If you have a 2000ft rule you automatically ban camping in England everywhere south of the Pennines.
So no more camping on Dartmoor, Exmoor? New Forest?
Even some areas north of the Peak such as the West Pennine Moors, Bowland, the South Pennines.
As for only camping on commercial sites along the coast... well, I regard myself as free range, not battery farmed! There are long stretches of good coastal scenery without campsites.
Those who are imaginative enough, and who love fresh air and open space enough, can find wilderness wherever they just take a little effort to find it. Can't remember which issue sadly, but Andrew Terrill wrote a marvellous piece in TGO several months back about a wild camp in the south of England, not far from home, in which he managed to convey all that is so special about wild camping.
A 2000ft rule would mean that everyone in the south of England who wanted to sample wild camping on a backpacking trip would have to drive more than a hundred miles north - and I'm sure no-one wants crowded roads, crowded hills and more CO2 emissions...
What am I saying? Backpackers don't really come in migratory flocks, do we!
It's interesting regarding the south of England. I walked part of the Cotswold Way and had to 'wild' camp as there was no actual alternative - tourism facilities in that area seem entirely geared to people with private transport staying in guest houses/B&Bs. I would like to do the North and South Downs Ways as well, and it seems to be the same. Yet there are still opportunities to camp that are not on used farmland - mainly heath and woods - that would not be a mile from a road (I'm not sure that anywhere in the South East would be), and are often absolutely lovely sites. I don't like feeling awkward and illegal when camping, and I do feel that people should have the right in such areas.
Good point - you're right, some places might be suitable but within a mile of a road. That's one of the reasons why Leave No Trace/Minimum Impact camping should be an absolute priority. Otherwise if you're spotted would set a terrible example to those less aware of the correct style of camping.
The perception currently is that CROW took away the right to camp on wild land and I'm more concerned that we regain this right.
It's news to me that we ever had that right in England and Wales. I don't think the CRoW Act has made any difference. Indeed, apart from symbolically, the CRoW Act has made little difference to me as a walker either. Some of the places I wish to walk in are not covered by CRoW so I either go there unobtrusively (trespassing) or I change my plans - just like the old days.
One good thing about the current state of affairs is that it encourages unobtrusive camping.
jon i think you're absolutely correct, it encourages unobtrusive camping.
and john, your last comment fits the current situation well.
as nnpb says, it would be virtually impossiblt ot categorise land in the south east. wherever you you are you are never far from a road, habitation or arable. there are places you can stop when you've searched them out and generally nobody minds.
I think we in general are talking about the majority of wild campers in the truer sense of the word, those responsible people who generally camp well out of sight of civilisation and indeed camp with the right attitude.
In the cases referred to be NNPB, is there not a danger of encouraging the less able camper with the wrong attitude to take it up thus causing tensions and problem of pollution?
At least with the current situation, the landowner has the discretion to make informed choices, it would be too late once the damage has been done by campers attending the ever increasing country raves in the summer months!
Giving carte blanch camping rights to the minority of decent wild campers who neither need them and in most cases don't want them, would open the door to the "urbanites" who would use the powers for the wrong reasons, thus placing the good will that exists now at risk!
In the cases referred to be NNPB, is there not a danger of encouraging the less able camper with the wrong attitude to take it up thus causing tensions and problem of pollution?
I see the argument, but firstly I do not think it would be a big problem - it does not seem to be in Scotland (roadside camping doesn't count IMO) - and secondly I don't agree with the idea that because some people will abuse rights or facilities that these rights and facilities should not be on offer. Examples - it's very sad that some folk treat bothies badly, but the MBA, rightly and admirably, do not throw up their hands and give up on their work of bothy maintenance. In contrast, it now seems to be virtually impossible to find a public lavatory in many towns or cities because, I assume, of what is feared might happen to them in inconsiderate hands - thus, everyone suffers.
As for the "good will that exists now", surely a reasonable right is preferable to an informal grace-and-favour arrangement?
it probably wouldn't be a problem as you say nnpb. but then it's not a problem now. is it? (i don't know)
but would having a permission (i prefer that to "right") change anything either?
why have the aggravation and expense to publicise something that many don't know happens? why send landowners into a frenzy of paranoia as they will undoubtedly seek to gain exemption on all sorts of grounds, spurious or real.
i think that rying to apply such legislation, to england especially, would just end up with the legislation being as big a mess as the fox hunting legislation has been.
I see your viewpoint too NNPB but, I think it is not really helpful to compare the Scottish experience to hold up as an example of the good side of the argument, when their unique situation may be the reason that they don't face he problems that MIGHT appear in the rest of the UK..
Take Wales in isolation for example, leaving England aside for the time being.
Scotland has VAST swathes of remote highland well isolated from centres of habitation. That MIGHT mean that any negative implications from the practice in the rarer urban areas of Scotland are masked by the fact that such negative elements don't get prominence.
The remotest spots in Wales however are never more than 10 miles from the nearest habitation and indeed, 4 of the five largest English cities are only just over the border, not to mention the highly concentrated populace of South Wales. It has to be acknowledged too, that in the case of South Wales, much of that populace is faced with huge social-economic problems and the delinquency attached to hard times.
I would NEVER park my vehicle south of the Brecon Beacons for example!
The Welsh Police forces are plagued in the summer with huge Raves and Wales still seems to attract the "new age" travelling, "I want to opt out of society but still get my benefit" types, both groups engaging in what is in effect "wild camping."
It is difficult enough moving on undesirable "travellers" as it is, it MIGHT be even more so if there are further complications caused by a "camp anywhere against the wishes of the landowner" policy!
"Wild camping" in most of Wales is NOT a problem, most landowners tolerate it and it is only the National Parks who prohibit it, and they must have their reasons for that. There may be a case for some sort of "concession" in such instances, but I really don't think the genuine "wild camper" has much to gain from some sort of camp anywhere free for all!
The arguments seem to be coming full circle and, while much more intelligently argued, are starting to remind me of some of the comments over on the Trail forum's wild camping thread, which rang of "I'm okay Jack".
But there's also another issue rearing its head here. Rightly or wrongly some folk seem fearful of an "urbanite" invasion of the hills, of folk heading into the hills who "shouldn't be there".
I don't feel able to campaign for these folk to be blanket-banned. Rather, we should be doing them and ourselves a favour by informing them of the best way to camp, that how leave no trace means just that. If they listen and learn, they'll be new recruits to the greatest activity I know; if they chose to ignore best-practice, they'll be prosecuted (in the civil or criminal courts).
I was a tyro myself once upon a (too long a while ago) time and made mistakes. Anyone who didn't, hold up their hands. I recall more than 20 years ago chucking pop cans into the Wharfe and seeing who could sink them by chucking a stone.
I was put right, I learned, and am I grateful for that. Same should be happening now - or can we just not be bothered?
As previously stated, any folk intent on causing upset and damage aren't going to give a flyin' fig whether it's legal or not - they'll do it anyway, if they aren't already.
Groups of "undesirable" travellers is another matter. Some councils already provide places for them to camp legally; and the changes we're talking about here would include definitions of WILD camping under which the type of land abuse being alluded to would not fall into.
"Undesirable" travellers have chosen their own lifestyle, just as we have. They're different lifestyles but as long as everyone stays on the right side of the law we should all be able to co-exist within our own domains (I was going to use the word "fields" but decided against it).
So, please, can I be on the right side of the law?
Let me firstly apologise for using the term "urbanite," I thought carefully before using it and couldn't think of a better term.
I don't necessarily mean someone who comes from an "urban" environment, I would hazard a guess that a number of those "decent" wild campers live and work in the large cities and towns, and to be fair, that is why they probably make up a large proportion of those participating.
I really mean the sorts of youths (mainly) who have no intention of enjoying nature, but are part of the latest trend of summer "visitors" whose only intention is to join the frequently held drugs parties and raves and therefore camp"rough" (rather than "wild")
These are the "sorts" who could upset the delicate balance that now exists.
As for your last comment, there is an easy answer to that, ask the landowner's permission and you are! (If they agree)
We have to remember that where there are organisations who do not give permission, they are hardy likely to be happy about being forced to, and may well find other ways of being "awkward."
An example of that would be fire risk. I would imagine that there would HAVE to be a failsafe of allowing the landowners to be able to restict access, just like crow does in perceived risk situations.
In Wales, (and mainly because of vandals) they are absolutely paranoid about fire risk. Where the wardens now turn a "blind eye" after checking out bona fide wild campers, they may have a different attitude and close access if we get 2 hours of sunshine in any one day!
Agree on many of your points - as I still see a solution being an amendment of CROW, the risk of fire would be covered. If that same solution included a definition similar if not identical to that in the Scottish Access Code, then the groups you mention wouldn't even get a look in unless they behaved in an acceptable manner.
As an aside, a good friend of mine did a lot of work with disadvantaged kids from various environments - kids who'd picked up some of the behavioural habits you mention; drugs, drink, etc. The kids formed part of the crew of a sailing ship, worked as teams, learned disciplines and responsibilities they'd never been trusted with before and many turned over a completely new leaf.
I know what you're referring to - and I admit one of the joys of moving away from Glasgow has been the fact that we've left so much of the residue of that culture (crime, drugs, drunkenness etc) behind - but not all of them can be written off.
I'd be bloomin' chuffed if something like TGO's Minimum Impact leave-no-trace style special (available on the website) enabled more folk from such situations to benefit from the fantastic experience of wild camping and enjoying the landscape. And they more than anyone might appreciate being on the right side of the law, and able to relax more for it. Just an aside.
Does anybody know if it is actually illegal to wild camp in most of England? I've been assuming it isn't. John M quotes from CROW:
"General restrictions 1 Section 2 (1) does not entitle a person to be on any land if, in or on that land, he— ... (s) engages in any organised games, or in camping, hang-gliding or para-gliding, or... (etc etc etc)"
which kind of reflects my point (which nobody has really addressed - perhaps it's nonsense).
In John's quote we see that camping is illegal in certain areas, so I assume it isn't illegal outside that area.
My point was the reverse of that. If wild camping is legalised in the areas Darren's petition calls for, it becomes illegal outside those areas.
If wild camping is already illegal throughout England, then that's news to me, and my argument is dead. If there isn't a countrywide law specifying that it's illegal, then there will be (with Darren's exeptions) if Darren's petition is adopted.
Aye, the whole thing needs tidying and clarifying. There ARE places where camping shouldn't be permitted; there are also grey areas. It might be that on some large municipal parks a camp might be acceptable (as long as you don't use your trowel in the flowerbeds!) - and I'm sure a lot of end-to-end walkers, for instance, have found themselves in an urban area late at night and had to camp-by-stealth and clear off before the milkman started his rounds. I' ve heard of folk pitching on the central reservation of a dual carriageway - not ideal, but why should it be illegal if they're not doing any damage, causing offence or endangering anyone (that last point might be tenuous!)?
But we're already getting into the minutia - the precise definition will be battled through once we've established the principle that there is a demand/desire for the legitimate right to wild camp by signing Darren's petition and making the government aware of that demand/desire.
356 signatures by my last count - please read through this thread and the blog postings and consider adding your own name to the growing list.
Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I can't help thinking Darren would have got a lot more signtures if he'd phrased his petition a bit better. Right from the start I've read it as being allowed to camp in certain specified areas. I didn't realise that once he'd got the PM's ear he was going to casually slip in the rest of the country unnoticed.
"please read through this thread and the blog postings and consider adding your own name to the growing list."
Okay, I've read this thread and Andy Howell's blog. Point me to some other thoughtful blogs.
And of course John Manning - who'll be adding some more words in the near future...
There are others out there, probably some with wiser words than these. Easily found too - here's a Google search result - and the findings there contain plenty of links to others.
Okay, read some blogs. Gayle's is good, Cameron seems to have not paid his bill. I'm wavering. Sorry to be such a stick in the mud, but I can't expect anybody to take a petition seriously unless I've taken it seriously.
I still can't sort out what the consequences would be outside the specified areas (it's never going to be a countrywide thing is it?).
