Concern is growing among outdoor professionals about what they see as a fundamental mistake in Downing Street’s rejection of the recent e-petition to allow wild camping in England.
Wild camping in the Lake District
In giving the thumbs-down to Darren Christie’s appeal to legalise wild camping south of the border, the Prime Minister’s office said: “On open access land wild camping is prohibited under Schedule 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which lists all restricted activities.” Yet Andy Say of Mountain Leader Training England says this is not so.
The act simply details restrictions on people exercising the right of access, one of which is camping. It does not actually prohibit this activity; it says that walkers using the CRoW Act cannot claim the right to camp while exercising their rights. The danger, says Mr Say, is that Downing Street’s erroneous interpretation of the law may lead to some landowners trying to use the Government’s response to justify kicking campers off open land.
Mr Say said: “The government has said that the 2000 CRoW Act prohibits wild camping on open access land, but this is not the case.
“The CRoW Act states where walkers have the right to roam. It does not say what you can and can’t do as part of your walk. All the CRoW Act says about wild camping is that you cannot use the act to justify that you have a legal right to do it. The act definitely does not prohibit wild camping. Misuse of this word confuses the issue, as wild camping discreetly on remote fells is tolerated by many landowners, like the National Trust in the Lake District.”
Any potential prohibition would cause immense problems for the Mountain Leader training scheme, which many leaders undertake in order to lead groups on the uplands of the British Isles.
Mr Say said: “I have grave concerns over misuse of the word ‘prohibited’. Wild camping is a mandatory part of Mountain Leader Training Award assessment and provides adventure for a great many walkers. The latest Government’s misinterpretation could give landowners the carte blanche to charge or even evict us from land which we have used for years.”
Andy Say, the MLTE executive secretary, is so concerned about the Downing Street response, that he is urging outdoors enthusiasts to respond to the Prime Minister’s office. If you share his worries, copy and paste the message below and email it to team@petitions.pm.gov.uk
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page15826.asp
In this response you state:
'On open access land wild camping is prohibited under Schedule 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which lists all restricted activities.'
This is, I believe, a fundamental misinterpretation of both the intent and the actual framing of the CRoW act. The schedule 2 list is a list of activities that are not specifically allowed under CRoW; it is not a list of activities that are prohibited under that Act. The statement given in the above response is therefore fundamentally wrong in law.
I feel very strongly that a retraction of this statement is required.
From
Meanwhile, Darren Christie reacted to the Government’s rejection of his original petition by saying the backers of it are considering their next move and the level of support.
He said: “It’s not quite as negative as it reads at first and the Marine Bill was always likely to get first crack at the available resource and backing.
“But the elephant is now firmly in the room.”
And Jamie Hickson has already reposted an e-petition calling again for the legalisation of wild camping, this time including both England and Wales.
The new petition can be seen on the Downing Street e-petition website.
Isfa
27 June 2008The email address does not work for me. Incidently whilst asking for a retraction of the statement that 'wild' camping in prohibited, I also added this:- 'My own position however is that I do not support the petition as it would encourage crowds of littering ,beer swilling,noisy groups to camp in our 'wild' areas. I have been high camping (discreetly)without permission for 30 years and have only been charged once in that time.' I should have added 'Trail reading... '
Jon
27 June 2008So the elephant is in the room? Leaving its dung on the carpet, and smashing up the ornaments? I agree with Isfa, a legal right is unnecessary, and there are already idiots who don't need any further encouragement. Some of them walk more than two miles and then camp near a remote house, leaving their litter behind for the owner to carry back to the valley.
Guest
27 June 2008[i]"there are already idiots who don't need any further encouragement. Some of them walk more than two miles and then camp near a remote house, leaving their litter behind for the owner to carry back to the valley."[/i] There are already laws to deal with these undesirables, and those laws would not be changed if wild camping was taken out of the list of restrictions in the CRoW Act. The problem here is that those laws are not applied. Maybe you could do something POSITIVE by campaigning to get those laws enforced!
Jon
27 June 2008I did something positive by clearing up the rubbish left by those "undesirables". I just don't see what the problem is with the current state of affairs regarding wild camping. If you want to camp without any twinges of conscience and without any possibility of being asked to move, ask permission from the landowner first. If you don't want to ask permission, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from camping discretely - I use a dull coloured tent, I arrive late and leave early, I don't leave any trace apart from a patch of squashed vegetation which soon recovers. What is really difficult to deal with is the idiots who leave a mess for other people to clear up. I'm sure they did it when no-one else was around to object - certainly no police, and no blame to them for concentrating their efforts on more serious crime. Education is the only thing that will help, not legislation or law enforcement.
Guest
27 June 2008[i]"I just don't see what the problem is with the current state of affairs regarding wild camping."[/i] OK, I appreciate that. But just because you don't [i]see[/i] a problem doesn't necessarily mean that there is no problem. After all, the authorities didn't [i]see[/i] the undesirables leaving their litter, but that litter did indeed exist, according to your testimony. All credit to you for clearing up their mess. [smiley=cool]
john hee
27 June 2008Jon- you've certainly made your point about the rubbish/idiots but there are a tremendous number of issues here. For instance inconsistant National Park policy from all welcome (Dartmoor) to no-way (New Forest) The fact remains what we do is largely based on sufferance and blind eye turned at best. Time to challenge it on the back of the CROW success. After all that only took 60 odd years [smiley=cool]
John Manning
30 June 2008Jon, you're happy to go wild camping and clear up other folks' litter. What if you'd just spent an hour picking up other folks' litter, and another hour making camp and getting settled, then a landowner comes up and asks you to move on? In the landowner's eyes, after all, you might be no better than the litterer. The law would agree. Or is it okay for you to turn a blind eye to the legalities of your situation, but not okay for the litterer to do the same? There might be a principled difference but the distinction should be writ in law. That way we all know where we stand.
Isfa
30 June 2008John re 'what if' If you get caught by a diligent park official or malevolent farmer then you move on if you wish to avoid an argument. If, however like Jon and myself you make camp at dusk on flat ground by a stream of tarn and your tent is not of a radioactive orange hue, and you leave soon after sunrise, do not leave litter and within limits pick up that left by others to enhance the wild camping experience of the like minded then in practise you are now free to camp where you wish. I have even done so in the New Forest with problems. Get away from the road. Don't advertise your presence. Leave only flattened grass. We do not need legal rights to do what we have been doing for decades.
Jon
30 June 2008John, I have my doubts that the law would agree, though it might depend on the local bye-laws. I wouldn't wild camp where bye-laws prohibited it, as is the case in a lot of the Peak District. In your hypothetical situation, I would attempt to reason with the landowner. If he insisted that I must move on, I would do so. I've done plenty of night walking for various reasons! Wild camping, in the absence of any bye-laws, is not against the criminal law, but the landowner has a right to move the camper on, and can sue if damage has been caused by the camper. I'm not sure what the law is on litter. By the way, I'm not exactly "happy" to clear up other people's litter :-)
Guest
08 July 2008Isfa, this debate has been played out on other boards many a time. It's not enough, for some of us, to simply say "I've not had a problem so I'm going to do nothing." While the wild camping campaign isn't perhaps as fundamental as the decades long access campaign that resulted in CROW, there are similar principles to be fought for. When did we lose the right to sleep in the wilds? Generations of Brits have done it legitimately through the centuries, whether travelling, herding livestock across the country to southern markets, shepherding... Everything you advocate in your post is the kind of good practice we should all be following ? did you imagine we camped in some other manner? It's great that you haven't been caught and told off - yet. What will you do if you are? Hang your head, apologise, and go spend the rest of your life in front of the TV? It frustrates me that so many backpackers seem unwilling to stand up for the simple right to do what they enjoy. In the Dales, the motorcycle trials bikers and 4x4 organisations haven't all rolled over as their hobbies are gradually (and rightly in my view) whittled away - they've lobbied and fought for what they believe in and enjoy. John - I'm never happy picking up other folks' litter either! Part of my point was, I guess, it doesn't matter how much litter you collect, it doesn't give you any extra entitlement to camp!
John Manning
08 July 2008Apols - the last comment was me. Hadn't meant to be anonymous. JM
Nick B
23 July 2008Hi, I have just been reading the CRoW Act 2000, and whilst I completely agree that we should have the right to wild camp I disagree with the above interpretation of the act 'The act definitely does not prohibit wild camping.' Regarding the CRoW Act, without the Act there is no right of access to land. Within the act you do have a right of access to land, however schedule two does specifically say: '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' This does seem very clear in that you are not allowed to be on any land if you engage in camping. This means it is not allowed and you are prohibited from doing it. It does not mearly imply that it is restricted. I fail to see the point the email you wish to send to the PM's office, as the Act does not allow you to camp, it is prohibited. Yet you are arguing for the PM's office to withdraw their statement when it is essentially correct. You are not allowed to camp on open access land, it is an activity that you are restricted from doing, you are prohibited from doing it. I would love to be able to send your email to the PM's office to continue the fight for the right to wild camp, but the above email is incorrect. Nick B.
BOG
24 July 2008i just found this site after doing a lot of wild camping myself and looking for my next treck somewhere, never had a problem myself and normaly there is 3 of us together. i have even camped on the side of canals, obviously out for the way and not upseting anyone and at the most all i have had is a pleasnt greeting. now i have a load of things running through my head, just a couple to start. 1)Dont use a tent! lets just sumerise what camping actually means, i do belive its using a tent. well then go back to nature. a realy good sleeping bag and put a bit of cover (graund sheet - poncho) over your walking poles. it has done the trick for me a couple of times and its quick and easy. not too good for winter or any type of heavy rainy nights but its light and you leave next to no sign that anyone has been there at all... well i thought that was an ok starting point.. 2) this point i have thought about a few times and probaly would bring it up if i was ever to get in any for of trouble where police were involved.. the CRoW act explains right of way, walking / hicking ect, what to do and what not to do. now i love my long distance walking so i cant just stop a turn around if i have somewhere i am heading and normaly dont plan a route, i just get on with it (the defination of wild camping in my eyes) so surly there must be some loop hole in the law under the health and safty act. i cant keep going through the pitch black at night and i cant turn back, especially in forest / mountain / countryside etc, so leagly under that claws the safer and certainly more healthy option is to stop and make camp for the night, no mess no fuss and you wouldnt even know anyone was there the next day.. ----- scrap number one thought i just found this :- Camping is an outdoor recreational activity. The participants, known as campers, get away from urban areas, their home region or civilization in general and enjoy nature while spending one or more nights, usually at a campsite. Camping may involve the use of a tent, a primitive structure, or no shelter at all. Camping Definition Camping describes a wide range of activities. Survivalist campers set off with little more than their boots, whereas recreational vehicle travelers arrive equipped with their own electricity, heat, and patio furniture. Camping may be an end unto itself, but often it is done in conjunction with other activities, such as hiking, hill walking, climbing, canoeing, mountain biking, swimming, and fishing. It may be combined with hiking either as backpacking or as a series of day hikes from a central location. Some people vacation in permanent camps with cabins and other facilities (such as hunting camps or children's summer camps), but a stay at such a camp is usually not considered 'camping'. The term camping (or camping out) may also be applied to those who live outdoors out of necessity (as in the case of the homeless) or for people waiting overnight in very long lines (queues). It does not, however, apply to cultures whose technology does not include sophisticated dwellings. Camping may be referred to colloquially as roughing it.
BOG
24 July 2008Under legistation of the Health and Safty act Im sure ones personal helath has some form of rights over land owners and/or permision to some extent. Within reason..
Mike
19 December 2008Wild camping is banned because the government don't want people to 'get back to nature' as it heals them and makes them mentally and spiritually strong. The system wants us weak so we are pliable and compliant.
It is outrageous a country can cut down 99% of its forests over 300 years and then protect certain parts (usually too rocky etc to make building business money efficient) by making camping there illegal except on a tax making purpose built campsite.
I hate England and i was born here and am native British.
I have to break the law when i camp as i WILL NOT adhere to this denial of my human rights to practise my ancient primative lineage when once we were cave dwellers etc.
ben
22 April 2009totally agree with Mikes comment above. we have an extremely beautiful country for sure. but it seems as though we are not allowed to experience it in many more ways than simply looking out the windows of our cars, or walking, without the option to stop for any length of time. because heaven forbid that we may actually be granted the chance to take a step back from the "free to do what we`re told" society we live in and obtain the realisation of what`s truley important in life, by getting in tune with the most natural thing in the world .... NATURE.
The Dude Abides
19 May 2009It is clear that this issue as a whole is complicated and like all debate seems to provoke many different responses. Despite its complexity, my view is that there can be no harm in challenging the Government to protect our interests, its how we manage the result that will dictate success. I empathise with the thoughts that legalising wild camping may result in a different wild camping experience for us all, but this is why I’m a strong believer that a change in the law must coincide with increased education and awareness. Promoting a wild camping code of conduct (which the majority of us follow already) and guides on safe practices would be essential to avoid increased burden on Mountain Rescue teams. The National Parks would have a significant role to play in this and we can learn many lessons from Scottish counter-parts in many respects. Clearly legalisation will have it’s pitfalls but the hobby is not entirely without its problems now – the common litter issue being just one.
One recurring concern I’ve seen is that legalisation would increase the numbers of people spending the night in the hills, consequently adversely affecting the overall ‘experience’. I whole heartedly understand this concern, but equally (and I could be wrong the inherent barriers to the hobby are such that it isn’t entirely accessible to ‘Joe Public’, prohibition aside. I don’t envisage the masses trudging their way into the hills the day after an amendment to the Act being passed.
For me personally, I think as I enjoy the right to roam afforded by CRoW and actively wild camp, then I have a duty to support future campaigns to legalise wild camping – and I hope many others will feel the same.
hAPPY CAMPER
17 September 2009My friend was camping in the new forest havng an instant BBQ in one of those foil trays set on some rocks, on clear ground.
Some police came and told him to put it out because it would apparently set a fire (he's 40, not 6 years old). He wrapped his hands up and picked it up and stood in the river he was camping right by and went in up to his knees. He said 'Look - No fire risk now!'
They demanded he put it out, he replied 'No chance, my snags are nearly done'. They threatened him with arrest - He said 'Well I'm having my sausages first - and you'll have to come and get me, can you pass my fork please?, it's over by my tent behind you'. They eventually left when he started to eat his breakfast with his fingers in the river - Yup, they didn't pass his fork.
Mike
23 September 2009The government tear up the countryside daily and they have the gaul to say they are concerned about the tiny percentage of areas left where people can try and find peace of mind and escape from the tyranny of living under a government that taxes you at every turn ????
The national parks are ours, the publics, this is our land. who are THEY to tell us we can't use it when every inch is owned by the crown or the church. How can you own land? Who and how are these people able to say "yes, thaT'S MINE THANKS"
Making these places national parks is for reasons of tourism income revenue only. If they cared about peoples spirits and well being they would never have turned Englands woodlands from 95% coverage to less than 0.1% in a few hundred years.
In fact, they take the possibilty of people getting away from it all for the very reason they have taxes - CONTROL, control over our lives by restricting our movements whether this is through high fuel prices or high public transport costs. They do it to keep us quiet and in a state of compliance
So, camp where you like and tell the people that tell you to move on to get stuffed
dave
23 September 2009but it's OK for tourists visiting the national parks to leave rubbish because they are putting money into the governments pockets
King Bongo of Bongo
27 May 2010I oppose any attempt to lift the prohibition of wild camping because it, as a debate, is symptomatic of the legalism that is dehumanising our country.
If you don't like the law, ignore it. There are lots of stupid laws that serve no effective purpose. The more you worry about which laws you are breaking when you aren't doing anything wrong, the less you will be able to discriminate what is wrong or right.
I don't care if laws are meant to be an ethical consensus, each situation deserves it's context to be taken into account and the more we rely on our human judgement and the less on someone else's via a written law the more reasonable society as a whole will be (despite the inevitable human errors).
Dave H
24 July 2010@Bongo - right on, the UK needs to hear more of that. It is an insidious problem because it breeds cynicism in all aspects of public life, encouraging the tendency to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Just for comparison, in the US wild camping is legal in many areas and is very popular. This is true on various types of land, including National and State Parks as well as other types of public (ie government-owned) land. My observation in US parks is that most park visitors never go more than a mile or so from the trailhead; so fears of the countryside being overrun are, I think, unfounded. The effect is that the land after that invisible line are essentially preserved for the few who will really enjoy them (such as other posters on this board) by making the effort to hike out and camp.
I would expect a similar result in England; were the rights to wild camp legally protected I doubt any harm would result. Instead people would just go about doing what they do anyway but would feel more secure in their actions.
Barry Jones
12 April 2015I have NOT read everyone's opinion on this matter but I have ( through experience ) no confidence that "people" will respect any self regulating guidelines about "WILD CAMPING" IF IT WAS TO BECOME AN ACCEin!TED PASSTIME !
Within days of any change in the legislation ALLOWING wild camping there would be tent village's being set up in the most beautiful areas of our beloved countryside.
I wish this wasn't the case BUT I TRULY BELIEVE IT WOULD HAPPEN - AND THE PEOPLE SETTING UP THOSE VILLAGES WOULD NOT BE YOUR TYPICAL MEMBER OF ENGLISH HERITAGE.
The illegality of this pastime allows the law to be enforced IF NECESSARY!
As many "Wild Campers" know - singles and / or very small groups are not policed as closely as they could be - it is virtually impossible! But the law CAN BE ENFORCED IF NECESSARY ! So tidy up and blend I