why you can wild camp north but not south of the border

Fri, Feb 29, 2008

It seems the season for rants, so I’ll rant some more and with good reason as the wild camping debate should be placed in context and to set the scene, Salmond’s boys have just come out with possibly the most ridiculous case of double standards I’ve ever seen, hyperbole aside. They’re refusing to ban snares on the grounds and I quote:

“the control of animals, such as foxes, through snares, helped maintain Scotland’s world-famous £240m shooting industry”

240m quid? That’s peanuts. At around 430m, walking is worth almost twice that to the Scottish economy. The shooting fraternity are a minority sideshow in economic terms up here and the only reason it’s “world famous” is Scotland is the last feudal playground in Europe. Most other countries have shaved off their forelocks and sent the lairds packing. Here, have gun will shoot, wherever one pleases. However, the numbers speak for themselves and we can wild camp in Scotland. South of the border it’s a different story. Walking doesn’t seem to be as big a contributor to the rural economy. So presumably there are less mouths to shout out against opponents. There are less chances to air common sense views.

But while I’m on the point of double standards, here’s the rest of the quote:

“…boost conservation projects and assisted farmers in protecting their animals…”

Get real MSPs! Haven’t you heard about the protection of animals by conservation projects such as this? So again, we can discount that point too. I get the opinion that the Scottish government are just keeping that lot sweet, due to their being assailed on all sides by real legislation like the land access law. But the point is no matter what the Scottish government says about responsible management by landowners, it’s always possible to find instances where responsible management is about as likely as finding wee green men on the moon watching The Clangers repeats.

North of the border there has always been a philosophy of responsible and open access, whether landowners liked it or not. But that’s not to say all landowners are vile and odious biodiversity removers. There have been some shining examples of land management over the years, especially Paul van Vilssingen, an example to all outdoor enthusiasts and owners. But it’s harder to find good examples such as Vlissingen from the landowning fraternity, just due to the fact there are less of them than those who use the outdoors for recreation but we mustn’t forget that there are equally odious examples of wild campers out there. They just don’t get reported. If a landowner decries wild camping, even providing evidence of bad practice by a minority, no-one really listens. That’s not an ideal state of affairs though as there must be some form of self regulation to counteract the minority who can spoil access for the majority but up here, sheer mass of numbers have effectively shifted the balance of power from Mr. Barbour to Mr. Vibram.

South of the border it’s a different story entirely. The numbers are reversed and although the wild camping petition is gaining ground, it seems that folk down there are too busy fighting their own rearguard actions, such as access to Vixen Tor and opening the coast paths. I imagine MPs would see more political profit to be gained from supporting coastal access for all, instead of ratifying what is more or less a de facto situation regarding wild camping. The old adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind. It would be a different case if you were camped at 449.9m and were frog marched off the hill and straight into the local clink but that’s unlikely. Is it? I hope so!

I’m all for legalising wild camping in England and Wales but let’s not forget the wider access problems down there, especially where there is barbed wire where kids once played, at Vixen Tor. Sign the wild camping petition but also support your local access group and maybe the next bod to land on the moon will bump into a wee green man watching the telly.