You should go and watch the Three Peaks Yacht Race going through the Swellies. Or the Raft Race. As long as the tide is going the right way the Swellies are sailable! I have seen big multihulls being rowed through, with the tide flowing, and rafters clinging to every rock.
There is a nice line in RF Delderfield's: Post of Honour, Vol II relating to the cost in human lives amid The Great War that goes something like: ".. most of the men fighting for their country didn't own a square inch of it.."Most of us own little or none of our native land.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... p-dartmoorA wealthy landowner is pressing ahead with legal moves that could threaten the right of backpackers and youth groups to wild camp on Dartmoor.
A small group of right-to-roam activists built a protest camp over the weekend on the estate owned by Alexander Darwall and his wife, who are challenging the legal basis of bylaws that allow for wild camping on the moor, despite a growing outcry from local people, hikers and environmentalists.
Dartmoor is the only place in England and Wales where it is legal to wild camp in designated areas, without a landowner’s permission. While all the land in the national park is in private hands, local farmers, known as commoners, have long had rights to graze their livestock on unenclosed parts of the moor. People have also camped in these areas for at least 100 years, with bylaws brought in under the Dartmoor Commons Act in the mid-1980s enshrining it as a right.
Guy Shrubsole, an environmental campaigner and author who helped organise the protest camp on the Darwalls’ Blachford estate, said the group was seeking to protect ancient customs and rights, which have allowed people to connect to the moor’s celebrated landscape and nature for centuries. “The right to wild camp on Dartmoor is so precious. There’s nothing like waking up to the mist rising over Dartmoor. Or seeing the Milky Way on a clear night, if you’re lucky. These are absolutely magical experiences that stay with you for life.”
And perhaps the water has been muddied by the increased number of irresponsible campers who have been in the news over the past couple of years, leaving their rubbish and potentially starting wildfires. If only wild campers were all the clean-up-after-yourself variety, who bother nobody.Mike Sales wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 9:37am More removal of commons rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... p-dartmoorA wealthy landowner is pressing ahead with legal moves that could threaten the right of backpackers and youth groups to wild camp on Dartmoor.
A small group of right-to-roam activists built a protest camp over the weekend on the estate owned by Alexander Darwall and his wife, who are challenging the legal basis of bylaws that allow for wild camping on the moor, despite a growing outcry from local people, hikers and environmentalists.
Dartmoor is the only place in England and Wales where it is legal to wild camp in designated areas, without a landowner’s permission. While all the land in the national park is in private hands, local farmers, known as commoners, have long had rights to graze their livestock on unenclosed parts of the moor. People have also camped in these areas for at least 100 years, with bylaws brought in under the Dartmoor Commons Act in the mid-1980s enshrining it as a right.
Guy Shrubsole, an environmental campaigner and author who helped organise the protest camp on the Darwalls’ Blachford estate, said the group was seeking to protect ancient customs and rights, which have allowed people to connect to the moor’s celebrated landscape and nature for centuries. “The right to wild camp on Dartmoor is so precious. There’s nothing like waking up to the mist rising over Dartmoor. Or seeing the Milky Way on a clear night, if you’re lucky. These are absolutely magical experiences that stay with you for life.”
These irresponsible types are a useful weapon for the landowners, but of course littering etc. is illegal anyway. Isn't there a resemblance to the way irresponsible cyclists are used to attack the rest of us?pwa wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 10:51am
And perhaps the water has been muddied by the increased number of irresponsible campers who have been in the news over the past couple of years, leaving their rubbish and potentially starting wildfires. If only wild campers were all the clean-up-after-yourself variety, who bother nobody.
There is a trust gap that can be filled if a mechanism is found for bringing the landowner and the responsible wild camper together for a chat, where, as likely as not, they would find that they have a lot in common. A love of unspoit and wild places and so forth. In a job I used to have I would sometimes get a member of the local Ramblers chatting with a nervous landowner, and as their discussion became more relaxed they would tend to widen it and find that they wanted more or less the same things, namely gates left as they should be, no litter, no noise, and the countryside respected and preserved. Landowners sometimes fear an enemy who turns out to be a friend.Mike Sales wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 11:32amThese irresponsible types are a useful weapon for the landowners, but of course littering etc. is illegal anyway. Isn't there a resemblance to the way irresponsible cyclists are used to attack the rest of us?pwa wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 10:51am
And perhaps the water has been muddied by the increased number of irresponsible campers who have been in the news over the past couple of years, leaving their rubbish and potentially starting wildfires. If only wild campers were all the clean-up-after-yourself variety, who bother nobody.
Most of the environmental damage has been done by the landowners.
Some fires are deliberately started by them.
I would guess that most of the camping litter is left by those who cannot be bothered to walk far from the road. Or is just general rubbish dumped, the sorts I see along roads everywhere.
A similar situation exists for canoeists who wish to travel along rivers where rights are 'disputed'. They're in a legal no man's land, although appropriate behaviour isn't challenged. Landowners are concerned that "Rights of Passage' would open up all sorts of problems, it's a bizarre situation on which the law hasn't been decided in England and Wales. In Scotland, with the usual provisos, rivers are open access.pwa wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 12:37pm
There is a trust gap that can be filled if a mechanism is found for bringing the landowner and the responsible wild camper together for a chat, where, as likely as not, they would find that they have a lot in common. A love of unspoit and wild places and so forth. In a job I used to have I would sometimes get a member of the local Ramblers chatting with a nervous landowner, and as their discussion became more relaxed they would tend to widen it and find that they wanted more or less the same things, namely gates left as they should be, no litter, no noise, and the countryside respected and preserved. Landowners sometimes fear an enemy who turns out to be a friend.
I'm pretty sure the rules that allow wild camping on Dartmoor don't include those using cars, those in large tents and those in large groups. You can't differentiate between individuals, but it shouldn't be hard to differentiate between activities. Of course that requires enforcement, but then so does a blanket ban.pwa wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 6:46am there might be hoards turning up with vehicles that they clog the lanes with, causing fires and noise and leaving mess on the land. Because, of course, you cannot tell one person they are the right sort to use the facility, but turn another person away because they aren't.
I am reminded of the problem some places have had with raves. There was one during one of the lockdowns, in forestry beside a small former mining village in South Wales. The streets of the village became a car park, with residents unable to get their own vehicles, or emergency vehicles, up their own streets. The police did not have the numbers to do much at all about it. Now I know there is a chasm of a difference between this and one cyclist camping overnight, out of sight of anyone. But I can see how a fear of large scale upheaval might make some people nervous and lead to them thinking that a ban on wild camping may be part of the answer to their fears.PH wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 8:46amI'm pretty sure the rules that allow wild camping on Dartmoor don't include those using cars, those in large tents and those in large groups. You can't differentiate between individuals, but it shouldn't be hard to differentiate between activities. Of course that requires enforcement, but then so does a blanket ban.pwa wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 6:46am there might be hoards turning up with vehicles that they clog the lanes with, causing fires and noise and leaving mess on the land. Because, of course, you cannot tell one person they are the right sort to use the facility, but turn another person away because they aren't.
No. Just no. We've had the right to wild camp on Dartmoor for many years, yet none of what you describe has happened. The only issues the NPA had was with car campers, and that's never been allowed anyway.pwa wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 6:46am Momentarily trying to put myself in the shoes of a concerned landowner / tenant on Dartmoor, I suspect that one big worry might be that if an area becomes widely known as a place where you can just go and pitch up, unchallenged, the number of wild campers might grow to an extent where it does become a problem, and it might open up the possibility of gatherings with other issues for those who have to live adjacent. Instead of having a handful of quiet, well behaved backpackers, there might be hoards turning up with vehicles that they clog the lanes with, causing fires and noise and leaving mess on the land. Because, of course, you cannot tell one person they are the right sort to use the facility, but turn another person away because they aren't.
I am suggesting that the fear is one of loss of control, where if the door is left open for small numbers of decent folk it is also left open for large numbers of less well behaved people.
No, of course not. And I didn't mean to imply that collective responsibility was okay when I made that comment 4 months ago. I was simply trying to understand some of the fear that may exist on the other side of the debate. If you understand another person's fears, you can begin to think about ways of dealing with them. Responsible wild campers are unlikely to be a problem to anybody. So how do we filter out irresponsible camping, which is an annoyance to you and me, as well as to landowners?WillCycle wrote: ↑7 Feb 2023, 1:40pmNo. Just no. We've had the right to wild camp on Dartmoor for many years, yet none of what you describe has happened. The only issues the NPA had was with car campers, and that's never been allowed anyway.pwa wrote: ↑12 Oct 2022, 6:46am Momentarily trying to put myself in the shoes of a concerned landowner / tenant on Dartmoor, I suspect that one big worry might be that if an area becomes widely known as a place where you can just go and pitch up, unchallenged, the number of wild campers might grow to an extent where it does become a problem, and it might open up the possibility of gatherings with other issues for those who have to live adjacent. Instead of having a handful of quiet, well behaved backpackers, there might be hoards turning up with vehicles that they clog the lanes with, causing fires and noise and leaving mess on the land. Because, of course, you cannot tell one person they are the right sort to use the facility, but turn another person away because they aren't.
I am suggesting that the fear is one of loss of control, where if the door is left open for small numbers of decent folk it is also left open for large numbers of less well behaved people.
Alexander Darwal used those same arguments, yet after winning in court, has permitted wild camping on (most of) his land again, following a deal under which the NPA pays landowners to allow it. It was NEVER about preventing mess, or anything similar.
And besides, I'm responsible for someone else's mess just the same way YOU are responsible for someone else choosing to drink and drive, in other words, not at all. Collective blame is not something to uphold.
