Tony, whatever the situation relating to the WAG's legislative powers, no petition is ever absolutely pointless. In a representative democracy, it is important for the people (the demos) to communicate with their representatives, and for their representatives to listen.

Next time I see my AM (who lives next door but one), I'll ask her about this. 

Wild camping should fall under the human rights act at some point should it not. Everything else seems to. I disagree that making it legal would add to the problems caused.

The type of idiots that leave beer cans and the like about are already put there, most of them are the so called eco warriors. These types will always camp out where they do. They will not be tempted to camp on kinder for example.

Maybe a simple way around it would be to make it a legal requirement that says you can wild camp 10 miles away from the nearest major road. Surely this would be enough to keep the idiots away.

The WAG could submit a Legislative Competency Order (LCO) to the Secretary of State requesting powers to pass an Assembly Measure to modify the existing Primary Legislation.

 This could fall under any of several of the Fields where the WAG has the ability to request powers.

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

So the HRA would block a low allowing wild camping unless it is in the "general interest" to pass such a law. I think it is but others might argue that it is not.

That would be interesting Kate.

For what it's worth, I am going to be negative on two counts here. Firstly, I find myself in agreement with David here, I cannot see there being a REAL benefit for the true "wild camper" in changing the law. It would indeed enshrine in law the "right" for all sorts of "undesirables" to set up on private land, to the detriment to all those wanting to “wild camp" for all the right reasons. It would be a "louts" charter.

Then there are the minority of "travellers" who cause problems to communities who would seek protection from such legislation. I don't think that the highlands of Scotland suffer particularly from either of these two blights on the community, but in England and Wales, the "remote" areas are never more than 20 minutes from urban conurbations. If something aint broke, then does it need fixing? True responsible wild campers will always find a remote spot, so why draw attention to it in this way.

My second piece of "negativity" is that I feel that this Governments petition website is a HUGE scam designed to steer protesters away from more effective forms of protest. Are they really taking it seriously? There are enough frivolous petitions appearing that lead me to believe that they are not!

David Shore wrote (see)

Maybe a simple way around it would be to make it a legal requirement that says you can wild camp 10 miles away from the nearest major road. Surely this would be enough to keep the idiots away.

That would be the whole of the Central Beacons then and most of the rest too probably.

I feel that this Governments petition website is a HUGE scam.

I think you might be right there Tony,

 I once signed a petition online and ever since I have received emails and telephone calls from the labour party, asking for my support. Im not even a member.

I did once lend Peter Hain a couple of hundred grand though.

You might want to take a look at the Scottish Access Code. It seems to me that it answers many of the objections raised.  http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/access/ApprovedCode050604.pdf

I see no reason why legislation modelled on this could not work in England and Wales. You will see that many areas are excluded such as gardens, sports fields etc.

We need a change in attitude on the part of the public to look upon their "rights" as privileges, which need to exercised responsibly and with due consideration to the impact on others. We also need a change on the part of landowners to look upon their ownership as stewardship rather than possession. The way forward is mutual respect and cooperation. I don't see why we should shy away from helping the law abiding majority to enjoy the outdoors just because there are a few idiots who abuse the system. To take it to extremes: why don't we have a curfew, then we can avoid all night time crimes.

I agree that the online petition system may be a cynical scam, but if enough of us sign up, it will be difficult to ignore.

I've thought about this for a couple of days now.

I have decided not to sign the petition as my feelings echo the sentiments of those posters above  that have expressed concerns about legalising it.

I have been wild camping in England, Scotland and Wales for over 35 years and never had an issue.  I do not feel that a "legal entitlement" will bring me any benefits.  I also think that the majority of users of this site will see few, if any, benefits. 

Just my opinion mind!

You might want to read some of Aktoman's posts on the objections in Scotland:

http://aktoman.blogspot.com/2007/06/wild-camping-thoughts.html
http://aktoman.blogspot.com/2007/06/landward-80607.html
http://aktoman.blogspot.com/2007/06/landward-ho.html

One of the key points is that certain types of behaviour remove the right to wild camp. Understanding that helps remove some of the fears IMHO.

BTW I've no objection if anyone disagrees with the petition. That is your prerogative.

 I totally agree with Bobby Charlton 2. If it works leave well alone.

Well said John. I had hoped that my internet handle might provoke thoughts of the Kinder trespass.

Up to 280 signatures now.