Remember when criminalising trespass was put into the Conservative 2019 Manifesto?
I do, but obviously folk didn't understand what they were actually proposing, and thought it only applied to 'Travellers'...
As far as I see it there is 1. wild camping where you genuinely leave no trace and your activity is almost invisible to others and and 2. camping inconsiderately/leaving lots of trace in the form of rubbish, fires, noise or overlong stays. The people doing the former are generally different people from those doing the latter.
It is relatively difficult to argue that type 1 Should be banned or illegal in itself. Type 2 should obviously be illegal and in places with access laws/codes it usually is.
It is a shame that the solution to stopping type 2 (which would be illegal in any properly organised access arrangement) is to ban type 1 camping. In other words people try to ban something that is already legal (messy camping) by banning something else (leave no trace camping).
Most of us who wild camp responsibly will carry on anyway without issue; albeit a bit more nervously given that there has been attention drawn to camping due to the Dartmoor ruling.
I do wish, however, that the rest of the UK would follow something like the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. It would need, however, significant levels of education and enforcement to explain that the right to wildcamp doesn’t mean you can do what you want. That education and enforcement is the key to making sure that people who behave stupidly/ignorantly don’t provide ‘the powers that be’ an excuse to take away the rights that an access code would give us.
As said above, what about scout, DofE and youth groups who go out for a weekend? Or groups training in the lead up to Ten Tors? When I was a teen we did a lot of weekends on Dartmoor training (Ten Tors was a good excuse for teachers to get the school to cough up enough cash to pay for 5-10 weekends camping that they normally wouldn’t have) and we just camped all over the moors. I’m sure the actual Ten Tors event will continue but that’s only 1 weekend a year.
It sets an unfortunate precedent for all Dartmoor landowners. Many might allow it to continue as before, but the point is that they don’t have to.
@Thecaptain - I know, but there’s always hope.
It was never about stopping some people from camping on his land because they make a mess, it’s about not paying for HIS glamping, etc. He’s an extremely wealthy example of a NIMBY (Not in my backyard), ‘why should people be allowed to do wheat they want, only I should be allowed to do what I want’.
duplicate
Cougar
Full MemberDoes rather raise the question, “what is it then?”
More than that I'd say it raises the same question for other things. If camping's not recreation, how about cycling? It's for fitness innit, that's not recreation. I know this is ridiculous, but it's no more ridiculous than camping.
As a local this has made me so unbelievably sad. Loads of memories wild camping up there. Stopped for few years due to little kids. Oldest now 9, was thinking of introducing them to it. Can't be dealing with range hassle when I have a little 1 in tow.
F*ck the tories and the corrupt mates.
Maybe it's time to move to Scotland, as a nurs emy wife would gey a reasonable pay rise and no higher ed fees for kids either
I think that the term ‘wild camp’ needs to be elaborated.
A ‘wild camp’ site should be at least x many miles from a main road.
Just to deter car owners from hauling in loads of disposable bbq’s, etc.
That was always the problem at Loch Lomond. Car owners, not walkers.
If they have to walk/ cycle for miles to reach a wild camp spot, they’re going to do so as efficaciously as possible.
Take the car out of the equation and people are more selective about what they carry.
I think that the term ‘wild camp’ needs to be elaborated.
In Ireland, some of the national parks officially permit 'wild camping' and have specific inf on this, including, for Wicklow Mountains National Park:
"Camp at least 500m from a road capable of carrying a vehicle and at least 500m from a building."
Montgomery’s pics highlight the lack of fauna in between the trees.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that the forestry plantation owners have trashed the joint, but they could make amends by restoring the habitat by legally cultivating hemp.
Though, not at the taxpayers expense!
As for grouse shooting, I’ve never seen the attraction.
I’m hardly at the loftiest end of academia, but I doubt I’d find much in the way of scintillating conversation on such a sojourn.
It’s a bit of a cliche, but just as with staffy owners, you know that you can dispense with formalities like ‘doctor’ or ‘professor’, and just insert more casual titles like ‘bubba’ or ‘kappa’.
And I don’t buy into the gamekeepers are harmless.
The Scottish wildcat is pretty much extinct up here.
There’s a lot of genial old men within gamekeeing. And a staggering amount of wee shits too!
Never has the term ‘nail that coc*sucker’ been more appropriate:
LSD has demonstrated a remarkable ability to turn around the lifestyles of hardened criminals.
Perhaps it’s time to legally restart clinical trials…
A ‘wild camp’ site should be at least x many miles from a main road.
TBH my understanding is that you have to be a fair distance from a road, camping at the roadside isnt permitted?
I dont know if it was a defined distance, as per TMs link above.
Sufficient rules/laws on wild camping on Dartmoor were in place to deal with the problems. There was/is zero enforcement so it turned into a free for all, particularly during Covid.
Despite the DNPA objection to this court case, I can’t help feeling they have been complicit by their inaction in it coming to this.
As a Nordic country citizen, "right to roam" is easily one of the most important things for me, here. It was a real shock when I (years and years ago) realized that it is not a thing except in a few countries worldwide. Here you can wander, hike, bike, ski, row your boat and camp (fire making needs a permit in principle, from the landowner) everywhere in the country, save for a very few protected wilderness areas.
And that includes the right to pick berries and mushrooms.
It is sad that this is not universal.
Despite the DNPA objection to this court case, I can’t help feeling they have been complicit by their inaction in it coming to this
Or that their tears might be of the crocodile variety.
Agreement reached following wild camping discussions
Agreement has been reached that will enable people to continue wild camping in parts of Dartmoor National Park.
Landowners and the National Park Authority have worked together to agree a way forward following the High Court judgment published on Friday.
The Dartmoor Commons Owners’ Association and the National Park Authority met yesterday (18 January 2023) to discuss how wild camping on the Dartmoor Commons might be facilitated going forward.
Agreement was reached in principle on the following:
• Landowners will grant permission to the Authority to allow the public to wild camp through a permissive agreement.
• This new system will provide clear guidance on what constitutes wild camping based on the principle of ‘leave no trace’.
• Areas where the public can wild camp without seeking individual permission from landowners will be communicated via an interactive map on Dartmoor National Park Authority’s website in the coming days.
Anyone planning to wild camp now or in the future must refer to the interactive map and follow all ‘leave no trace’ principles.
Whilst the agreement is completed, wild camping (including Ten Tors and The Duke of Edinburgh Award) is permitted with immediate effect.
John Howell, Chair of Dartmoor Commons Owners’ Association, said: “We recognise the importance of people being able to enjoy the natural beauty of Dartmoor, including through wild camping, and the benefits that this can bring."
Dr Kevin Bishop, Chief Executive of Dartmoor National Park Authority, said: “We have all worked quickly and collectively to ensure clarity is provided. Our thanks go to those involved in the discussions who have engaged in this process so positively and proactively. We’re committed to working together to continue all our good work that helps keep Dartmoor special for everyone.”
All present at the meeting were clear that there is no place for illegal fly camping on Dartmoor. ‘Fly camping’, which often involves large groups with barbecues or open fires, should not be confused with true wild camping and will continue to be prohibited.
and there we go. permissive rights are better than no rights but leaves a bit of a sour taste.
I hope the appeal goes ahead still and this isn't an attempt by the landowners & DNPA to spike it.
the latest on this
They can take their Interactive map and ******** with a **** and then stuff it right up their *****************************************************************
Well said Winston.😂
Surely any payment made for wild camping would be better directed into training and education of young people to be responsible & learn camping skills etc..?
Surely any payment made for wild camping would be better directed into training and education of young people to be responsible & learn camping skills etc..?
it would, but i'm not sure you've been paying attention...
In today’s Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/apr/05/hope-for-wild-camping-on-dartmoor-as-national-park-wins-right-to-appeal-ban
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66341778
Campin's back on folks.
"A spokesperson for the Darwall family said: “‘We are disappointed by this judgment. This case highlights the many and increasing challenges we face in trying to protect the fragile environment on Dartmoor. Our mission was to conserve this special place. It is regrettable that our role as custodians is greatly diminished.”
Translated this means "We are bitterly disappointed in losing as we hate losing anything. This case highlights the many and increasing challenges we face on our first step in trying to fence off vast tracts of once public land in an effort to protect our privilege. Our mission was to reserve this expensive asset for ourselves and our rich chums. It is regrettable that our god given right to rule has been greatly diminished"
hahahaha now **** off. What a waste of money into lawyers pockets that could have gone on conservation. (proper conservation, not just rearing game birds).
So will Alexander Darwall wake up shortly to find a flash mob camping on 'his' land? I do hope so.
A fantastic result!
Having been kicked off a "Dukes'" land before, I can only conclude we're the final country of the Commonweath that hasn't been able to rid itself of a corrupt and parasitic ruling elite.
"He offers pheasant shoots, deerstalking and holiday rentals on his land, and has been using the legal system to try to bar wild campers from using the estate without his permission."
Basically, capturing a national treasure and turning it into a private asset.
Marx was right, private property in the context of land truly is theft.
The Darwall family can go **** themselves.
Brilliant. I sincerely hope Darwall has stirred an access rights hornets nest that eventually results in a Scottish style access law in England and Wales. I then hope that his fellow estate owners get the proper hump with him and carpet bomb his heather with weapons grade bratwurst cryogenically frozen in liquid nitrogen.
As a regular wild camper I think it needs rules rather than banning. I've mentioned the Spanish legal situation a couple of times. There camping is banned but sleeping is not. In practical terms that means any form of shelter - tent, tarp, hooped bivvy, improvised shelter with local material... is illegal. Sleeping with a sleeping bag and mat is allowed.
Then there's there's the fire risk. We don't carry a stove/matches in Summer or in dry periods.
So when I'm dictator I'll give people the right to roam, but also ban any fire making equipment (including cigarettes) and camping equipment beyond a sleeping bag, non-hooped bivvy bag and mat on land which benefits from right to roam.
A ‘wild camp’ site should be at least x many miles from a main road.
TBH my understanding is that you have to be a fair distance from a road, camping at the roadside isnt permitted?
I dont know if it was a defined distance, as per TMs link above.
We had a big discussion on here around this in the context of scots law and the lomond camping ban. Turns out its very hard to define a minimum distance from the road and no such rule exists in Scotland. 500m sounds reasonable at first glance - but then what about when you are lochside only 100m from the road? That would bar many canoeists from ever wild camping or when you are across a loch from the road so its a 5km walk to the road but only 300m as the crow flies.
In the end we did not come up with any way of banning the roadside campers without putting wild campers at risk even "out of sight of the road" could be problematic if you can see the road for miles because you are up on a hillside
Very good this appeal was won tho - really good news.
Is there a reason we would want to ban people from camping on the roadside? Is it because they're not doing it as part of recreation?
Is there a reason we would want to ban people from camping on the roadside? Is it because they’re not doing it as part of recreation?
post lockdown, there was that odd period where the weather was great, campsites weren't open but you could get out and about and as a result there was some fairly anti-social behavior's that could have been dealt with within the existing wild camping rules on dartmoor. driving off the road 10m and pitching a massive tent/gazebo, burning everything in sight and then leaving it all there the next morning isn't wild camping.
its more or less reverted to normal now but I think the darwells saw an opportunity.
Is there a reason we would want to ban people from camping on the roadside?
In scotland the sheer numbers of folk roadside camping particularly in camper vans causes issue plus the issue of "dirty camping"
Very good this appeal was won tho – really good news.
Wot TJ said
Perhaps it could be defined as "self sufficient camping" or similar where transport must be han powered. Shelter must be of the variety used for hiking.
This is great news but it's a bloody shame that even after this win,l we are really only celebrating being given (back) the few crumbs of land that the ultra wealthy own in England.
It's yet another illustration of the ingrained inequality in parts of the UK.
Just to set the record straight, 'property is theft' comes from Proudhon's book 'The Philosophy of Poverty' and Marx critiqued it in his book 'The Poverty of Philosophy'. The same misattribution is made in the Oppenheimer film. However, you're quite right, the land has been stolen from the people, we need to be more like the Finns and/or organise a pedants' revolt.
Whilst rebelling against farmers may seem like a nice tactic, just remember to send your family your location and movements plan, just in case.
I've walked down a lane that wasn't marked and a farmer's family came out and threatened to shoot me and dispose of my body. Wouldn't put it past anyone without a bone of humanity to do this.
Not the first time this has happened....
I’ve walked down a lane that wasn’t marked and a farmer’s family came out and threatened to shoot me and dispose of my body.
What did the police say? Chances are they have history.
a pedants’ revolt.
Plop! Unrelated, please could mods now change the thread title to "wild campers loose on Dartmoor"?
Perhaps it could be defined as “self sufficient camping” or similar where transport must be han powered. Shelter must be of the variety used for hiking.
the Scottish outdoor access code refers to Lightweight Camping. Nobody seems to want to define that, but my assumption when I first saw it drafted was it meant you could carry all your equipment yourself (in your rucksack, on your bike, in your kayak etc). If you are making multiple trips back and forth to unpack the car you are not lightweight camping in my opinion. Whilst many people look on the Scottish approach as desirable it actually creates as issue, by permitting responsible access (including camping) but giving neither land managers nor local authorities any useful power to eject or prosecute those who are acting irresponsibly. That has fed the roadside campers and wild campervans (an oxymoron) - because even if they are beyond the scope of the LRA, anything beyond telling them to move is difficult. No government will want to be seen as the party that curbed walker/cyclist/canoeist/equestrian access rights so is walking a very fine balance if it tries to fix it now. That said road traffic laws etc could probably already be used (possibly with new TROs) to control the worst issues - but as Rishi is showing, nobody wants to be seen to be “anti-motorist” either - even when most people would not be affected and most people want the problem sorted!
and/or organise a pedants’ revolt.
Led by Which Tyler…
"Wild camping will be allowed on Dartmoor after the supreme court ruled that a multimillionaire landowner was wrong to ban it on his land."
Was just about to do the same. Needs a thread title change now!. WIN. A result. Now push for a roll out in the other national parks.
Mass camp on Mr Darwall's land?
The Beeb have an article too.
Ball in your court now Labour.......where is my right to roam?
From that Guardian Article:
The supreme court ruled that camping was a form of open-air recreation, and the Dartmoor Commons Act gave the public a right to have access to the Dartmoor Commons for the purpose of camping there, provided that it was exercised by going on to the Commons on foot or on horseback.
Contrary to Darwall’s lawyers’ arguments, the court found the law did not require the person exercising the right to be on foot or on horseback at all times while they were on the commons – those are just the means that a person had to use to have access to the commons, and having gained access by those means, one could stop to pursue any kind of “open-air recreation” that fell fairly within the meaning of that phrase, which would include having a picnic, camping and other activities such as rock climbing.
Does that mean you can cycle, as long as you arrive to the area on foot (or horseback of course)?
I feel I should go exercise my right to wild camp on Dartmoor this weekend. Shame the weather forecast is looking typically "bank holiday".
Does that mean you can cycle, as long as you arrive to the area on foot (or horseback of course)?
IANAL...
PROW will allow you to cycle on bridleways/BOATs, and those rights cannot be removed via Dartmoor Commons Act 1985.
Dartmoor Commons Act 1985: "the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation". It has nothing to say on cycles.
So if that were it, then possibly yes if cycling were 'open-air recreation'. However...
The act also allows Park Authority to create byelaws. They have one preventing cycles (if not on PROW bridleway as above), and that isn't removing rights listed in the commons act (which says nothing about cycles). The proposed revisions aren't changing either.
So probably not 🙁
The current byelaw: "No person shall without reasonable excuse ride or drive a cycle, motor cycle, motor vehicle or any other mechanically propelled vehicle on any part of the access land where there is no right of way for that class of vehicle."
- “cycle” means bicycle, a tricycle or a cycle having four or more wheels not being in any case a motor cycle or motor vehicle. So unicycle would be okay if 'open-air recreation'.
- 'reasonable excuse'
- Oddly the current proposed changes added a ban on 'propel', but there is likely a change to remove that again. So presumably one can hike-a-bike/push anywhere if that is not 'driving'
(CROW 2000 restrictions on horse riding do not restrict rights provided by Dartmoor Commons Act. I guess it may instead provide additional rights but CROW explicitly does not allow for cycling anyway. If CROW changed, then that might also override the byelaw).
I feel I should go exercise my right to wild camp on Dartmoor this weekend
Spotted whilst idly reading the byelaws... as is a bank holiday weekend: "No person shall camp in a tent on the same site on the access land for more than two consecutive nights, except on any area which may be set apart and indicated by notice as a place where such camping is permitted."
(And there are areas where camping is not permitted at all, plus not within 100 metres of any public road or in any enclosure: https://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/about-us/who-we-are/byelaws)
This case highlights the many and increasing challenges we face in trying to protect the fragile environment on Dartmoor.
By overgrazing it?
By overgrazing it?
As far as I’m aware, much of what is grazed is grazed by sheep, because the land is unsuitable for anything else much, and sheep aren’t really known for overgrazing, there’s usually more land than there are sheep to fill it.
sheep aren’t really known for overgrazing
I’d understood that sheep were prone to overgrazing (and certainly grazing everything flat to the point that nothing other than grass can survive). Willing to be corrected though?
Willing to be corrected though?
Yes they can overgraze or more precisely since they are selective feeders even in relatively low numbers they can push an area to a more monocultural appearance.
Young saplings are apparently really tasty as are most wildflowers so anywhere with sheep are going to have a reduced number of those. For trees in particular this makes any regrowth pretty much impossible.
Since Bracken and Heather isnt overly nice conversely those do well when sheep are around.
There are some sites where sheep have been deliberately excluded and over a few years the difference in fauna is quite startling.
@dissonance Thanks, that’s pretty much what I’d understood, which is why sheep grazing areas tend to be monoculture grassland (which burns quite well) while impeding the regeneration of deciduous woodland (which doesn’t).
I’d understood that sheep were prone to overgrazing (and certainly grazing everything flat to the point that nothing other than grass can survive)
Very much so. Ive just been reading an article about exactly that in the Howgills, and how there's a project to exclude sheep from some areas where trees have been replanted
Similar on the Long Mynd in recent years, theres fewer sheep but a small herd of semi wild ponies instead, reduced grazing pressure is leading to more trees surviving.
