Wild camping outlawed

[Amarillo]

Not quite

Dartmoor National Park Authority was created by the Environment Act 1995 to:

• conserve and enhance Dartmoor National Park’s natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage
• promote opportunities for the public to understand and enjoy the special qualities of Dartmoor National Park.

We also have a duty to:

• promote the economic and social wellbeing of local communities in Dartmoor National Park

As I see it, the principle for the appeal court to determine is whether wild camping is an outdoor recreation over which the DNP has authority to determine when and where it can take place, or if wild camping is something other than an outdoor recreation which may or may not take place at the whim of the landowner.

If the appeal court decides in favour of DNP, DNP will be able to decide where, when and how wild camping can take place, taking into account “the economic and social wellbeing of local communities”.

I should add that the economic welfare of a couple of hedge fund manager landowners should be a long way down the list of DNP’s considerations: the Darwalls are unlikely to face financial ruin by having to carry out some additional checks for wild campers on uncultivated wild land before commencing a pheasant shoot.

 

[WelshGas]

As I see it, the principle for the appeal court to determine is whether wild camping is an outdoor recreation over which the DNP has authority to determine when and where it can take place, or if wild camping is something other than an outdoor recreation which may or may not take place at the whim of the landowner.

If the appeal court decides in favour of DNP, DNP will be able to decide where, when and how wild camping can take place, taking into account “the economic and social wellbeing of local communities”.

I should add that the economic welfare of a couple of hedge fund manager landowners should be a long way down the list of DNP’s considerations: the Darwalls are unlikely to face financial ruin by having to carry out some additional checks for wild campers on uncultivated wild land before commencing a pheasant shoot.

To be honest I couldn’t care less what your opinion is, my post was to indicate that the Dartmoor National Park Authority was NOT set up purely for the general public as mentioned by @Hawthorn37 , but for the economic and social well-being of the local population as well, and I very much doubt if the locals, whoever they might be, wish to spend their time cleaning up the mess left by irresponsible members of the general public who think it is OK to crap anywhere in the Park but not in their own back garden.
Everyone has a responsibility to treat our open spaces with respect and if not then access should be restricted . Don’t blame the landowners, hedge fund managers or farmers direct your comments at those spoiling this access for the majority.

So what ideas have you, @Hawthorn37 come up with to deal with the root cause of this problem or are you just going to take the easy way out and blame the Landowners.

 

[Amarillo]

To be honest I couldn’t care less what your opinion is, my post was to indicate that the Dartmoor National Park Authority was NOT set up purely for the general public as mentioned by @Hawthorn37 , but for the economic and social well-being of the local population as well, and I very much doubt if the locals, whoever they might be, wish to spend their time cleaning up the mess left by irresponsible members of the general public who think it is OK to crap anywhere in the Park but not in their own back garden.
Everyone has a responsibility to treat our open spaces with respect and if not then access should be restricted . Don’t blame the landowners, hedge fund managers or farmers direct your comments at those spoiling this access for the majority.

So what ideas have you, @Hawthorn37 come up with to deal with the root cause of this problem or are you just going to take the easy way out and blame the Landowners.

If you don’t care what my opinion is, why did you respond to my opinion? (Rhetorical question - no need to reply.)

As for clearing up “crap”, we all have to deal with mess left by others, crisp packets in front gardens defenestrated by motorists, cat poo on our driveways, tyre dust on our window sills, etc, etc, etc,…

Most of us get on with life and clear it up without too much moaning and groaning, and certainly without going to the High Court and whinge about people sleeping in wilderness areas.

As I see it, the only significant difference between the “crap” the Darwalls have to clear up and most of the rest of us is the volume. But few of us have 4000 acre estates. I don’t think it unreasonable if they have to clear up 40,000 times more crap than someone with, say, 0.1 acres of land. It comes, as they say, with the territory.

 

[andyinluton]

As for clearing up “crap”, we all have to deal with mess left by others,

As I see it, the only significant difference between the “crap” the Darwalls have to clear up and most of the rest of us is the volume. But few of us have 4000 acre estates. I don’t think it unreasonable if they have to clear up 40,000 times more crap than someone with, say, 0.1 acres of land. It comes, as they say, with the territory.

So what size garden does it need to be for it to be acceptable for a complete stranger to come & in it, have a dump, bbq and pitch a tent?

As you have an easily accessible front garden, handy for visiting London, is yours big enough? ok it’s not 40,000 acres? But it’s bigger than all those people with flats & no garden. Or is this one of those rules that should only apply to people that have done better than you?

 

[WelshGas]

If you don’t care what my opinion is, why did you respond to my opinion? (Rhetorical question - no need to reply.)

As for clearing up “crap”, we all have to deal with mess left by others, crisp packets in front gardens defenestrated by motorists, cat poo on our driveways, tyre dust on our window sills, etc, etc, etc,…

Most of us get on with life and clear it up without too much moaning and groaning, and certainly without going to the High Court and whinge about people sleeping in wilderness areas.

As I see it, the only significant difference between the “crap” the Darwalls have to clear up and most of the rest of us is the volume. But few of us have 4000 acre estates. I don’t think it unreasonable if they have to clear up 40,000 times more crap than someone with, say, 0.1 acres of land. It comes, as they say, with the territory.

As I mentioned, but you decided to overlook as others did, the Dartmoor National Park Authority‘s remit does not just include you and other members of the general public who wish to do what they want, when they want and in any way they see fit, but also covers the economical and social well being of the park residents and business. They have rights also.
There is a problem on Dartmoor. The landowners, whether wealthy or not, made an attempt to solve it lawfully. The General Public can still wild camp if they wish but with controls for the irresponsible. However, typical of many NGO’ s the Park Authority wish to override the legal decision but offer no alternatives to control the unruly and irresponsible behaviour of those causing the problems. Maybe the landowners should just leave the crap left behind and it may put off people visiting and probably decimate the wild life as well.

 

[Amarillo]

So what size garden does it need to be for it to be acceptable for a complete stranger to come & in it, have a dump, bbq and pitch a tent?

As you have an easily accessible front garden, handy for visiting London, is yours big enough? ok it’s not 40,000 acres? But it’s bigger than all those people with flats & no garden. Or is this one of those rules that should only apply to people that have done better than you?

It is never acceptable for me to have to pick up someone else’s cat’s turd. I do it anyway.

If I had a 4000 acre estate of mainly wilderness in a national park and there had been a presumed right to wild camp since 1985, I think I’d just get on with life and deal with any mess appropriately. I’d certainly respect the right of the park authority to appeal a decision that had gone in my favour without resorting to petty name calling.

 

[Amarillo]

As I mentioned, but you decided to overlook as others did, the Dartmoor National Park Authority‘s remit does not just include you and other members of the general public who wish to do what they want, when they want and in any way they see fit, but also covers the economical and social well being of the park residents and business. They have rights also.
There is a problem on Dartmoor. The landowners, whether wealthy or not, made an attempt to solve it lawfully. The General Public can still wild camp if they wish but with controls for the irresponsible. However, typical of many NGO’ s the Park Authority wish to override the legal decision but offer no alternatives to control the unruly and irresponsible behaviour of those causing the problems. Maybe the landowners should just leave the crap left behind and it may put off people visiting and probably decimate the wild life as well.

There is a chasm of difference between a right to wild camp and being permitted to wild camp at the whim of a landowner.

If the Darwall’s think that controlling wild camping means controlling people’s bowel movements they are likely to be severely disappointed!

Who do you think are in a better position to balance the needs of all Park users. The Dartmoor Park Authority or the landowners?

 

[GrannyJen]

If you don’t care what my opinion is, why did you respond to my opinion? (Rhetorical question - no need to reply.)

As for clearing up “crap”, we all have to deal with mess left by others, crisp packets in front gardens defenestrated by motorists, cat poo on our driveways, tyre dust on our window sills, etc, etc, etc,…

Most of us get on with life and clear it up without too much moaning and groaning, and certainly without going to the High Court and whinge about people sleeping in wilderness areas.

As I see it, the only significant difference between the “crap” the Darwalls have to clear up and most of the rest of us is the volume. But few of us have 4000 acre estates. I don’t think it unreasonable if they have to clear up 40,000 times more crap than someone with, say, 0.1 acres of land. It comes, as they say, with the territory.

I disagree with you Tom, sorry.

There should be NO crap, full stop. I know Dartmoor fairly well, as you do and I was there just before Christmas to see my Godson and a few of his oppo's do a speed yomp to Bickleigh and a green beret.

The place was filthy. I "wildcamped" in Kevin, no one was arsed to move me on, no one shoved a "no camping" notice under my nose, no one fast-roped from Helicopters to make an airborne assault on Kevin. It was just the same as I know it from when I first camped there 65 years ago. With one exception. The filth.

I'm not going to mention where I camped but any Marine would know where the 30 mile speed march used to finish so a clue.

I'm sorry, before we crucify the Darwalls, and I would be seriously tempted, let's crucify the Sh!ts who leave their Sh!t behind.

 

[WelshGas]

There is a chasm of difference between a right to wild camp and being permitted to wild camp at the whim of a landowner.

If the Darwall’s think that controlling wild camping means controlling people’s bowel movements they are likely to be severely disappointed!

Who do you think are in a better position to balance the needs of all Park users. The Dartmoor Park Authority or the landowners?

The Park Authority has the remit to represent both sides of the divide. The Public and the landowners. They have NO idea on how to control the irresponsible but the Landowners are trying within the Law.
So how would you fix the problem for both the landowners and the responsible wild campers?
Ideas please?

 

[Amarillo]

I disagree with you Tom, sorry.

There should be NO crap, full stop. I know Dartmoor fairly well, as you do and I was there just before Christmas to see my Godson and a few of his oppo's do a speed yomp to Bickleigh and a green beret.

The place was filthy. I "wildcamped" in Kevin, no one was arsed to move me on, no one shoved a "no camping" notice under my nose, no one fast-roped from Helicopters to make an airborne assault on Kevin. It was just the same as I know it from when I first camped there 65 years ago. With one exception. The filth.

I'm not going to mention where I camped but any Marine would know where the 30 mile speed march used to finish so a clue.

I'm sorry, before we crucify the Darwalls, and I would be seriously tempted, let's crucify the Sh!ts who leave their Sh!t behind.

I don’t disagree with anything you say. But you have somewhat missed the point I have (clearly) failed to make.

Yes - crap of any sort is unacceptable, be it a neighbours buried cat’s turd in Clare’s vegetable patch, or a backpackers turd under a rock on Great Mis Tor.

But turds alone are not, in my opinion, a sufficient reason to ban wild camping on Dartmoor. And that is not the Darwall’s case, so it is a bit of a sh!tty argument to make for them. They claim the right to wild camp never existed. The DPA argue it does. Poos don’t really feature. But if they did, I think the Darwalls should realise that we all have to deal with antisocial behaviours in all sorts of forms, and that they with a substantial estate will have to deal with more antisocial behaviour than most.

 

[Amarillo]

The wild camping ban reaches the court of appeal.

Camping not recreation ‘because you are just asleep’, Dartmoor appeal told | Land rights | The Guardian

Court told wild camping is not open-air recreation as park authority appeals against recent ban

amp.theguardian.com

If the argument hinges on whether camping is a recreation, I can confirm it most definitely is.

 

[Amarillo]

Wild camping once again allowed.

The Dartmoor National Park Authority appeal against the ban on wild camping without the landowner’s consent is allowed.

Wild camping allowed on Dartmoor again after court appeal succeeds | Land rights | The Guardian

Dartmoor National Park Authority had appealed against January high court ruling that outlawed practice

amp.theguardian.com