Old Crockern invites
January 25, 2023 2:58 AM Subscribe
The lungs of the nation: Last weekend 3,000 people rallied to Dartmoor [SW England] to protect the right to camp wild on the uplands. Recent court case found that this right was wrong.
Vox Pop from PoliticsJoe [9 mins]. Old Crockern was invoked.
"If he scratches my back
I'll tear out his pocket."
Dartmoor has many other legendary figures waiting for the call.
Context: it's 90 years since the 1932 Kinder Trespass in the English Peak District. [MetaPrev]
Dartmoor National Park is 100 km2 or 235,000 acres in extent: about the size of Mt Rainier Nat Park. In Finland Jokamiehen oikeudet allows people to access the countryside respectfully.
Vox Pop from PoliticsJoe [9 mins]. Old Crockern was invoked.
"If he scratches my back
I'll tear out his pocket."
Dartmoor has many other legendary figures waiting for the call.
Context: it's 90 years since the 1932 Kinder Trespass in the English Peak District. [MetaPrev]
Dartmoor National Park is 100 km2 or 235,000 acres in extent: about the size of Mt Rainier Nat Park. In Finland Jokamiehen oikeudet allows people to access the countryside respectfully.
... as do Iceland and Estonia! (Sweden's policy)
posted by St. Oops at 4:15 AM on January 25, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by St. Oops at 4:15 AM on January 25, 2023 [3 favorites]
...and Scotland.
I have a theory that stuff like this is that unlike most of Europe, the UK never really had a historical break with the landowning class.
posted by treblekicker at 5:19 AM on January 25, 2023 [8 favorites]
I have a theory that stuff like this is that unlike most of Europe, the UK never really had a historical break with the landowning class.
posted by treblekicker at 5:19 AM on January 25, 2023 [8 favorites]
For a bit more context for non-Brits, note that whereas in the US, National Parks are owned and managed by the government, a National Park in Britain can and does consist of private land. Just 15 landowners own half of Dartmoor National Park.
So, much of the conflict here is between those landowners attempting to remove rights and people who are trying to exercise what they see as historic rights. These rights hinge also on the Dartmoor Commons Act of 1985, which provided that "the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation." Private landowners are arguing that camping and possibly even picnics are disallowed and so far the courts agree with them.
posted by vacapinta at 5:37 AM on January 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
So, much of the conflict here is between those landowners attempting to remove rights and people who are trying to exercise what they see as historic rights. These rights hinge also on the Dartmoor Commons Act of 1985, which provided that "the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and on horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation." Private landowners are arguing that camping and possibly even picnics are disallowed and so far the courts agree with them.
posted by vacapinta at 5:37 AM on January 25, 2023 [4 favorites]
This makes me want to drive up there and take a shit on this guy's land. So he doesn't miss out. I won't be camping, so hopefully that is ok.
posted by biffa at 8:42 AM on January 25, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by biffa at 8:42 AM on January 25, 2023 [3 favorites]
If the courts have been striking down these rights is there any scope for the government to better enshrine them in law? I'd imagine the landowners are all Tory donors and would resist it but I'd expect that a lot of people wanting to exercise these rights are also Tories and could apply pressure on their local MPs.
Just 15 landowners own half of Dartmoor National Park.
I'd heard of the right to roam and thought it was a great idea but didn't realize why it was needed so much in England. I don't think we have any such right here in Canada but there is lots of land that has never been deeded to anyone and so still belongs to the Crown which we are free to hike and camp on.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:27 AM on January 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
Just 15 landowners own half of Dartmoor National Park.
I'd heard of the right to roam and thought it was a great idea but didn't realize why it was needed so much in England. I don't think we have any such right here in Canada but there is lots of land that has never been deeded to anyone and so still belongs to the Crown which we are free to hike and camp on.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:27 AM on January 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
→
Kinda. Mostly. But only if it's not J K Rowling's or (recently charged with human trafficking offences) Ann Gloag's land.
posted by scruss at 1:07 PM on January 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
...and Scotland.
Kinda. Mostly. But only if it's not J K Rowling's or (recently charged with human trafficking offences) Ann Gloag's land.
posted by scruss at 1:07 PM on January 25, 2023 [1 favorite]
No right to roam in Canada though there are some rights to access water. In BC something like 95% of the province is Crown land though practically all that land is unceeded land of various First Nations and you are generally allow entry to Crown land including camping for limited periods unless otherwise restricted. Enshrining a right to roam into law would be great and is never ever going to happen as practically all landowners would be against it.
posted by Mitheral at 8:29 PM on January 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 8:29 PM on January 25, 2023 [2 favorites]
If the courts have been striking down these rights is there any scope for the government to better enshrine them in law? I'd imagine the landowners are all Tory donors and would resist it but I'd expect that a lot of people wanting to exercise these rights are also Tories and could apply pressure on their local MPs.
It's not really a general trend so much as one specific court case. Dartmoor has historically been considered the only place where you had the right to wild camp in England because of the 1985 act. A court has now found that the wording of the act never allowed wild camping. I'm not a lawyer but reading that text, the court does sort of have a point - the "open-air recreation" wording seems like it might or might not include camping but it's part of that sentence about right of access on foot and on horseback that causes a problem. Most commons around England have similar language and it is not typically considered that you can camp on a village commons.
The obvious solution is just to change the law but "right to roam" laws are very unpopular with farmers (yes, Conservative donors and voters) so that will have to wait for our next government.
I have a theory that stuff like this is that unlike most of Europe, the UK never really had a historical break with the landowning class.
Maybe, although there are plenty of other European countries that have never gone through a revolutionary upset against large landowners.
The right to roam is really a traditional Nordic thing which has been extended out further South by modern political movements.
Equivalent rights seem to come from a few different sources:
-The "right to roam" which includes camping comes from Nordic cultural traditions and while only recently codified into law, is very ancient indeed
-"rights of way" are common across the continent and in many places have been expanded out from their traditional "transit" rights to include some forms of camping
-Modern adoption of the idea of "right to roam" by countries where that was not the historical norm.
The general right to roam (but not camp) enters English law in 2000 with the Countryside Rights of Way Act which builds on the existing legal framework of Rights of Way.
In Scotland, the 2003 act formalises an ancient established customary right much closer to the Nordic idea.
But then the physical and human geography of Scotland is more Nordic as well, that isn't a coincidence.
I'll note that in France (surely the anti-UK from the POV of having had breaks with the landowning class but with similarly dense agriculture to England) does *not* have a right to camp on wild land except in German-influenced Alsace.
In Germany as well, the situation is complicated. It depends on the specific state, on the type of land (open landscape, forest, field, etc.) whether you're in a tent or a bivvy bag, whether the land is state owned (I think in some places whether or not the land is owned by a natural person or a company). In general I would say you cannot camp in a tent in Germany without permission but there are exceptions).
So it's essentially the case that this is a Nordic customary right, adopted to some degree by neighbouring countries and that how land is used in those countries has a big effect on how that right is used. I don't think it's a coincidence that densely populated Denmark, which shares so much culturally with the Nordic countries has a restricted version compared to the nearly unlimited Nordic rights of access.
posted by atrazine at 4:46 AM on January 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's not really a general trend so much as one specific court case. Dartmoor has historically been considered the only place where you had the right to wild camp in England because of the 1985 act. A court has now found that the wording of the act never allowed wild camping. I'm not a lawyer but reading that text, the court does sort of have a point - the "open-air recreation" wording seems like it might or might not include camping but it's part of that sentence about right of access on foot and on horseback that causes a problem. Most commons around England have similar language and it is not typically considered that you can camp on a village commons.
The obvious solution is just to change the law but "right to roam" laws are very unpopular with farmers (yes, Conservative donors and voters) so that will have to wait for our next government.
I have a theory that stuff like this is that unlike most of Europe, the UK never really had a historical break with the landowning class.
Maybe, although there are plenty of other European countries that have never gone through a revolutionary upset against large landowners.
The right to roam is really a traditional Nordic thing which has been extended out further South by modern political movements.
Equivalent rights seem to come from a few different sources:
-The "right to roam" which includes camping comes from Nordic cultural traditions and while only recently codified into law, is very ancient indeed
-"rights of way" are common across the continent and in many places have been expanded out from their traditional "transit" rights to include some forms of camping
-Modern adoption of the idea of "right to roam" by countries where that was not the historical norm.
The general right to roam (but not camp) enters English law in 2000 with the Countryside Rights of Way Act which builds on the existing legal framework of Rights of Way.
In Scotland, the 2003 act formalises an ancient established customary right much closer to the Nordic idea.
But then the physical and human geography of Scotland is more Nordic as well, that isn't a coincidence.
I'll note that in France (surely the anti-UK from the POV of having had breaks with the landowning class but with similarly dense agriculture to England) does *not* have a right to camp on wild land except in German-influenced Alsace.
In Germany as well, the situation is complicated. It depends on the specific state, on the type of land (open landscape, forest, field, etc.) whether you're in a tent or a bivvy bag, whether the land is state owned (I think in some places whether or not the land is owned by a natural person or a company). In general I would say you cannot camp in a tent in Germany without permission but there are exceptions).
So it's essentially the case that this is a Nordic customary right, adopted to some degree by neighbouring countries and that how land is used in those countries has a big effect on how that right is used. I don't think it's a coincidence that densely populated Denmark, which shares so much culturally with the Nordic countries has a restricted version compared to the nearly unlimited Nordic rights of access.
posted by atrazine at 4:46 AM on January 26, 2023 [2 favorites]
But then the physical and human geography of Scotland is more Nordic as well, that isn't a coincidence.
Was it people by Nordic types long ago? I know virtually nothing about the physical and human geography of Scotland so I am having trouble understanding this point. Naturally, atrazine is not obliged to educate me.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:05 AM on January 27, 2023
Was it people by Nordic types long ago? I know virtually nothing about the physical and human geography of Scotland so I am having trouble understanding this point. Naturally, atrazine is not obliged to educate me.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:05 AM on January 27, 2023
Not really, what I meant by human geography is settlement patterns - a lot of Scotland is really lightly settled (partially because of poor agricultural land quality, but also because of events like the Highland Clearances) so if you've got land as far as the eye can see that has no houses on it and may not even be actively farmed there's a sort of human tendency to think that natural justice should allow you to use that land in certain ways.
Land which isn't intensively cultivated, whether it's forested, heather, or meadow just "looks" like you should be allowed to walk through it.
England, like France, has a lot less land like that - usually if you're almost anywhere in the country you can see at least see signs of settlement and intensive farming.
posted by atrazine at 1:15 AM on January 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Land which isn't intensively cultivated, whether it's forested, heather, or meadow just "looks" like you should be allowed to walk through it.
England, like France, has a lot less land like that - usually if you're almost anywhere in the country you can see at least see signs of settlement and intensive farming.
posted by atrazine at 1:15 AM on January 27, 2023 [1 favorite]
Thanks, that makes total sense.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:28 AM on January 27, 2023
posted by Bella Donna at 1:28 AM on January 27, 2023
« Older This of course is Fflewddur Fflam, that outrageous... | Adult Swim Drops Justin Roiland After Domestic... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Harald74 at 3:37 AM on January 25, 2023 [1 favorite]