Right to roam (1 Viewer)

CornishExile said:

Yeah, we should be careful what we wish for...

Yet another example of our Government being completely clueless and metropolitan about the countryside; it's not just the farmers they're gunning for, it's our wildlife too. Either they simply don't understand the basic mechanics of conservation (breeding birds = sensitive to disturbance) or they just don't care a whit for the countryside, instead preferring to 'open it up' to conform with the bucolic pastoral vision the townies and second-homers wistfully imagine lies outside the grimy city streets. It's just a big theme park to spend your hard-earned leisure time in (or to footle around in after 'down-sizing', blissfully unaware of the social impact all these second homes have on the younger generations of country folk who can no longer afford to buy a home in the country, let alone to try and make a go of making some sort of living from the land. Apparently the enormous freeing up of equity in urban properties that gives these people their spending power is a sign of a successful economy. Heaven help us.)

And in the run-up to the election, let's not forget this is the government that fought a long, bitter battle to try and force through the reclamation of enormous swathes of prime marshland in North Kent to build yet another sodding great airport to service London. Priorities? Oh, they've got priorities all right - as long as they serve the urban electorate.

Okay, rant over - I could keep going, but feel I should spare everyone my disillusioned vitriol. :C Sorry!

CE

Click to expand...

Thanks, Cornish. You've saved me a hell of a lot of typing to say what you've already said so well.

I've often been out, quietly biding my own time fishing and/or watching the wildlife, here and abroad, in the Lake Disrict and elsewhere, when along comes a bunch of ramblers, oblivious to the world, strung out along a path, but encased in there bubble of chattering noise. They are audible for miles, never see an animal, yet they wonder why the "countryside" is so so seemingly devoid of wildlife.

To add to the mystery, if they aren't in a flock they are accompanied by at least two dogs, usually yellow labradors.

Still they see no wildlife. I wonder, why?

Alan Seaton said:

Thanks, Cornish. You've saved me a hell of a lot of typing to say what you've already said so well.

I've often been out, quietly biding my own time fishing and/or watching the wildlife, here and abroad, in the Lake Disrict and elsewhere, when along comes a bunch of ramblers, oblivious to the world, strung out along a path, but encased in there bubble of chattering noise. They are audible for miles, never see an animal, yet they wonder why the "countryside" is so so seemingly devoid of wildlife.

To add to the mystery, if they aren't in a flock they are accompanied by at least two dogs, usually yellow labradors.

Still they see no wildlife. I wonder, why?

Click to expand...

The fellmen I know call these creatures 'crag rats'!

saluki

The problem with any legislation is that the overwhelming majority of people do not read the small print, and just grab onto the strap-line. In this instance a right-to-roam means effectively 'no limits' and people will be less concientious when accessing the countryside. Not good.
My job is to encourage more access to wildlife and the countryside, but in all cases it has to be appropriate and well educated (in every sense) access. Hopefully there will soon be an effort to help people enjoy the countryside without impinging upon other people's enjoyment, or impinging upon the wildlife sanctity (for want of a better word).
Unfortunately this is a social issue, because, as a society, we have been getting increasingly selfish and arrogant in our actions in all aspects of life.
Perhaps unconcientious ramblers will have ASBOs slapped on them? A suitably knee-jerk and ill-thought out idea... it might just catch on!

James

Apparently, the Countryside Code still exists, as mentioned on THIS site, which also gives more info on the act.

Also, THIS page looks quite useful.

And finally - THIS site.

George Monbiot

I seem to remember reading postings in which George Monbiot, the well known author, television presenter and natural historian, was quoted by BF members as their authority for a variety of quoted facts.

How strange, then, that he was also a leading light in the campaign to push through the 'Right to Roam' legislation which several members are now complaining about!

Did George simply get it wrong, or was his crystal ball clouded to the point where he didn't forsee the full implication of letting the great unwashed loose on so much of Britain's countryside?

Anthony

Hi all

I find the Weeting Heath story puzzling - does anyone have more details?

Is it really true that there is no mechanism for exemptions built into this legislation? And is it really true that the NWT, RSPB et al haven't managed to sort something out? As this is an important site for a nationally rare bird, surely it wasn't simply left up to the warden (admirable chap though he undoubtedly is) to argue his case?

James

was talking to someone at work about RTR this morning and apparently there is provision in the legislation for land to be closed to protect wildlife, so presumably the NWT could apply to do just that.

James Blake said:

Hi all

I find the Weeting Heath story puzzling - does anyone have more details?

Is it really true that there is no mechanism for exemptions built into this legislation? And is it really true that the NWT, RSPB et al haven't managed to sort something out? As this is an important site for a nationally rare bird, surely it wasn't simply left up to the warden (admirable chap though he undoubtedly is) to argue his case?James

Click to expand...

Hi James

I can only repeat what the warden told me. I don't know what mechanism he was using to try and stop this happening. All I know was whatever he was doing was not getting the results he wanted.

Reader said:

Hi James

I can only repeat what the warden told me. I don't know what mechanism he was using to try and stop this happening. All I know was whatever he was doing was not getting the results he wanted.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks Reader.

I have just had a quick read of the bill and find mention of temp provision of closure for wildlife/ wildbirds. The bill states :-

Temporary prohibition order. 8. - (1) The authority may upon application duly made to it make a temporary prohibition order whereby the use of the land by the public in the manner provided for in section 1 above shall be temporarily prohibited.

(2) In the event of a person who has an interest in the land applying to the authority for a temporary prohibition order to enable organised shooting to take place over the land the authority shall grant the said order for a maximum period of 12 days in any calendar year.

(3) In the event of a person who has an interest in the land or in the event of English Nature or the National Surveying Authority applying to the authority for a temporary prohibition order on the following grounds the authority may grant the same for a period of 28 days from the date on which it comes into force subject to the provisions of subsection (4) below, and the said grounds for making such an order shall be-



(a) by reason of any exceptional conditions of weather for the time being prevailing, access by the public to the land or any part thereof is likely to result in fires occurring thereon; or



(b) for the protection of the birth and suckling of lambs and kids.

(4) Any applicant referred to in subsection (3) above may apply to the authority for further orders so that the period of 28 days referred to in that subsection may be extended for two subsequent consecutive periods of 28 days.

(5) In the event of a person having an interest in the land applying to the authority for a temporary prohibition order on the following grounds the authority may, and in the case of an application being made to the authority by English Nature, English Heritage or the Countryside Council for Wales shall make a temporary prohibition order for a period not exceeding three years; and the said grounds for making such an order shall be-



(a) for the preservation or restoration of the suitability of the land for rough grazing;



(b) for the protection of trees recently planted on the land;



(c) for the protection or restoration of flora or fauna on the land; or



(d) for the prevention of accidents at a quarry, pit, pond, mine shaft or other man-made source of danger on the land.

(6) In the event of English Nature, English Heritage or the National Surveying Authority applying to the authority for a temporary prohibition order on the following grounds the authority shall grant the same for a period not exceeding three years; and the said grounds for making such an order shall be-



(a) for the protection of a geological or physiographical feature of the land;



(b) for the protection of an ancient monument, or of a feature or an area of archaeological or historic interest, on the land; or



(c) for the protection or restoration of the natural beauty of the land or the suitability of the land for open air recreation.

(7) If a person or authority specified in subsections (5) or (6) above applies to the authority for a temporary prohibition order to be extended or renewed, the authority may extend or renew the order for a period not exceeding three years from the expiration of the immediately preceding order.

(8) If the authority is satisfied that a temporary prohibition is no longer required it shall forthwith revoke the order.

(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations with respect to the procedure to be followed in connection with the making of orders under this section, including provision for notifying the public of the exercise or proposed exercise of the powers conferred by this section and of the effect of orders and notices made or issued in the exercise of those powers.

(10) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of subsection (9) above, the Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the making and consideration of objections to a proposed order.

the way i would read this is that if you shoot (grouse moors), have planted new trees, have lambs or flora or fauna you can close temporarily provided you apply tp english nature

Full bill can be found on parliments web site http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/016/99016--b.htm

simon said:

the way i would read this is that if you shoot (grouse moors), have planted new trees, have lambs or flora or fauna you can close temporarily but not if you have schedule 1 nesting birds!

Full bill can be found on parliments web site http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmbills/016/99016--b.htm

Click to expand...

Don't wild birds come under flora & fauna?

Well it seems I have to stick my neck out and say that the Right to Roam act is one of the best pieces of legislation for many a year. Historically much of our countryside was appropriated by the big landowners, gentry and prosperous farmers during the enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, and now at long last we are getting back some of our access to it. Do you think they've taken over the common land for the benefit of wildlife? I'm amazed at the previous post which talked about nesting skylarks, when it is the intensification of agriculture and the sowing of winter cereals that has been the reason for their decline, not ramblers. By the way I also applaud the recent Environmental Stewardship Scheme which aims to encourage farmers to ameliorate some of the excesses of intensive farming, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for the decline of many bird species.

I'm delighted that I can now legitimately walk in the Forest of Bowland and not be chased off by the Duke of Westminster's gamekeepers, who, by the way, are managing the moors for game birds only, and are the most likely cause of the persecution of hen harriers who take their precious grouse chicks.

I don't believe for a moment that the CRoW act will lead to many more people using the countryside - it will spread the existing users more widely and perhaps allow more wildlife back into the present honeypot areas. Once footpaths and access points are established people will stick to them. There is little pleasure in walking on rough terrain. I have seen very little use of the new access areas in the Peak District as there aren't established footpaths.

Alan Hill

alanhill said:

Well it seems I have to stick my neck out and say that the Right to Roam act is one of the best pieces of legislation for many a year. Historically much of our countryside was appropriated by the big landowners, gentry and prosperous farmers during the enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, and now at long last we are getting back some of our access to it. Do you think they've taken over the common land for the benefit of wildlife? I'm amazed at the previous post which talked about nesting skylarks, when it is the intensification of agriculture and the sowing of winter cereals that has been the reason for their decline, not ramblers. By the way I also applaud the recent Environmental Stewardship Scheme which aims to encourage farmers to ameliorate some of the excesses of intensive farming, which is undoubtedly the principal reason for the decline of many bird species.

I'm delighted that I can now legitimately walk in the Forest of Bowland and not be chased off by the Duke of Westminster's gamekeepers, who, by the way, are managing the moors for game birds only, and are the most likely cause of the persecution of hen harriers who take their precious grouse chicks.

I don't believe for a moment that the CRoW act will lead to many more people using the countryside - it will spread the existing users more widely and perhaps allow more wildlife back into the present honeypot areas. Once footpaths and access points are established people will stick to them. There is little pleasure in walking on rough terrain. I have seen very little use of the new access areas in the Peak District as there aren't established footpaths.

Alan Hill

Click to expand...

Thanks Alan.






..

This is a pretty depressing thread. I would implore posters to look at the Act. Read the revised Country Code and generally inform themselves. The very use of the emotive term 'Right to Roam' is pandering to those who have historically refused to allow access to many areas that bird watchers amongs others ought have the - responsible - right to visit. The garbage about ignorant people claiming they have aright to gardens is garbage as Simon so correctly points out.

and... Who might I ask are the great unwashed!! me on an early morning birding trip I suspect!.... as for a Mega twitch.........?!!

Although a reasoned discussion is probably boring it would be reasonable to say that there is little informed discussion going on here.

Ian in Mon

IanHWright said:

Although a reasoned discussion is probably boring it would be reasonable to say that there is little informed discussion going on here.

Ian in Mon

Click to expand...

Well I started the thread based on what I was told by someone that will be affected directly by this Right to Roam (his words not mine). If he is having problems (and I don't disbelieve him) then others will have problems. Whatever else is said in this thread I started it because a genuine fear had been raised by someone seemingly directly affected by this act.

I agree in principle to opening up the countryside but certain areas should be excempt from this. Weeting Heath is a good example. I can only speak of that example as I had it from the horses mouth, so to speak. I have no input on other sites. Perhaps some of the members do know of similar examples.

The garbage about ignorant people claiming they have aright to gardens is garbage as Simon so correctly points out.

Click to expand...

er no, it's what someone said to me while I was trying to point out they were on private property.

and it's not an usual problem here, I'm constantly tackling people who seem to think they can go where they like, and these sort of people will use something like RTR to justify what they're doing.

Richard, I understand your position. But just because they are ignorant does not mean that remaining ignorant of the CRoW Act is a useful defence. "these sort of people" dont know about the act and if we continue to calll it the 'Right to Roam' then it will perpetuate the myth. To all intents and purpose all property is private but the CRoW Act gives a right of access to very specific types of private property and definitely does not include anything that would normally be considered an invasion of privacy ie gardens or cultivated land OF ANY DESCRIPTION. If you know your rights and can adequately describe the CRoW Act you will be at an advantage over "those sort of people".

Additionally I would say I heartily agree with Alan Hills points.

Ian in Mon

Hi all

I agree that increased access to the land is, overall, a positive thing.

Walking does have an obsessive, selfish, environmentally destructive fringe - just like birding and every other hobby. So there are obviously issues to be considered.

Legislation like this inevitably requires fine-tuning - no government is going to get it exactly right first time. Issues are going to arise which were not anticipated by the opriginal legislators. Although I don't know much about this act, it looks to me like protection for Weeting could be straightforward to arrange under clause 5c (see post 30).

regards
James

IanHWright said:

and... Who might I ask are the great unwashed!! me on an early morning birding trip I suspect!

Ian in Mon

Click to expand...

Ian,

Also known as Joe Public and/or the World And His Wife.

Reader said:

Well I started the thread based on what I was told by someone that will be affected directly by this Right to Roam (his words not mine). If he is having problems (and I don't disbelieve him) then others will have problems. Whatever else is said in this thread I started it because a genuine fear had been raised by someone seemingly directly affected by this act.

I agree in principle to opening up the countryside but certain areas should be excempt from this. Weeting Heath is a good example. I can only speak of that example as I had it from the horses mouth, so to speak. I have no input on other sites. Perhaps some of the members do know of similar examples.

Click to expand...

I can picture the fields opposite Weeting Heath reserve but if you were to walk up these fields where then do you go?. Also the road is very busy so parking would be a major problem to would be walkers. Whilst the Warden of the reserve is rightly very concerned that walkers could walk over these fields there are so many other places to walk locally I just wonder whether walkers would want to walk around these fields. I certainly hope not. Roger