roam' constituency seem to come along and take part in the conversation which is valuable. I've been approached for one in Pontypridd if either of you are close, it'd be great to chat about this in person!

As for the penalty for trespass - yes it's generally nothing.  But at the talk in Abergavenny, several people spoke about how they'd  not really hesitate to trespass when they saw justification. As climbers many of us are well used to it. But others in the room (women in this case) felt that the danger of confrontation represented a risk that would keep them out in most cases - some people thrive in a confrontational situation or fancy themselves to defuse (I'm guilty of this as a Welsh speaker in Wales), but we don't see all the barriers other people face. I've had similar conversations around trespass with other campaigners who are working on diversity in the outdoors - there are strong parallels with conversations that are had in protest movements around the risks for various different people taking direct action.

I think with the video we tried to walk a line between showing that intentions are good when people trespass but the law as it's currently set up is a catalyst for conflict - which is something that every story needs in some form. Definitely not campaigning for righteous shouting matches! An earlier form lacked conflict at all and I do think it was much worse for it. I do appreciate the feedback and will take it on board for future projects! I try and also take feedback like this at area meetings but sometimes the long format of a forum lets you get into the detail a little more.

Yes.  I found the more of the book I read the less I sympathised with him and his arguments.

To declare an interest, we have a couple of acres and have a public footpath (very little used) that actually comes through our garden before heading across the field.  We mow the footpath, have it signposted and are very happy for walkers to use it.  How I'd feel if I found people wandering around the property or woke up to find someone camping in one of the fields, I'm not so sure.  I guess I'd feel it would have been nice to have been asked first.

Why are Royal forests and deer parks "blights"?

I'm not a film-maker and I've no experience of campaining. However, off the top of my head, I'd start with a collage of barbed wire, "keep out" and "no camping signs" with a voiceover explaining that many people want to enjoy the countryside but these are the obstacles they face, and go on to show that it doesn't have to be that way with examples from Scotland and perhaps Scandinavia to show how a right to roam can work.

My problem with the BMC film is that it takes far too long to make the point about the current access situation and doesn't demonstrate that there is a workable alternative.

The appeal of Instagram is a mystery to me, but it's good that the film is getting a lot of engagement. However the real test is whether it succeeds in changing minds, which is far more difficult to measure.

I'm not surprised that most people support a right to roam, even in rural areas. The number of people working in agriculture is small (and declining) and these days most people who live in or close to the countryside (myself included) use it for recreation rather than a living.  However it's like asking if we should build more houses - everyone is in favour until it happens close to them, when they start to see the drawbacks. 

 A separate point about conflict. I can see that it makes for a better story. However it is not an automatic consequence of the current law, and there are enough examples from Scotland to show that having a right to roam does not necessarily remove conflict.

Perhaps I've been lucky, but I've been hillwalking and climbing in England and Wales for around 55 years now and I've had very few significant problems with access in practice. Usually there are rights of way to get onto the open hillside, and then I've been able to go pretty much where I pleased.  I've wild-camped in Wales and in the Lakes. In all that time I can think of only a handful of occasions when I've been challenged. 

I don't want to appear complacent, and I'm not suggesting the current arrangements are satisfactory, or that the possibility of conflict won't put some people off. Neither have I deliberately sought out prohibited places as some of the activists appear to relish doing. All I am saying is in my own experience conflict has been rare.

One occasion I was challenged was when I was walking in the fields close to my home. The local public footpaths had been newly waymarked, and from the far side of a field I mistook a patch of yellow lichen on a gatepost for one of the new signs. I'd already realised my mistake and was retracing my steps when the farmer came tearing up in his tractor. Once he'd calmed down, he explained that he gets a lot of visitors who try to get to the top of the small hill this leads to, and they cause him a lot of problems - damage to fences, leaving gates open, not clearing up after their dogs (which can cause diseases in sheep and cattle). The wood at the top of the hill attracts youths who light fires, drink beer and smoke weed, but this is a fragile habitat which he is trying to protect. A right to roam would have been better for me, but I could see that he had valid reasons for not wanting to allow access. Of course such behaviour would still not be lawful under a Scottish-style right to roam, but it would probably make it harder for him to prevent.

A beautiful blight! Somewhat tongue in cheek there in my choice of words. Many of them are still enclosed for private enjoyment only and there is a vast history of enclosure in their creation. I have enjoyed visiting some of them and they are characteristically beautiful and very English. I'm certainly not advocating for their erasure but they are part of our patchwork of enclosures over our history in Britain, hence their mentioning. Hedges are comparable to me - they form amazing nature corridors across the country and are part of the beauty of the countryside now, but when they were first going up around the place, there was a lot of nature all around, and they represented enclosure and many protested them and engaged in rebellious de-hedging. Things aren't just 'good' or 'bad' I think.

With all due respect, I think by taking a less direct approach we were trying to create something more interesting to watch. Some enjoyed it, some didn't - we will probably take some different approaches in the future. We have only set our stance on this issue ourselves less than a year ago so we're still finding what works as well.

It's an apt comparison on housing, I'll use that I think!

A statutory right doesn't remove conflict but it does allow for people like me to spend much more time, and putting more resources towards conflict resolution. Making the RAD current and working on reasonable exceptions for access to everyone's benefit. I think we probably can do with being more consistent in saying that we're for reasonable exceptions to the right to roam - in comms aimed at landowners this is something I'd center more but not everything needs to be for everyone.

It's great that you've not encountered too many issues but it's not true for everyone - as a man who lives in the countryside there are already barriers that you've not had to face. We produced another slightly longer film last year on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqgTJ5ObwU&ab_channel=teamBMC

I don’t agree with this campaign, so where’s the counter-petition I can sign? And why are the BMC involved? Most of our mountains and worthwhile crags are either open access or have access agreements, so what would the climbing community actually gain?

Rule one is leave no trace (though but there are plenty of idiots who disregard it).

Open country access land can be walked anywhere, though off designated rights of way may be tough going or impassable, but you have a right to be there.  

Enclosed land is generally farm land and is someone’s livelihood. Farm land has many footpaths which you can follow and organise a through or circular route using a map with some confidence you may be able to get through, mostly. The farmer has some obligations with regards to keeping it clear, and clear of dangerous animals. If the footpath is blocked then you have some right to find an alternative route and you can complain to the council and get the blockage removed (this has worked whenever I’ve done it).

Most enclosed land is farm land. Think of it as a big green food factory. There may be crops right up to the edge of the fields as the farmer has no obligation to provide a clear path. You can’t get through without breaking rule one. It may be a field of grass with cattle grazing. These may be the frisky ones the farmer doesn’t want to put near the footpath because it would be unsafe. This field is their home, by the way, so litter and dog poo not appreciated (rule one again). The field may simply be grass, but what was it sprayed with yesterday?

Having gone into the field then where next? Most field have barbed wire fences and probably hawthorn and blackthorn hedges. In some western counties the hedge may be on top of a bank or Cornish wall, too. There may be no other way out and no map will tell you if this is so or not. Wildlife? It’s their home too. Is there nowhere they can live in peace? Remember, rule one, so no breaking down fences please.

Having climbed and walked for over 50 years I have to say that navigating mountains and open country access land is easy-peasy compared to crossing farm land, even when there is a footpath, because the way forward is often hidden. Get the wrong gate and you are lost. With this experience I cannot see what is to be gained by making it even more difficult by trying to cross farm land with no known route through. And any damage done is to someone’s livelihood and to the animals and wildlife that live there.

Rant over.

Many people support the right to exclude. I have been challenged twice on land owned by my parents. 

(OK in the end I took the hint and left home)

Simple answer to your question, the BMC are involved in this campaign because we (the members) or at least a large number of us want them to be. Background - it kicked off with the court ruling saying that wild camping on Dartmoor was not a right. As chair of the SW area at the time, local members wanted action and we asked for support at a national level. Following wider consultation with the membership, the BMC went on to support the campaign for wider access to the countryside. 

If we were not involved, I’m sure many members would be asking why not. 

You are free to start a petition if you so desire.

The Scottish Access Laws specifically exclude access to fields where crops are being grown (but field margins can be used).

This is still an issue of people's attitudes towards the outdoors, neither caused nor cured by what the law permits. That includes knowing when an area is too busy and going elsewhere.

Undoubtedly we have more crowding and litter in the countryside because public footpaths exist. Obviously we could reduce this by abolishing footpaths. Yes, any change to the law will have both positive and negative consequences. There is always a trade off and we should have ours eyes open to this from the outset and seek to create guardrails within the legislation to minimise the negative. We should also accept that change will come at a cost and deal with this pragmatically.

If only it were that simple.  The reality is that there are numerous climbable crags where climbing is not permitted, sometimes for good reasons but often simply because the owner doesn't want it. CRoW access does not cover all areas where people want to go, and owners can and do exercise their rights to close it for up to 28 days in a year. There are isolated islands of CRoW land which cannot lawfully be accessed. Wild camping is not permitted, and this is sometimes enforced.  It is therefore entirely legitimate for the BMC to support wider access, and having consulted beforehand it knows it has the support of the majority of its members. You are of course entitled to disagree.

Cyclists' and kayakers' access is even more limited, although these fall outside the BMC's remit.

Nevertheless your points are broadly true. Much open country, where a right to roam would be of most value, is already fully accessible in practice, and this was often true even before CRoW.  A Scottish-style right would not include land under growing crops and so would not apply to large swathes of lowland England for most of the year. However these areas usually have extensive networks of public footpaths.

The practical effect of a right to roam would probably be less radical than it appears, and as it is sometimes presented.  It would mainly mean extending access rights to some areas of open country not currently covered by CRoW, and extending the range of permissible activities.  In many other areas it would be largely theoretical, either because of growing crops or because existing paths already satisfy the need.

What I'd add to this is that our crags don't begin and end in the uplands - in South Wales for example none of our crags are in the uplands, the Bannau Brycheiniog being pretty much bereft of clean rock.

Equally I don't share your view about the value of a right to roam being most keenly felt in the uplands - our definition of 'open country' at present is arbitrarily narrow. Millions of people would feel the impact of a right to roam in our green belts. Our networks of paths are extensive, it's true, but also not equally distributed around the country. For me in Cardiff I can think of a lot of places where it'd personally impact me and improve the way I can connect with my community, and it would unlock several brilliant crags too. If you compare the way access to nature works and is appreciate in other countries, the fact that access begins where green space does isn't a problem, it's one of the main benefits of that right they enjoy. 

I understand why historically the access movement has centered around the 'crown jewels' of our uplands, but along with the political constraints of the time where CRoW was coming through, it has created something of a mess, and in my view, contributed to the extreme pressures that our uplands and national parks are feeling. 

In 2022, research was published that measured fourteen European countries on three factors: biodiversity, wellbeing, and nature connectedness. Britain came last in every single category. I would love to see that data broken down for Scotland versus the rest of the UK. 

On footpaths, yes, we enjoy a right of way networks that is pretty much unparalleled but it doesn't mean we should seek to improve things. Interesting article here by activist Andrew Wang on PRoWs, desire paths and trespass: https://earth.org/data_visualization/uk-land-access-rights/ 

Yes presumably places like Richmond Park would have been built on if it didn’t have some sort of protection due its Royal history.  I wonder if the article made too much of the enclosure/exclusion thing, especially mentioning 1940 – there was a war on! Is current land ownership in the UK really much different to most other places, I assume even Sweden will have gone through some similar enclosure process?

Blimey, is that really the BMC view - abolish footpaths?!

Many of them were built on before - many have the ruins of settlements on them. 

On paths - I think it's pretty clear that we are pro-path at the BMC. We just want to be able to use those paths to go places. To go climbing, wild camping, and to enjoy responsible forms of outdoor recreation. We are vocally supportive of paths and work with the Ramblers and OSS society in calling for the abolishment of the 2031 deadline for registering historic rights of way. Paths are great, and the best way for managing access currently for those who are managing open access land. I included a passage in the article on the significance of paths because I, and also all BMC members and volunteers value them enormously.

And on land and enclosure - simply put, no. All countries have different histories of enclosure both in the way it was done, when it was done, how it was done, which reflects modern rights and customs. Scotland, for example, didn't go through enclosure in the same way we did in England and Wales, hence no documentation of what was surely a once extensive customary right of way.

As for the war - we aren't at war any longer are we? Nor should the guarantees given to residents in the 1940s that they would be able to return, both here and elsewhere be dismissed, nor their long-term effects.

In terms of protecting land for nature or recreation... I think historically compared to genuine commons and actual protective designation, curated (not particularly biodiverse), walled off parks that displaced whole populations are a pretty poor way to go about it.

I live in Scotland, I'm a big supporter of the outdoor access legislation we have here and I've used its provisions to facilitate walking, boating, swimming, cycling and camping all over Scotland. The only times I've been aware of obvious resentment to the legislation from landowners / residents is over roadside car camping. I think removing the right to camp at the roadside would at a stroke remove 90% of the conflict and bad publicity associated with the act. Indeed, I think that the right is an anomaly in the act in the first place - its the only car-based activity which is facilitated by an act which otherwise is explicit that it applies only to "self-propelled" activities - the anomaly is so glaring it makes me wonder if the failure to exclude this activity was an oversight in the first place. I think the right to wild camp should exist but, as in Scandinavia, should specifically exclude land within a certain distance of either roads or dwellings. I would support such a change to the legislation in Scotland (because I think it would substantially reduce opposition to the act in general), and I think it would be a sensible modification if similar legislation was ever extended to England and Wales.

The Access Code stipulates that you should camp away from the side of the road, but clearly the law doesn't specifically prohibit it. I think reasonable people would agree with you here, if I were writing up the legislation it would certainly be an area in which I'd be willing to compromise. 

Van camping is the obvious 'in between' here which would probably require consideration. In Eryri they are looking to establish 'aires' to tackle the problem by providing cheaper car parks on the outskirts of the park with basic facilities (such as chemical toilet disposal). My own view is that they aren't going to succeed charging the planned rates, and local newspapers are already reporting on conflict with local campsites and caravan sites. They do work to an extent in Europe though.

I mentioned in the article - dogs are another source of consternation. I would support much stricter regulation on dogs on farmed landscapes. There are some things that landowners and us agree on, liability is another.

I didn't mean to suggest that r2r is only applicable to the uplands, only that a right to go wherever you please is most appropriate to open, unenclosed country. Enclosed land is more constrained, but often there is a way through on footpaths.

When he asks "Surely land access rights should evolve to reflect and protect by law the places where people want to walk?" he seems to place the wishes of the public for recreation over the rights of those who own and use the land.  In reality there needs to be a balance. Certainly that needs to be swung more in favour of public access, but we cannot demand or expect that should always take priority.

The photo used to illustrate the article is either ignorant or deliberately misleading. It is not a "keep out" sign. On the contrary, it shows that the track in the photo is used by the public. The sign is simply to prevent a future public right of way being claimed after 20 years' use.

I think the key lies in the definition of 'open country' of which there is plenty that isn't caught within CRoW, sometimes by way of aggressive fertilisation as in Vixen Tor. Designation isn't based on some fundamental truth of the land. Sometimes there are paths, often there are not, often paths are blocked.

Of course there should be a balance - that's realistically what he's asking for too. As I've said before, nobody really opposes reasonable exceptions.

I don't think I agree with you regarding the sign. That will be part of the reason it's up, maybe, but most people I know would see that sign and assume that it means they are not welcome and that it's a private track, and that they may be confronted if they ignore it. Which is actually the case, I believe, Locko being a corporate venue, basically. Although I am curious to see what others here would think if they came across it. Quoting a law most people are unlikely to be familiar with is also pretty clearly a veiled threat of litigation (when in reality there is no risk of that sort).

Apologies for the change in account - it is still Eben here, I accidentally replied logged in to the BMC Cymru account on a different device.

However I would say that wild camping should be restricted to uplands and moorland (and a few other stipulations like small groups).  It being allowed more or less anywhere is more of a nuisance than a benefit.

I do get whoever it was who said that's a pain for cycle tourers, but I don't think it's really about people travelling by road (whatever they happen to use thereon) and wanting a free night's kip, it's about being able to enjoy the mountains for more than one day without having to descend to a campsite.  If you want to camp in inhabited places (vanlifers included) you really should do so on a paid-for campsite or get permission of the person's land you're camping on.

Cycle tourists have been hit very hard by things like sites banning tents, requirement to book (can I book a tailwind) and the one that enrages me on an epic scale - minimum of two nights. There are always gaps in a route, so few sites away from the tourist favoured areas. On the positive side, it is easy to hide a bike camp.

To be fair I would be against the idea of making it specifically illegal to wild camp elsewhere but keeping it as trespass.  If you're well hidden and respectful of the land then you're unlikely to have a problem.  But what I don't want to see is tents and vans littering every other layby/roadside bit of grass as you see if you drive the North Coast 500, at least not in areas where people live and work.  Homeless people I get - they have no choice - but I would really object to people pitching their tents on the green area outside my house to save paying a tenner for a campsite and would like that to remain in its current legal position.

To me it's all about enjoying wilderness - sticking a tent in a farmer's field isn't wilderness.

One exception - I do support a criminal law against motorvehicular trespass.  Parking a camper or caravan on private land (rather than in unrestricted public road parking areas like a layby without time restrictions) isn't acceptable ever without permission, largely because unlike wild camping on foot or by bicycle it typically does serious damage to the land.

There are plenty of areas which simply don't have campsites available (large parts of Northern Scotland come to mind).

Then you can't drive there to camp in my book.

Wild camping is about enjoying the wilderness, not just deciding to plonk your family tent wherever you happen to like.

Your post was very general and would have applied to cycle touring and lowland walking too. 

It's was a rhetorical device. 

For the benefit of doubt, no BMC Access are not advocating for the abolition of footpaths.

s31 signs are very common, and they're frequently found in urban areas as well as in the countryside. There's at least one on the Bull Ring in Birmingham, if I recall correctly. Thousands of people walk past them every day without giving them a second thought. They're a necessary precaution where the public is allowed to use private land, to prevent the presumption that a right of way has been created after 20 years' public use.

Thankfully we're not using your book.

Feel free to make general statements about what wild camping is "all about", but do forgive if your opinion is not adopted as a statement of fact.

I think we agree to disagree on this one. Permissive access doesn't necessarily lead to the creation of a public right of way after 20 years, there are many ways other than aggressive signage to prevent it, for example you can simply make a declaration to the council. Signage that tells people to keep out is usually a sign that either the owner believes this will remove their liability (not likely in this case, since there isn't even any permissive access on that road according to OS maps) or they genuinely want to keep people out.

We are digressing. I think the important thing to bear in mind is that we face a different situation in England and Wales compared with Scotland. The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 didn't actually change very much so far as access was concerned, it was mainly codifying and giving statutory force to long-standing and well-understood (if not always well-respected) customary rights.  Getting that enacted, whilst not without some resistance, was to a large extent pushing at an open door.

In England and Wales it is the opposite. There is a long tradition of property rights to be overcome, and the farming and landowning lobby in Parliament is powerful and armed with evidence from their colleagues in Scotland of the problems public access causes them.  I think "right to roam", whilst a powerful and easily understood slogan, is too vague and implies more than we are asking for, or can reasonably expect.  We are not asking to go wherever we please and do whatever we wish, only to be permitted onto land for responsible and reasonable recreational purposes where it is reasonable to do so. I think to gather public support and persuade our legislators in both Houses of Parliament we need to have a much clearer idea of what a right to roam means in England and Wales, in particular what types of land are to be covered by it and how (or perhaps whether) it would apply in areas of largely arable land. 

A right to roam should permit "responsible access", but all too often we see access which is not responsible, and landowners will need to be assured that they can still take action to prevent that.

I agree, suggestions that we need a "right to roam" are often met with puzzlement from those who aren't familiar with the debate, and a comment along the lines of "Why would I want to walk just anywhere when there are perfectly good paths I could use?". I'm in Scotland, but I very rarely walk "just anywhere" - its hard work, apart from anything else! But what is important is that I know I can follow any path / road / estate track etc without worrying that I might be trespassing.

That said, its a catchy phrase, and I'm not sure what I'd replace it with. "Right of responsible access" is perhaps accurate, but isn't going to set many hearts fluttering with excitement!

It's a trade off - around the time we were surveying members and forming our position on this the Labour party were themselves calling for a 'Right to Roam' although obviously they have back-pedaled on that. We ultimately settled for now on using the more recognised 'Right to Roam' terminology which is a fairly historic term and there have been books published on it back to the 90s and beyond. 

The language we use is always around responsible access so that hopefully cuts through. The Ramblers meanwhile have more or less settled on the term 'Freedom to Roam', taken in that case to mean specifically expanding CRoW to include woodland, watersides, and more categories grassland (woodland wouldn't seem to fall under your definition of mountain country in most cases, Howard). We also support this in the absence of legislation which goes further, but at our meetings with members, the broad consensus was to 'ask for the loaf'.

Right of responsible access is one of the options we have considered, and we may well shift to its use, however personally I think that as long as we are consistent in saying that we want a right to roam with safeguards, exceptions, and considerable investment in outdoor education, a properly funded access code, and all of the other things we are asking for, a Right to Roam by itself, as a more catchy phrase will do the job.

@Howard, in Scotland they may have enjoyed customary rights, this was indeed one reason for the Act, the act has also actually increased the density of footpaths in Scotland, one reason for this is that footpaths are an excellent to manage access. It creates an incentive for landowners. There were also provisions within the law for councils to create core path networks which have been a bit of a mixed bag. Culturally it's been a huge shift there - speak to Scots about it and they'll tell you. It's also just not true to say that Wales/England and Scotland are completely different in terms of population density. I can tell you, most everyone in Wales lives along the M4 corridor, and between Edinburgh and Glasgow Scotland is pretty well populated and the worst issues cited with access in Scotland are generally not said to be in this area anyway. 

There are lots of good reasons not to have all good access concentrated in the uplands and I tried to feature some in the article.

As for parliament - yes landowners have a great voice there but it's greatly diminished from when we passed CRoW..... but I am repeating myself from the article so I'm going to stop there as I better prep for tonight's area meeting.

Who said anything about driving?

"to save paying a tenner for a campsite".  Where is this campsite? I would like to include it in a trip.

https://www.tryfanwales.co.uk/ for one.

Camping on land that is already open access and allowing open access to every farmer's field in the country are completely different things. A dispute about one is no reason to campaign for the other.

Be that as it may, the BMC righty consulted widely with its members before going  on to actively support the campaign for improving access to the wider countryside /  right to roam campaign. 

Indeed. In Ayrshire, all farmland, there are no paths, but there is a right to roam. But, as far as i can tell, no one does. After all where do you go? Which field, and once in it, where next, and how? Ill thought through baloney. 

You follow the farm tracks which, in places where there is not a right to roam, are likely to be private. I've said before, its often misunderstood that a "right to roam" means people walking just anywhere. In practice, people like to walk on paths and tracks, but in England, even though the track goes where you want to go, if its not a right of way you're not allowed to follow it. Its actually in exactly this situation that having a "right to roam" really makes a difference.

I do, quite often. (just wish I had gone a few km further west today )

Similarly in arable East Lothian - walking is painful for me at most times, but I get around fine on a bike (which is Evil®️ in England. Farm tracks, stubble and just an urge to explore.  

Scotland has a dichotomy that the ease of access on the open hill is fantastic, yet in lower lying agricultural areas due to the historic anomaly of the OS not being mandated by law to map footpaths they have all been lost. 

However The Scottish Outdoor access legislation redressed that, to some degree. During the more liberal parts of the Covid restrictions, living on the edge of a major city and predominantly surrounded by farm land I set myself the challenge of trying to piece together the longest route with the least road walking. By looking at Sat photos, maps of variable vintage, a bit of Strava and a lot of poking about on the ground I ended up with a circuit 22km long from the door with less than a Km of road walking and only crossing a handful of roads.

Even though this is Scotland I came across a private hospital claiming that a large area of land was hospital grounds and thus excluded from access, when it was clearly a wider agricultural landholding, several farm tracks stating they were “Private”, some locked gates and an old stone style in a dry stone wall blocked by a new barbed wire field boundary. All of which I could legally ignore as a result of the legislation.  I also walked along the edge of a golf course, for several miles along the banks of a prime salmon river and through a couple of old grand estates access drives and the edge of policy woodlands and woodlands used for rough shooting. All of which down south would all most certainty be off limits. 
From a responsible access raking point of view bar the fence mentioned above where clearly there has to be a historic crossing I only had to climb one and wriggle under another fence, both of which au could do without risk of damaging. In terms of spoiling the landed classes enjoyment of their land in all the time it took to piece together I only bumped into two, and on both occasions we had a friendly chat. 

Just because most don’t want to exercise their rights doesn’t mean we should wholesale deny them.

Conversely people being ‘dicks’ shouldn’t have free reign.

And I suppose my main point is just because on first look, things appear unpromising with time and legislation on your side the opposite can be true……however I’d generally still rather be up the hills.

Good reply. Full marks for effort and courage. Incidentally the posh Troon golf club is all noticed up saying it is ok to roam just watch your head. 

Its not just car parking charges - technology is enabling new charges being made for land access. Of course this being a vast area of land without even footpaths. They do it because they can.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/11/mass-trespass-protest-c...