Bye bye access rights
Moderators: Bearbonesnorm, Taylor, Chew
- Dave Barter
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:21 pm
Bye bye access rights
https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-ne ... es-5908338
This will be framed as those who are irresponsible ruining it for those who are not. As it was in the 16th century during acts of enclosure.
But look deeper and you see groups of 30 cyclists being banned. I’ve been on club rides with more than that. To me this is deeply worrying. We need more open spaces not less and we can’t let the landowner rhetoric continually use minority misbehaviour to close off more spaces.
The countryside is congested because so much of it is fenced off and privately owned. In my view the answer is MORE open access not less.
This will be framed as those who are irresponsible ruining it for those who are not. As it was in the 16th century during acts of enclosure.
But look deeper and you see groups of 30 cyclists being banned. I’ve been on club rides with more than that. To me this is deeply worrying. We need more open spaces not less and we can’t let the landowner rhetoric continually use minority misbehaviour to close off more spaces.
The countryside is congested because so much of it is fenced off and privately owned. In my view the answer is MORE open access not less.
Elite keyboard warrior, DNF'er, Swearer
- Bearbonesnorm
- Posts: 23973
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
- Location: my own little world
Re: Bye bye access rights
I'll try and avoid rambling and apologise in advance
I think there are many factors that contribute to this decision (and those that will follow). I'm not convinced that greater access would presently make or have made much difference. Much of the population is completely disconnected from the countryside. They have no 'real' interest or idea and therefor are drawn to the popular honey-pots ... many of which are easily accessed by car which tends to compound the problem. The entire country could be open but those hot spots would still be heaving and as such, a cause for concern.
It would appear that many folk who have ventured into the countryside over the last 18 months do so carrying not only a disposable BBQ but also, a sense of entitlement which places their own hedonism well above any thought for the greater good or long-term sustainability. The countryside is finite and short term overuse can and will destroy the attributes that attract many there in the first place ... we all know a quick shag can all too soon turn into 18 years of child support
However, all these steps are utterly pointless (meaningless) unless they can be policed, If they can't then ultimately they can actually do more harm than good. I'd love it if everyone could enjoy the GO but do so in a responsible way with consideration given to the surroundings and other users but it appears that's perhaps too much to ask of some.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
I think there are many factors that contribute to this decision (and those that will follow). I'm not convinced that greater access would presently make or have made much difference. Much of the population is completely disconnected from the countryside. They have no 'real' interest or idea and therefor are drawn to the popular honey-pots ... many of which are easily accessed by car which tends to compound the problem. The entire country could be open but those hot spots would still be heaving and as such, a cause for concern.
It would appear that many folk who have ventured into the countryside over the last 18 months do so carrying not only a disposable BBQ but also, a sense of entitlement which places their own hedonism well above any thought for the greater good or long-term sustainability. The countryside is finite and short term overuse can and will destroy the attributes that attract many there in the first place ... we all know a quick shag can all too soon turn into 18 years of child support
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
However, all these steps are utterly pointless (meaningless) unless they can be policed, If they can't then ultimately they can actually do more harm than good. I'd love it if everyone could enjoy the GO but do so in a responsible way with consideration given to the surroundings and other users but it appears that's perhaps too much to ask of some.
May the bridges you burn light your way
- Piemonster
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:00 pm
- Location: The Fife Riviera
Re: Bye bye access rights
I’m surprisingly torn on this.
On the one hand losing rights is deeply troubling.
On the other hand the sheer numbers of entitled roasters I’ve witnessed trashing wherever they happen to be makes me understand why such moves have and will happen.
On the one hand losing rights is deeply troubling.
On the other hand the sheer numbers of entitled roasters I’ve witnessed trashing wherever they happen to be makes me understand why such moves have and will happen.
- Dave Barter
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:21 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
The reason is precisely because WE have allowed them to become disconnected by presenting all land as owned and not theirs. We either make them pay to access it (National Trust) or herd them into the areas they are allowed. We can't keep demonising people without recognising the cause. If we want change we need it at all levels. But it appears that the only answer is to shout at those with no land to enjoy/curate/make sub standard tonnes of money from whilst turning a blind eye to the destruction of huge tracts of England by industrial farming and grouse shooting.Much of the population is completely disconnected from the countryside. They have no 'real' interest or idea and therefor are drawn to the popular honey-pots ... many of which are easily accessed by car which tends to compound the problem. The entire country could be open but those hot spots would still be heaving and as such, a cause for concern.
Elite keyboard warrior, DNF'er, Swearer
- thenorthwind
- Posts: 2625
- Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 6:07 pm
- Location: Newcastle
Re: Bye bye access rights
Nail. Head.Dave Barter wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:01 amThe reason is precisely because WE have allowed them to become disconnected by presenting all land as owned and not theirs. We either make them pay to access it (National Trust) or herd them into the areas they are allowed. We can't keep demonising people without recognising the cause. If we want change we need it at all levels. But it appears that the only answer is to shout at those with no land to enjoy/curate/make sub standard tonnes of money from whilst turning a blind eye to the destruction of huge tracts of England by industrial farming and grouse shooting.Much of the population is completely disconnected from the countryside. They have no 'real' interest or idea and therefor are drawn to the popular honey-pots ... many of which are easily accessed by car which tends to compound the problem. The entire country could be open but those hot spots would still be heaving and as such, a cause for concern.
- Bearbonesnorm
- Posts: 23973
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
- Location: my own little world
Re: Bye bye access rights
I believe many have allowed THEMSELVES to become disconnected. This point may prove itself in coming months when the countryside becomes a harsher, colder, wetter and muddier place to be.The reason is precisely because WE have allowed them to become disconnected by presenting all land as owned and not theirs
Me too.’m surprisingly torn on this.
On the one hand losing rights is deeply troubling.
On the other hand the sheer numbers of entitled roasters I’ve witnessed trashing wherever they happen to be makes me understand why such moves have and will happen.
I view it like a kid drawing on the dining room wall ... are you going to teach them that although drawing is good, doing it on the wall is bad or are you just going to give 'em some more crayons and get back to watching strictly?
May the bridges you burn light your way
- Dave Barter
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:21 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Or maybe you change your view to admire the new art on your drawing room wall. To imagine what it could become if he grew into the next Banksey
Elite keyboard warrior, DNF'er, Swearer
-
- Posts: 8144
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:56 am
Re: Bye bye access rights
I've always been against the re-imposition of the camping ban around Loch Lomond. The access rights in Scotland were hard fought for.
However, having seen the situation around here (especially Loch Morlich) and the whole NC500 thing, I am much less sure that we can allow a free-for-all. I'm not sure what the answer is, though I might favour something that restricted camping within a certain distance of a public road, even though that would limit my campervan usage a bit.
FWIW I tried reading the linked article but gave up in account of the ads. With regards to club (road) rides, we limit groups to 8-12.
However, having seen the situation around here (especially Loch Morlich) and the whole NC500 thing, I am much less sure that we can allow a free-for-all. I'm not sure what the answer is, though I might favour something that restricted camping within a certain distance of a public road, even though that would limit my campervan usage a bit.
FWIW I tried reading the linked article but gave up in account of the ads. With regards to club (road) rides, we limit groups to 8-12.
- Piemonster
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:00 pm
- Location: The Fife Riviera
Re: Bye bye access rights
Dave Barter wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:00 am Or maybe you change your view to admire the new art on your drawing room wall. To imagine what it could become if he grew into the next Banksey
I’m all for artistic expression. But an unofficial roadside campsite full of human turds is beyond my appreciation.
Re: Bye bye access rights
Brilliant book for those that may not have read it, the Book of Trespass:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass- ... 221&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass- ... 221&sr=8-1
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:33 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
100%. Most people feel little or no connection to the countryside in Britain because we are constantly told and shown that it doesn't belong to us. Like most other resources that should be public goods. Tacking it all up to personal responsibility is a cop out. People's decisions aren't made in a social vacuum.thenorthwind wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:25 amNail. Head.Dave Barter wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:01 amThe reason is precisely because WE have allowed them to become disconnected by presenting all land as owned and not theirs. We either make them pay to access it (National Trust) or herd them into the areas they are allowed. We can't keep demonising people without recognising the cause. If we want change we need it at all levels. But it appears that the only answer is to shout at those with no land to enjoy/curate/make sub standard tonnes of money from whilst turning a blind eye to the destruction of huge tracts of England by industrial farming and grouse shooting.Much of the population is completely disconnected from the countryside. They have no 'real' interest or idea and therefor are drawn to the popular honey-pots ... many of which are easily accessed by car which tends to compound the problem. The entire country could be open but those hot spots would still be heaving and as such, a cause for concern.
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:12 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
A great book! One to read alongside it is guy shrubsoles ‘who owns England’Scud wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 am Brilliant book for those that may not have read it, the Book of Trespass:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass- ... 221&sr=8-1
https://www.waterstones.com/book/who-ow ... 0008321710
Also his blog and map are an interesting resource
http://map.whoownsengland.org/
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:12 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Thing is that land owners have been trashing the ‘countryside’ for generations. We just don’t perceive the damage because it is so blatant. The individuals who leave a bit of trash are more often than not simply desperate for a bit of space. They are few in numbers but an easy and convenient leverage for landowners to cement their rights to exclusive use of the land. The really sad thing is that those of us who do not own land help to strengthen that exclusivity by parroting the narrative that we are fed I.e that we need to be policed because we can’t be trusted etc etc. Farmers and land owners have had the right to completely destroy habitat, pour chemicals everywhere, build great big Agri industrial monstrosities (with out much planning control) for generations. I have to say i have very little sympathy for them. And I don’t buy the argument that the commoners cannot be trusted to use the countryside. The commoners managed it perfectly well before they were evicted and enslaved in debt.Piemonster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:01 am I’m surprisingly torn on this.
On the one hand losing rights is deeply troubling.
On the other hand the sheer numbers of entitled roasters I’ve witnessed trashing wherever they happen to be makes me understand why such moves have and will happen.
- Piemonster
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2014 7:00 pm
- Location: The Fife Riviera
Re: Bye bye access rights
Oh I perceive it all right. When I look at most countryside in the U.K. what I see is an industrialised landscape.
Almost none of it is natural. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one truly wild place in Britain.
Almost none of it is natural. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one truly wild place in Britain.
- Dave Barter
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:21 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Both of these books have completely changed my view on access and ownership. Incredibly liberating writing that makes you step out of your prejudices and understand why we are where we are. They've made me totally reevaluate my own opinions as to the solutions and importantly made me stop automatically blaming those who are pilloried for everything. Because it turns out the same people have been blamed and oppressed for centuries. The argument always turns to shutting off the land and leaving it to the landowner to "manage" (aka profit). We let ourselves be led into the view that we only have ourselves to blame.bluebus200 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:05 amA great book! One to read alongside it is guy shrubsoles ‘who owns England’Scud wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 am Brilliant book for those that may not have read it, the Book of Trespass:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass- ... 221&sr=8-1
https://www.waterstones.com/book/who-ow ... 0008321710
Also his blog and map are an interesting resource
http://map.whoownsengland.org/
I encourage anyone to read the Book of Trespass. You may not like the guy and he can't hide his politics. But you will see some of the terrible legacy we've reaped as a result of centuries of land grab. And why it will only get worse.
Elite keyboard warrior, DNF'er, Swearer
- fatbikephil
- Posts: 6590
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 10:51 pm
- Location: Fife
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye access rights
Sadly such laws are typically knee jerk reactions by politicians in order to 'be seen to be doing something' a horrible phrase that has become widely accepted in modern parlance but in fact means precisely Hee Haw - i.e its got to look like we are doing something without actually doing something. See Climate change stuff for more details....
Looking at the specifics of this it will make the people who are essentially already acting illegally criminals. Criminals don't tend to follow the law so all it does is criminalise responsible people but thats alright as its largely un-enforceable anyway. Interestingly on my jaunt around various Perthshire lochs the other day, a high percentage of roadside campers were families rather than bawbags.... Covid, like foot and mouth, has given many landowners a perfect excuse to close off more of their land and restrict access rights which poorly funded councils can't deal with.
Re the disconnecting people from the countryside, this came up in the debate over the camping bans in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park. The people engaging in the 'bad' behavior were generally coming from socially deprived backgrounds and already had no respect for society as a whole, on the basis that society hasn't ever respected them ad infinitum. The debate polarised into the countryside ranger types who were banging the drum about better education of people as a long term plan to tackle disrespect of the countryside whilst providing opportunities for all parts of society to use the newly enshrined access rights (as per the Scandis who have been doing this for generations); and the politicians and decision makers who just wanted to (wait for it) be seen to be doing something.....
Our society is cursed by politicos who can't see beyond the next election and who themselves are so disconnected from real life, can't remotely comprehend pragmatic solutions to any particular problem or issue that comes their way.
Looking at the specifics of this it will make the people who are essentially already acting illegally criminals. Criminals don't tend to follow the law so all it does is criminalise responsible people but thats alright as its largely un-enforceable anyway. Interestingly on my jaunt around various Perthshire lochs the other day, a high percentage of roadside campers were families rather than bawbags.... Covid, like foot and mouth, has given many landowners a perfect excuse to close off more of their land and restrict access rights which poorly funded councils can't deal with.
Re the disconnecting people from the countryside, this came up in the debate over the camping bans in the Loch Lomond and Trossachs national park. The people engaging in the 'bad' behavior were generally coming from socially deprived backgrounds and already had no respect for society as a whole, on the basis that society hasn't ever respected them ad infinitum. The debate polarised into the countryside ranger types who were banging the drum about better education of people as a long term plan to tackle disrespect of the countryside whilst providing opportunities for all parts of society to use the newly enshrined access rights (as per the Scandis who have been doing this for generations); and the politicians and decision makers who just wanted to (wait for it) be seen to be doing something.....
Our society is cursed by politicos who can't see beyond the next election and who themselves are so disconnected from real life, can't remotely comprehend pragmatic solutions to any particular problem or issue that comes their way.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:33 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Thanks for this point. I am sometimes surprised at the victim-blaming/self-flagellating narratives about this that come up in outdoor communities so it's nice to see that not everyone is thinking along those lines. I think that in some of the replies to this topic there is an implicit sense that you have to be a really dedicated outdoor hobbyist (more likely than not, let's be honest, with a lot of expensive gear) to be able to responsibly enjoy the countryside. In some ways that is practically true, because there is a high bar to access the countryside - it is made deliberately difficult and you are made to feel like you don't have the right to be in the wilderness, so you have to be quite bloody-minded to even try it in the first place. But there's no question in my mind it that it shouldn't be that way.bluebus200 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:16 amThing is that land owners have been trashing the ‘countryside’ for generations. We just don’t perceive the damage because it is so blatant. The individuals who leave a bit of trash are more often than not simply desperate for a bit of space. They are few in numbers but an easy and convenient leverage for landowners to cement their rights to exclusive use of the land. The really sad thing is that those of us who do not own land help to strengthen that exclusivity by parroting the narrative that we are fed I.e that we need to be policed because we can’t be trusted etc etc. Farmers and land owners have had the right to completely destroy habitat, pour chemicals everywhere, build great big Agri industrial monstrosities (with out much planning control) for generations. I have to say i have very little sympathy for them. And I don’t buy the argument that the commoners cannot be trusted to use the countryside. The commoners managed it perfectly well before they were evicted and enslaved in debt.Piemonster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:01 am I’m surprisingly torn on this.
On the one hand losing rights is deeply troubling.
On the other hand the sheer numbers of entitled roasters I’ve witnessed trashing wherever they happen to be makes me understand why such moves have and will happen.
People having irresponsible BBQs and leaving turds at a beauty spot is no doubt selfish and irresponsible behaviour. But it doesn't warrant collective punishment from landowners and the response from us shouldn't be 'oh well they were provoked into it, what else could they do'. That throws everyone else under the bus. The people who lose access to the countryside, in real terms, from stuff like this isn't hardened adventurers/hikers/bikepackers - we have maps and Garmins and bivvy bags and we know how to wild camp and where the routes are and how to get out into the wild without upsetting the farmer. It's the other 95% of people who lose out and to be honest I think we should be standing in their corner on this issue.
- In Reverse
- Posts: 1822
- Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:08 pm
- Location: Manchester
Re: Bye bye access rights
I don't see a problem with anything in those amendments tbh - the provisions made are a lot better than I expected when I opened the thread.
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:12 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Some one I can’t remember called it ‘a chemically castrated desert’Piemonster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:24 am Oh I perceive it all right. When I look at most countryside in the U.K. what I see is an industrialised landscape.
Almost none of it is natural. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one truly wild place in Britain.
-
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2020 2:12 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
Dave Barter wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:24 amBoth of these books have completely changed my view on access and ownership. Incredibly liberating writing that makes you step out of your prejudices and understand why we are where we are. They've made me totally reevaluate my own opinions as to the solutions and importantly made me stop automatically blaming those who are pilloried for everything. Because it turns out the same people have been blamed and oppressed for centuries. The argument always turns to shutting off the land and leaving it to the landowner to "manage" (aka profit). We let ourselves be led into the view that we only have ourselves to blame.bluebus200 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:05 amA great book! One to read alongside it is guy shrubsoles ‘who owns England’Scud wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:45 am Brilliant book for those that may not have read it, the Book of Trespass:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass- ... 221&sr=8-1
https://www.waterstones.com/book/who-ow ... 0008321710
Also his blog and map are an interesting resource
http://map.whoownsengland.org/
I encourage anyone to read the Book of Trespass. You may not like the guy and he can't hide his politics. But you will see some of the terrible legacy we've reaped as a result of centuries of land grab. And why it will only get worse.
If you like those and want a little more info on how it got this way, especially in terms of farmers screwing the habitat then check out graham Harvey’s book ‘the killing of the countryside’
https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Killing-Coun ... 7347051/bd
a great expose of what happened post war when the politicos in conjunction with the chemical giants (ici etc) conspired to create a grant system that encouraged the destruction of habitat, forced the taxpayer to pay for said destruction and last but not least created an economic situation that all but killed small scale farms (thus forcing people out of the countryside and into towns and debt slavery).
Re: Bye bye access rights
Contentious one, but maybe Rockall?!Piemonster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:24 am Oh I perceive it all right. When I look at most countryside in the U.K. what I see is an industrialised landscape.
Almost none of it is natural. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of one truly wild place in Britain.
![Very Happy :grin:](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
I'm also a Book of Tresspass convert (not that much needed converting, just made much more coherent) and totally agree with Bluebus' comments. The proposed law changes are preposterous in their specificity (i.e. no temporary structures/tarps/tents or guy lines!) and enforceability. And it is an absolute classic of landowners using and abusing their power purely for self-interest. Yeah, also again the tension/hypocrisy between making laws against the minority of inconsiderate people on holiday when landowners are engaged in activities with direct negative impacts to the environment on a large scale.
Further to the points above: I notice the article mentioned the motivation for updating bylaws is part of preserving what makes Dartmoor beautiful/special, yet that view of what makes that landscape special/beautiful is a recent snapshot in multiple millenia of human activity. It calls into question the mission of National Parks to "Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage" when they are preserving an industrial landscape that is often at the ebb of its historical bio- and cultural diversity.
- Bearbonesnorm
- Posts: 23973
- Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:53 pm
- Location: my own little world
Re: Bye bye access rights
Contrary to how it might appear, I actually agree with most of the comments posted BUT I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that this began as a conversation about the NPA response to the immediate problem of anti-social and blatantly cockish behaviour. Yes, maybe they could take a different approach to deal with the problem but I've not heard any suggestions yet?
Yes, there's very little 'wild' left out there and in many cases land management has been poor over the years but does that mean that we shouldn't do all we can to protect and conserve what's left or care less about it because someone didn't care before? The nice car down the road doesn't belong to me, yet I don't go down there and curl one out on the bonnet because it's not mine.
Yes, there's very little 'wild' left out there and in many cases land management has been poor over the years but does that mean that we shouldn't do all we can to protect and conserve what's left or care less about it because someone didn't care before? The nice car down the road doesn't belong to me, yet I don't go down there and curl one out on the bonnet because it's not mine.
May the bridges you burn light your way
- RIP
- Posts: 9118
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 7:24 pm
- Location: Surfing The Shores Of Sanity Since 1959
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye access rights
True enough. Good point about it just being a recent snapshot. Why not "conserve" what the UK was a thousand years ago - lots of trees - for example. Also generally what's being conserved is little herding areas, as has been pointed out, leaving the rest managed for profit. We had some folk round here recently vociferously opposing a couple of wind turbines mainly on "view" grounds, totally oblivious to the irony of their "view" being sterile fields as far as the eye can see with the odd hedge sadly interspersed.faustus wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:46 am that view of what makes that landscape special/beautiful is a recent snapshot in multiple millenia of human activity. It calls into question the mission of National Parks to "Conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage" when they are preserving an industrial landscape that is often at the ebb of its historical bio- and cultural diversity.
Also got Shrubsole and Hayes. "Wildcamping" by Stephen Neale sits next to them on my bookshelf - half the book is about historical and current access "rights".
"My God, Ponsonby, I'm two-thirds of the way to the grave and what have I done?" - RIP
The sign outside the asylum is the wrong way round.....
"At least you got some stories" - James Acaster
The sign outside the asylum is the wrong way round.....
"At least you got some stories" - James Acaster
Re: Bye bye access rights
Somewhat, but not completely, off topic: there used to be a tradition in respect of Dartmoor common land that if you could build a house in a day and fire going in the hearth by the time the sun went down, it was yours to keep as freeholder. The last instance of this happening was in 1835 and the cottage still stands: https://www.legendarydartmoor.co.uk/jolly_lane_cott.htm
There was a more formal legal right to do the same in Wales, though the house had to be built in a single night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tŷ_unnos
The right to pitch a tent for the night and move on the next day seems small beer compared to this.
There was a more formal legal right to do the same in Wales, though the house had to be built in a single night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tŷ_unnos
The right to pitch a tent for the night and move on the next day seems small beer compared to this.
- Dave Barter
- Posts: 3616
- Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2013 6:21 pm
Re: Bye bye access rights
On the NPA point. Do what we do down here? We don’t ban picnics on the beach. Our community feels ownership and we gather to litter pick. Next week I’m doing a harbour clean via kayak. We accept that there will be transgressions but mobilise communities instead of moaning and banning. I’m quite inspired by how it works as locals feel the sea is theirs. That’s what I’m trying and failing to put across. Bans kill this spirit and we can’t retreat into a defeatist attitude that with a will we could change it all for the better.Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:56 am Contrary to how it might appear, I actually agree with most of the comments posted BUT I don't think we should lose sight of the fact that this began as a conversation about the NPA response to the immediate problem of anti-social and blatantly cockish behaviour. Yes, maybe they could take a different approach to deal with the problem but I've not heard any suggestions yet?
Yes, there's very little 'wild' left out there and in many cases land management has been poor over the years but does that mean that we shouldn't do all we can to protect and conserve what's left or care less about it because someone didn't care before? The nice car down the road doesn't belong to me, yet I don't go down there and curl one out on the bonnet because it's not mine.
Elite keyboard warrior, DNF'er, Swearer