Please go visit www.righttoroam.org.uk/ You can buy the book mentioned here: uk.bookshop.org/p/books/wild-.... Massive thanks to Jon Moses for his time.
History is the most mysterious and hidden entity in GOD'S world. We know of the entity called the Antichrist. Almost a millennium ago, the monarchy was signed over to (not roam) but the geographic location of the same word. Look up the lecture from Walter Veith called beamable, sustainable princes. The series is restoring the reformation. You will find how the kingdom was, under great sufferance, signed over to roam (wink wink) Proof of the ownership claim of everything as well as everyone can be found in the R.C.Church "cannon Law" 333.3 Interestingly if you double that number you have the number of the Antichrist.
There is a right to roam in my back garden, I have a public foot path about 4 yards from the bottom of it. But due to a secondary 6' fence that's all they can get to. It's a 130 foot section of the path that follows the river Teme. I was out there 2 days ago with the edge trimmer cutting back the brambles and nettles for the walkers, I must get out there again when we next have a dry day because one of the stiles is a bit wobbly so needs to be repaired.
Sounds like you have the perfect spot to set up a snack box! They were one of the highlights of the C2C. And a nice little money earner I bet if the route is popular ;-)
Good of you to do some maintainence because lets be honest, a lot of the paths are in a horrendous state and are often unusable in winter, or summer for over growth or mud "both applicable to both seasons in the uk lol" and frankly given that we have had 30 plus years of government whinging about how fat we are, you'd think they'd make good paths we'd want to walk down without getting covered in shit, injured...or hell, even be able to park somewhere near to actually access them in the first place.
@@matthewbooth9265 I've reported other paths in the area that need maintenance on the Worcestershire portal. On it you can see all the reports and dates, and they have not done anything about them for years.
I trespass fairly regularly, although a lot of the landowners round here don't mind if you stick to the edges of fields. We never break anything to enter, never damage crops, never disturb livestock and never leave litter. And mostly we're sitting photographing wildlife under a camouflage net so you'd probably never even see us. Once got found by an estate manager while we were in private woods photographing fly agaric mushrooms. He'd seen our cars nearby and thought we might be poachers. Had a lovely chat and he gave me his phone number to let him know when we wanted to come back. It doesn't always have to end in confrontation.
Agree. We always tell people to be polite and look for the most positive outcome in any confrontation. Some landowners / estate managers / farmers take an enlightened view and you can have interesting and productive conversations. I've had several thoughtful conversations with gamekeepers once we've gotten over the initial disagreement.
@@jm0sesrtr we were parked up on a public road once when a gamekeeper drove up and asked what we were doing. We had every right do be there and didn't need to answer him, but we showed him our camera gear and explained we were photographing the local wildlife. He then told us where we might spot a goshalk, which was awesome, particularly because gamekeepers are often tarred with the brush of being anti bird of prey. 🙂
Meanwhile, in northern Ireland there is basically zero access to the countryside. Since moving here from England Ive come to regard the countryside as something people drive past as they travel from town to town. Visible only from a window.
That’s a really odd situation in Ireland. By the way the most Northerly point of "Southern Ireland" is further north than Northern Ireland. Please call it Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
@@JD-yz9kr Yes I'm aware of this footpath and a few others. Either you've never lived in england and don't understand the sheer number of footpaths in comparison to NI... ....or you live outside NI and don't understand the situation in NI.
As a Swede I come at this whole "right to roam" with different eyes. However, I also think a lot of people have a rather skewed perspective of the right to roam in Scandinavia. Like yes, in general one do have the right to walk almost anywhere. Exceptions being industrial sites, mines, farmed fields, gardens, military areas, railway tracks, motorways and a fair few more places. The core philosophy is to not destroy. So don't break branches on trees and bushes, don't damage vegetation in general or even the geology, don't destroy property, don't leave garbage behind, don't disturb nature as in wild animals and so forth. The most destructive thing one can do is collect 1 handful of hazelnuts a day along one's journey, and set up a tent for 1 night. In general one isn't allowed to tent within proximity to a house, nor in a garden, or within reasonable visible distance. (A distance that depending on the location can be very very far.) And only set up fires in designated fireplaces, anywhere else is generally not legal. And most importantly, don't damage the geology, so no fires on the exposed bedrock or other rocks in general. (also good to check with the authorities regarding the current wildfire risk, since if it is high enough (as it often is) then you can't really have a fire at all. And yes, we are very particular about or granite geology, smoothly ice polished rock doesn't grow on trees.) One can also pick wild berries and mushrooms, but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation. Since whatever one does isn't allowed to meaningfully impact other people's ability to enjoy their right to roam as well. Since everyone is allowed to pick berries, then you can't pick so many that there isn't a meaningful amount left for others to enjoy. This general philosophy is more or less the foundation of Allemansrätten or the Scandinavian right to roam, the foundation is simple, "leave nature as close to undisturbed as you can."
All you said is true except "but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation". This is still an issue and has not been proven in court yet. Every year, particularly in the north of Sweden, berry picking companies fly in 5000-6000 pickers from Thailand to pick berries for profit on others peoples land, this I think should be changed in Sweden. But the angry farmers of England is just strange, why be so mad if someone take a stroll across your land. But as someone mentioned, how to treat the land and "freedom to roam/allemansrätten" is taught from a very early age in Sweden.
@@watchmobiletvnow It is true that it hasn't really been legally established where the line in the sand is. But the foundation of the law is still that one can't meaningfully impact the environment. Large scale berry picking is debatable how much it meaningfully impacts the environment. Now, if one sweeps through an area picking every single berry in the process, then that obviously meaningfully impacts other people's ability to pick berries in that area. Ie, breaking this law. (one can't argue that "people can go elsewhere." since that is a meaningful impact to have to go somewhere else.) But what if one picks half the berries? There is still half left for other people. Except, if others also picks half, it won't take particularly long before practically all berries are gone. So half is likely still a noticeable impact. If one only picks a few in each square meter, then it likely isn't particularly noticeable that one even were there. It is simply debatable. However, a lot of people use tools to pick berries, especially those doing it as a profession, greatly speeding up the process. Is this acceptable by law? Hand picking berries is fairly slow and easy to argue that it doesn't impact other people's ability to also pick berries. (I can pick a kg of blueberries in around 2-3 hours with this process, more than I personally need.) While anyone using the "proper" tool can completely empty a sizable area in an hour. (Then here is me being annoyed... And reading various articles on the subject makes me ponder if people at large are already not following allemansrätten. Since everyone seems to only talk about how to most efficiently pick every single berry and quickly remove any leafs and stems that got torn along for the ride. Btw, isn't the foundation of the law "inte bryta grenar", surely that also applies to berry bushes? If one needs to filter these out after picking, then one hasn't really followed Allemansrätten to start with in my opinion. And picking all berries is obviously having a meaningful impact for other people so that too isn't in accordance to the law in my opinion.) In the end. I see it as somewhat logical to draw the line at the tool as a simple solution. Want to use a berry picker then you need the landowner's permission to use it. Otherwise pick by hand. And I know a lot of Swedes will consider my conclusion as ridiculously harsh. But read what I have written and ponder, is it okay to pick all the berries? Does it matter if it is you who do it, your friend, neighbor, or someone from Thiland? I say no, picking the majority of the berries is picking too many berries. And stop ripping apart the bushes... (I also think this comment has gotten needlessly long. But apparently berry picking is a highly debatable subject.)
@@todayonthebench I would have no problem if they picked berries for profit on state owned land, like SCA, Svea Skog, but picking berries for profit (companies hiring 1000s of people) on non state landowner land without consent is kind of weird. This was never a problem before, the industry has grown a lot in a few years, I think it a 2-3 billion SEK industry in the consumer end of things. Before people picked berries for personal use and to sell to get some extra money during summer. Now it an industry. On my 100 hektar almost all blueberries got picked by companies in a few days, kind of sucks. If they asked for consent I would not even mind having pickers on the land but picking "my" berries before me and my family have picked anything is plain wrong. But I think this will change...
@@watchmobiletvnow I personally have just as much of a problem with industrial scale picking on state owned land. (Mainly since I live nearby such a forest) But the core philosophy of the law is still "No major impact on the environment." and clean picking the forests is a major impact on the environment and therefore isn't legal. Now, the law is hard to enforce in practice. And landowners have a hard time going after the pickers and the companies behind them. (since the law requires one to be more specific than "berry pickers took everything.") But regardless. If you have issues with berry pickers on your land to the point that you and your family can't pick any berries growing on your property, then the ones picking aren't following the law and you do have grounds to take legal action.
Exactly. It's not a Right to Roam. In Scotland we have a Right to Responsible Access. It's really bad marketing and 'ask' to keep calling it a Right to Roam
Well done Paul. Excellent video which needed making. There’s so much nonsense talked about the right to roam, often by landowners implacably opposed to it. Jon Moses is a great communicator and puts the case in an empathetic and reasoned way. I thought I knew a lot about the CROW Act 2000 but he taught me something today.
as a small farm owner i work eally hard to keep crops growing well. they dont grow well when people walk across them. my farm is inbetween 2 villages and has 2 footpath on eather side that do join up in about a mile walk from whee they last joined. people often walk up our field to get from 1 path to another and have dogs running loos at same time. i put polite sighns telling people to plese keep to the foot paths and keep dogs on leads but people have riped them out. the fields are my garden that i take time and spend money on looking after and it is really annoying when people walk across it for no readon. also other farmers can have wiled cattle that they keep in a field away from foot paths but if people go there cos of the ""right to roam" they could let dangerous cattle out or get killed them. farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths
I know how you feel, we have a track which goes to fields and our back entrance to the property. Farm vehicles are always damaging Hedges, fencing etc. We even caught the farmer cutting down protected trees on our land which is actually illegal. In Essex the farmers are 99% entitled wankers.
I'm curious about this bit - "farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths". Is it correct, do you know of any cases or have sources? I've come across plenty of cattle in my walks, although I don't know if they were considered dangerous cattle. I thought that the walker has to avoid harm to the livestock or crops in the field, not the other way round.
@@Macbobob i know of farmes getting fined for having bulls in field without a sighn and farmers that have had cows and calves in fields that have chased people in the field potecting thee calves. also farmers been told by councils they have to repair gates and stiles. anothe thing i have come across is farmers been told they cant have stiles and needs kissing gates in to fields but with cattle kissing gates get damaged and pushed ove from cattle rubing against them making it easy for them to escape then the farme getting fined by the council when the cattle escape on to a main road evan tho its because of the kissing gate failing
You should rejoice @wout123100 That exalting one man above another is not something any of us should do. Furthermore it's actually sin to do so. Bible. Romans 2:1,11 [1]Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. [11]For there is no respect of persons with God. Bible. Ephesians 6:9 [9]And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. Bible. Colossians 3:25 [25]But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons. Bible. James 2:1,8-9 [1]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. [8]If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: [9]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are ( reproved see Definition) of the law as transgressors. Merriam-Webster's definition of "reprove": www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove
If they called it "The right to Responsible Access" rather than "The Right To Roam" I think there would be more farmers willing to go along with it however the term "Responsible Access" would need to be spelled out in the law!
It's a fair point but right to roam is the colloquial expression we've used for hundreds of years and realistically it's how it gets discussed in the media etc. What we're calling for is, in fact, a right of responsible access - as per Scotland.
@@pwhitewick The term "right" is the problem. It's from entirely different (combative) legal system (like USA) which grants absolute legal rights instead of UK's typical legal framework which grants freedom to e.g. trespass conditional on meeting terms that do not violate another's "rights". Nobody has any 'rights' without their respective 'responsibilities'. Nobody has the right to roam regardless of making it legal you immediately take away someone else's rights under false pretences. Like other sports and recreational activities people will have to be licenced, pay access fees and fines etc and access rights legally bought and paid for.
In Scotland it is called that and the rules are very clear. This is still not enough, however, for some visitors who seem to think that they can go wherever they want.
Large swathes of the British public are unfortunately not responsible enough to leave an area as they found it. This aggravates me deeply because if they were, the landed gentry sat in the house of lords might be more open to change. Litter dropping needs tackling first. Then land access.
I agree from what I've seen on this channel that there are access rights that need fixing, that's obvious. I'd say farming and rural communities have enough on their plates without a mass influx of townies. So - just how much land are they suggesting we need access to for our 'wellbeing' as this is how it's being sold on their website? We currently have the right to 8% of the land, opening up other areas won't necessarily mean less overcrowding or that many more people will leave the cities looking to enjoy nature, it could just increase rural tourism from overseas. Worst case is you may end up with what's happened in other parts of the world that now see overtourism in selfie-scenic areas, to the point that access is now being restricted by lottery and prebooking, hint - people go to places that are popular to be seen at not just because they're open for access. I can see the countryside is going to end up like Cornwall in the Summer, that'll make the working natives happy (along with all the wild camping...and the rise in Lyme and TBE cases). With 70% of England being farmland, do farmers get a say in this? The 'Normans' btw do have freeholds on 30 to 47% of all the land (as 17% is unaccounted for so 'assumed; to be theirs), so almost half a Yoake, then. How do you convince the remaining near 50% to comply, especially the 18% owned by companies and 17% by 'new money'? Reading their website, is there no currently fashionable issue not mentioned? Like a modern-day Digger movement crossed with Post-war Lebensreform, it also covers Anti-establishmentism, Anti-game shooting, Anti-National Trust, Colonialism, Slavery, Diversity and Inclusivity, Mental Health and Wellness...all by promoting a romanticised view of a rural life that we've lost (reading too much Edward Thomas me thinkst). Were we ever really 'connected' to Natures since we were hunter gathers? That seems like such a middle-class, Guardian view. Rural life was a hard one for the majority and since the Celts arrived we have always managed the Natural environment to serve our needs, not the other way around. Essentially, this is just a CC and environmental agenda, and nothing more.
We have much more right to roam here in Scotland thanks to the Land Reform act. It is underpined with responsibility and care of the environment. I hope England gets the same.
we have had the right to roam since at least 1320 declaration of Arbroath etc. The land reform act was a labour con. Why should anyone need permission to roam in their own country . The powers that be are quick enough to conscript you to go and fight for the land that you are not allowed to roam on.
Having the right, doesn't mean many more will exercise that right as this is being sold to the English population. It would be interesting to see just how many more of the Scottish population now venture into the countryside these days and what actual positive effect that has had on mental health and wellbeing in Scotland. Surely there must have been at least one study done on this!
But then it's terrible, only can walk or ride a bloody bike. We want proper public land for recreational activities like is seen in the rest of the world.
At 7:38 and 8:40 you somewhat dodged the question of livestock. In order to be taken seriously, it is important for right-to-roam advocates to actively take a stand that protects the farm animals. Letting a dog loose in a field with sheep or cows, lambs or calfs, or bothering such animals in a way that gets you, or them, injured, should be treated as serious property crimes.
It's middle-class, eco-loon policy masquerading as a wellness campaign, I was half expecting to see Chris Packham at some point. You need to read what's on their website. We've had the Countr(side) Code since 1951, item 3 of 10 "Keep dogs under proper control", if that hasn't worked in all those years since, I don't believe the assurances given here. You're not going to educate all the masses of people they want in the countryside and a lot of bad things will happen. Last thing you need is even more townies...yes, I was brought up in a country village 🤣
The problem here is not the right to walk across a field, but dogs. Any right to roam should exclude dogs, as they cause enormous harm to nature, wildlife, and livestock. Try looking up the number of sheep and cows killed by dogs every year.
I don't think it's as easy as just allowing right to roam. I bought my farm 20 years ago and will be still paying for it for many years to come. My experience of the public just using a footpath on my land is regular left with litter, dog excrement and damaged fences and gates left open. Keeping stock and growing has enormous investment and this is where is goes wrong. I have had animals abort by being chased by dogs, another animal eating rubbish left and vets required and gates left open with animals getting onto the road. My farm is my livelihood and business but making it public has enormous consequences. Hay making last year could have ended in tragedy where a couple were picnicking in the field and had air pods on and didn't hear my tractor/grass cutter. We do have organised visits to the farm but people freely entering would be difficult and would also be a security risk where we have extensive machines and valuable products on site. I think the ability to walk the country is very idyllic and I'm sure lots of people will do that with respect. We do use guns to control vermin and that bothers me enormously if a mistake occurred.
Not all the public act like you say. You can not restrict access because of a few bad apples. Please try not to be too selfish, it is not just about how much profit you make. It is about enjoyment of the land. The last time I checked, most famers had nice big houses and expensive land rovers. You are not getting my sympathy.
As someone fortunate enough to have been brought up in a rural area the idea of leaving gates ajar, breaking fences, damaging crops and letting the dogs run wild (especially in Spring) just never occurs to me.
I understand your point of view, and I respect what you say, but when you look at just how much of the country is inaccessible to the people it is upsetting and ultimately unhealthy for body and mind, it feels like a wealth inequality, only those that are more affluent get the opportunity to experience nature, it creates anger. I don't have a solution, but I would suggest that a destination is made between working farms and land that is owned by the 8% that simply cut off because their family own it and they don't like peasants.
@@MrLeighmanit's people like you and your ignorant attitude that makes farmers keep people off the land. Majority of farmers don't own their houses as they are a part of the farm tenancy they pay silly amounts of rent for. It's also the farmers who spend hundreds of hours working the land so it's actually accessible. It only takes 1 bad apple with a dog and a farmer can lose thousands of £ worth of lambs in 10 minutes and any profit for the year. You can't just simply re grow a lamb in 5 minutes. You lose a lamb then that's months of work lost. You don't have to give farmers your sympathy but don't cry and moan when farmers and landowners don't have sympathy for you either when you have nowhere to walk in the countryside because we don't want you and your ignorant city mind. And everyone knows your attitude would be the complete opposite if it was your garden that people are throwing little in, leaving dog poo in and letting their dogs run wild while they attack your family pets and kill them. You would lose your mind.
I read a book written by a man who walked the English coastline from somewhere down in Essex up to near Hull. It was a sort spiritual pilgrimage for him. The only part of his coastline walk that was cut off by stout strong wire fences and big signs saying "No entry - Private Property " was a stretch of land in Essex that was the private estate of that great Socialist and Man of the People MP Tony Benn. Our walking guy had to do a long inland journey around it. Definitely No Access there.
Don't we have the Countryside Code to tell people how to behave when out walking? Is this reluctance for the right to roam across all land owners, or is it just a few ? A great video btw, highlighting the issues in the difference in Scottish law and English law.
As a farmer my objection to a general right to roam in densely populated England is partly due to the disturbance caused to wildlife by dogs running free in particular. I've experienced it on areas I've set aside for wildlife. So pleased to see that tackled in the video. The other thing is that the land I farm is my 'factory' floor, with machinery moving around and cattle grazing. I don't want to have to be watching for random people when I'm working, other than on the already clear and established footpaths. Don't dare sue me when you get injured!
No one I know has ever said the "general" right to roam. We are talking about access to centuries old paths and reasonable access. Something some land owners unlawfully restrict.
How was the unleashed dog issue "tackled in the video"? As a farmer, can you tell me how farmers are compensated for loss of livestock, such as lambs and sheep? We've had the Country(side) Code since 1951, key message No3 "Keep dogs under proper control ", the Code is not legally enforceable (though parts fall under other laws). Wilful anti-social or illegal behaviour are not covered by the Code - do you think this should be revised, given the current 'wellness' and 'diversity' push to get urban people out into the countryside? Growing up in a village in the 70s we had plenty of instruction and warning over playing with tractors, don't go near the PTO, near silage pits, etc. are all these people going to get the same instruction? [and I didn't even mention wild camping...]
I don't own a dog and never intend to, as a keen walker with an ecology degree, it is sad that I can't access nature due to unregulated dog ownership. Also had to clamber over fences in the past to avoid an angry bull protecting his herd in the field with the footpath. The actions of some farmers just prove why alternative routes are essential.
I think that dogs (or more accurately, dog owners) are a big problem. I'm been hiking the length and breath of the South Downs for decades, but when walking along the SDW you know when you're coming close to a car park because of the increase in dog poo left on the path (despite the bins). Sheep-worrying is also a big issue. Also littering, and increasingly the lighting of fires. People are very often, I'm very sad to say, destructive, unthinking, and selfish. For example, damage was caused to land at the Devil's Dyke by an illegal rave that will take years and millions of pounds to recover. There's a lot that can be done to vastly improve Britain's natural environment: less intensive farming; rewilding; stopping sewage entering rivers; and so on - but a 'right to roam', in my opinion, would be another backward step. No matter how well intentioned, you just can't trust people to be responsible. I would say that the rights of flora and fauna to exist trump any perceived rights of people to disturb their environments. After all, there are already 140,000 miles of footpaths in the UK - that's more than five-and-a-half times the length of the equator. If you have a specific want or need to go somewhere out of bounds please just politely talk to the landowner and ask permission. You'll be surprised how understanding they can be. And before anyone asks; I am not a land owner myself, or associated with anyone who is. I'm just someone who is genuinely worried about nature, and what we collectively are doing to it.
Dog ownership needs to change, full stop. But the right to roam works here in Scotland. Last year a local ranger told us they went out with an army of litter pickers to a frequented wild camping spot around a loch. They spent the entire day at it, and what did they find? A single, one, plastic bag that had blown on to the central island in the loch that they needed a kayak to retrieve. Here in Scotland, the right to roam is respected, and because of that, the majority of people respect the land in kind. The problem here is tourists not respecting the land, probably because they come from regions that don't educate on how to respect it, and irresponsible dog owners. Lets change dog ownership laws.
We wonder why the youth of today are disengaged and unpatriotic, well perhaps that's because they own no part of this country, and they are allowed no access to this country, it is therefore no wonder, that they feel no connection to this country. It's vital for the future of our nation and nationality, that everyone is allowed to roam, and connect with this land, and to feel connected with the United Kingdom.
You are kidding? Public footpaths and commons provide fantastic access to the countryside. Try walking across farmland anywhere else you'll soon appreciate how the British are intimately connected with their landscape. In most Commonwealth countries, and the US private land is private. A lot of Australians cannot understand walking across farmland, they are so conditioned to drive to an "attraction" read a sign, then drive on.
I would argue that an access island creates a implied right of access across surrounding land. As long as you follow the rules about using gates, not causing damage etc I'd say you were fine.
Always take an OS map with you where you can validate a PF . Keep dogs on a lead in sensitive areas and where there is live stock, keep calm if a landowner approach’s you . Remember if the police are called the chances are they will not know the law or rights but having a map showing clearly where you are and why you have justification to walk/ access a certain area and show that you haven’t done anything to damage land or wildlife. Unfortunately there are just as many irresponsible members of the public accessing land as there are responsible members of the public.
I'm in Scotland and there are new paths being built where I am. The Crieff - Muthill cycle path is a three mile path that will soon link the two places. It uses a farm track, a new path using the fenced off edge of a field that grows crops, and stretches of a minor road. Together with the Crieff - Comrie path (7 miles) and the Loch Earn Railway Path this will create about 25 miles of an almost car free cycle path, linking Lochearnhead to Muthill. More paths could be made in lots of other places by using the fenced off edges of fields, as the farmer would only lose a small percentage of the total area of each field. All at the right price to the farmer, of course!
Bike racetracks are not paths. All the money is going into converting paths into bike racetracks, none into actual paths so there is a net loss. Who wants to walk with the continual "ting ting" which whatever they say really means "get out of my way". One of the good aspects of the current English legislation is they are not allowed on many paths, make sure any new right to roam doesn't erode this.
Every non landowner likes the idea of right to roam but in my experience hardly anyone wants to go off the established paths unless lost. Off path walking is tough because of bogs, streams and undergrowth. Striding freely over the land is a lovely egalitarian dream but in practice very few will want to do it.
If that's the case, why worry about it? I agree that many people use paths in practice. But default rights of access provide a statutory basis which helps support the path network: it removes the incentive to 'disappear' or obstruct paths, because they become a means of access management, it encourages the creation of new paths, it helps make the path network more connected, and it frees people to go off-path where it's appropriate and they have their own reasons for doing so. It's also worth noting that access reform is also about things like e.g. the ability to swim in reservoirs and rivers, or stopping very wealthy landowners removing people's rights to wild camp on Dartmoor, or aristocrats to take away a whole town's most important green space at a whim...
Perhaps the time, effort and money would be better spent protecting, improving and extending the existing path network, and creating new routes. This would benefit far more people than the tiny number who would want to struggle through brambles, waist high heather and gorse.
@@jamesthomas4841spread of diseases like foot and mouth is a very good reason. Along with every soft city dweller who twists their ankle and wants to take the landowner to court because they haven't smoothed the ground for them.
@kieranb7047 Curently Foot and Mouth outbreaks leads to the temporay closure of rights of way the same would apply to any extended right of access. As for the risk of being sued for a twisted ankle I suggest you watch the video a bit more carefully 😉
If you give right to roam, you will have a massive vehicular camping problem and particularly campervans and motorhomes have no regard for rare wild life in the Highlands of Scotland. Motorhomes do not have right to roam, but most owners think that are entitled to use them on other people's property. Before a right to roam is opened up, there needs to be promise of law enforcement against motorhomes camped on other people's property; and dumping human poo and rubbish and chemical toilets.
Moving to Scotland was a breath of fresh air in terms of access rights and I frequently feel hemmed in when I visit English countryside. That said, the population pressures are very different. Even in the more densely populated central belt we have significant amounts of countryside locally and huge swathes to explore to our north and south. My main hobby is natural history. Watching wildlife and observing and recording species as I find them. I'm not talking about the showy well-known mammals and birds that tend to draw nature lovers but vascular plants, mosses, insects and other invertebrates. The right to roam allows me to gingerly hop field fences (helps to be lanky) and delve into deans and gullies and other remote corners few ever visit. Often I will find something unusual and unnoticed living in these places. Sometimes what I find turns out to be the most northerly record for it and in that sense expands our knowledge of what that organism can endure (or perhaps how much climate change has affected things). I couldn't do this in England and that's a shame. Designated footpaths are probably enough for most but I'm glad of the right to roam allowing me to truly explore.
Great Vid and Damn right, it shouldn't be confrontational from the off, granted sometimes things are taken advantage of but god we're human, just bloody talk and be responsible and keep your dogs on a lead where needed and show damn respect - too many people, thinking they've got the right to rule everything!! Not in my world you don't!
Having to state these things in such a way just underlines how bad the situation is. Everything the man is saying is sensible logic - why does it need to be explained? Because of people, people are not logical or sensible. That's how bad it is.
The UK have cultured plastering signs. The architectural damage is 100% with regards to buildings of public access - a total mess. The people even relates to any sign as laws. (In other forums I would argue why the UK is a Police State.) However, it is very refreshing witnessing Jon Moses in the battlefields of the rights of the people. As a Norwegian, hearing him argue of the more than a thousand years old Nordic rules of freedoms is refreshing. (Your battle is lost when seeing a sign in the fields stating “dis da private”.)
With the right to roam always comes responsibility. Respect for nature and wildlife, farming, forestry and privacy included. It works perfectly well here in Scandinavia and people tend to be more prone to taking care of their environment in general when they're allowed to take part of it.
Yes, but the English are not the Swedish. Our rural histories are different. Agricultural land in Sweden is just over 7% (2.7 million hectares), in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
@@LoremIpsum1970 Yes, and forestry covers 70% of Sweden, that's 22.5 million hectares compared to 0.25 million hectares in England... However, the responsibilities that comes with the right to roam includes that you don't trample around in fields and destroy the crops as well as not destroying the forest, so your comparison is pretty irrelevant.
@@Balkongodlaren Not irrelevant at all, just how many Swedes spend time in your agricultural areas? I don't think I've ever seen a video showing anyone enjoying the right to roam in Swedish farmland. Is that a destination for many? Or do most go to the islands and forests where there's a much smaller population? Look forward to your answers. One thing you have to realise is we haven't got a generation that's been exposed to the countryside, or taught how to conduct themselves when they are there.
Yep because we're not allowed in these places, when we find ourselves there, the rebel is already active. I remember as a teen roaming and we'd cause trouble cause we knew we weren't meant to be there. Maybe treat people with more respect and they'll be more respectful
An interesting video and it would be interesting to get the other side of the debate on roaming rights from the NFU. What does the NFU think about the fox hunting ban. The countryside is where we grow our food and food security comes first in my view.
Curious as what fox hunting, which is an archaic barbaric, cruel, and illegal activity, has to do with rights of way? It’s also worth noting that we grow less and less of our own food and import more and more, although food and biosecurity and animal welfare are key issues. We’ve all met the ‘get off my land’ brigade, enclosures act when they stole away common land from the common man.
@@daveswhite90 Do farmers need to keep fox numbers down and is fox hunting the way to do it? I would think that fox hunting must damage hedges and growing crops. It would be interesting to hear what the NFU has to say about all of this.
@@Corialtavi Dream on. We don't need common land as much anymore since a lot of us moved left the countryside, unless you have some livestock needing to graze. Any change to the law regarding land ownership will affect us plebs as well.
I own a tiny piece of land by a river. Never minded people using it. But last month someone came on picked all the bluebells and stole my kayak . Don't want to fence it but........
Mhm, the scottish Land Reform Act 2003 explicitly only allows you to roam as long as you follow its rules of respect. Disrupting the environment isn't permitted. The asshole who tore up all your bluebells would still be committing a crime under right to roam.
@EStewart573 wish I could pick and choose who came by but..... I won't fence it off as its a lovely little secret place I dreamed about finding when I had young children.
We have enough footpaths here in England for the majority of ramblers or walkers etc. In my case there are footpaths across our land that are are pain at times as I cannot fence for stock without erecting signs etc. and despite what the man said, liability is an issue. There is a well marked on an old map in one of our fields: has it been filled in, capped, open or disused, how deep, etc. are the insurers questions. As we have not been able to locate it, the insureres tried to quadrupple our premiums. We already had to take down a 200+ year old Pear Tree as a footpath passed near to it and it was deemed a liability. It is the 'right-to-roam' warriors (townies) that I object to - only had to deal with a couple over the years - they seem to take 'right-to-roam' as meaning they can go anywhere they want with their dogs running loose. Ramblers occasionally stray as it can be difficult sometimes to follow paths, and I have no objection to these people. It will be the few that ruin it for the majority. Regards from Somerset.
Insurance companies always want to push things for no reason. I feel for you. Above all, though, every other point you raise, we do cover in this video. Dogs, liability education, and reform. Finally, there is absolutely no reason any court would agree that a 200 year old pear tree needs removal.
I agree there's a difference between what the law states and how insurers may interpret it (or, you might argue: exploit it). As I say in the video, we're proposing that is addressed as part of access reform. The people you're describing - going anywhere with dogs etc - aren't 'right to roamers' though, they're people who either don't understand the current access laws, or don't care. Reform means creating a clearer, more legitimate access model that can be easily communicated to the public and places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of access users. It will predominantly affect those who *do* care what the law is. It will also create more political interest in interventions around dogs. That can only help with irresponsible access.
can i come n trespass accross ur garden..? or is it only country lands that one can trespass on. there shd be a 'right to roam' accross the gardens in a city/town... fairs fair n all...
@@DraftingandCrafting i live in the country n my land is private.. i don't want strangers wandering over my land or peering in my windows or looking in my sheds! i'm all for wild camping, but theres plenty of commanage about without the need t be traipsing accross my land. when people do, i tell them theyve no right of way and point them t my gate, all very politely mind, cos manners cost nothing. i bet if you found some strangers camping in ur back garden you'd likely call the fuzz...
Footpaths and bridleways need far more protection, but allowing everyone to wander Willy nilly is stupid. I saw this happening during COVID lockdown. Idiots everywhere, lighting barbecues and camping. Shit and litter left everywhere.
I'm not sure taking an example from lockdown - when gathering indoors was illegal, and there was no preparatory communication, education, or resource to handle unprecedented numbers - tells us much about what will happen following access reform. Apocalyptic predictions were made prior to the 1949 Act, the CRoW Act, the LRA. None of them came to pass. What lockdown did show us is that access to nature is limited and unequal. That needs redress.
Just a thought... The entire premise of the Norwegian right to roam system is kind of based on the acknowledgement that using your right entails accepting responsibility... You get the right once you can show personal understanding of the responsibilities. . So you also accept the possibility of punishment such as a fine or the likes. All these freedoms are basically the ability to accept responsibility for your actions..
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell Come to Jesus Christ today Jesus Christ is only way to heaven Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today Romans 6.23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16-21 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. Mark 1.15 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Hebrews 11:6 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Jesus
In my US state (NH) there is a presumed right to pass over unimproved land that is not fenced or legally posted every 300 feet around its perimeter. This has sometimes been called the "inherent right of trespass". My land is just under 50 acres, and although it does have a conservation easement that limits motorized vehicles I have no objection to people walking through my woods or following the brook. It is not posted.
Typical America, it's all down to your individual rights? So paths can appear and disappear depending on who owns it and their whims? The truth is no one should own land, it's totally mental that we allow it at all.
As someone who only hears about the US on telly, I'd be worried about accidentally trespassing and getting shot (I'm not black though so maybe I'd be fine in that case). Or perhaps that's just Florida 🤷
@@shyft09 There are far more guns than people in the US. In some states no permit is required to carry one, either openly or concealed. In some states even the mentally unstable can own or purchase a gun. However, if you stay off improved or posted land (obviously trespassing) and avoid unruly gatherings, that would improve the odds to avoid being shot by an armed crazy. Oh, and stay out of the woods during deer hunting season!
Right to Roam is one of those things I've always been jealous of Europe for, its such a fantastic idea. Sure its nice having neatly manicured local, state, and national parks, but theres so much more out there to experience
@@brettmeikle That is a very good question. In the US we don't have all the great old Roman roads or numerous canals or other historic routes to hike on. We do have some a few old rail lines to hike and bike on as well as a few canals, but most reverted back to private ownership. But it would be nice to have access to the historic sites we do that are on private property.
Even so, the US has a lot more public land than the UK. Only 8% of the UK's surface is publicly accessible, while in the US that figure is 28%. Granted, a lot of it is in the Rockies, but that still counts.
i have seen people extending their gardens over a few foot paths, one was on the most recent map, printed that year, it was an area with many paths, but the one i needed was the one newly fenced. i was very pregnant and i could not manage the extra 6miles to walk around, as i would have missed the bus home, so i climbed the fence and broke it
That final point is spot on. It is/was under serious threat from the current Government who want to criminalise simple non intrusion, not threatening trespass.
We used to have lots of anti litter advertising and countryside code stuff but given people don't watch the same level of TV that they did, how do we go about ensuring that we cultivate that responsible access and get the message to everyone? It can't be policed so we need to police ourselves which means buying into the idea of doing no harm. And if we don't understand when we're causing harm, we won't know to avoid it.
I live in Edale, Peak District. We had the big infamous mass trespass in the 30's that is considered the moment the public sympathy changed to start supporting the right to roam.
We used to have 'access to the land' until The Enclosures of Common Land predominantly in the 18th & 19th Centuries. Perhaps we could start with reversing some of that?
I believe in the right to roam. In fact, I love walking in the countryside and respect the codes. The only problem is I don't trust dog owners. Unfortunately, I find dog owners irresponsible. You see them in the towns not exercising their dogs on greens or in parks but in the cemeteries, and I constantly see them messing on graves, cocking their legs on the headstones and tearing up children's memorials with their teeth. Dog owners also let off their dog's leads in areas they shouldn't and some use long leads instead of short leads on narrow pathways.
Perhaps we could start a land owners members group to allow more access. I have 5 acres of land without any public right of way. I was on my own land 1 night only to have a council enforcement officer pop around the next day to say I cannot live on the land. 28 days a year is impossible to look after land and farm it with a organic forest system or maintain proper paths. I wonder if we could all work together to mutually support all parties. I feel the whole system needs to change. It's taken me 3 years now to try to find a house in the area to finally be able to manage my land. Cross fingers I might just be at the point of buying a house.
Hi Paul, What an excellent video, very well presented. Jon made the case for right to roam very well, it really is absurd to have these islands. I note from one of the other comments that each clip was done in one take, he must have been a joy to interview All the best!!
A lot of landowners seem to think that someone out for a nice walk is somehow going to steal their land off them. Hence the endlsss private property, trespassers will be prosecuted etc signs. This is probably because they're aware on some level that the only reason they have a huge tract of land in the first place is that somewhere back in time someone really did steal it. Real justice would be stealing it all back, a mere right to roam is pretty mild by comparison. But those with more than their share will always take violent exception to even a 1% shift back towards fairness.
Q. Why would you need to tread on that piece of land.. ? The view over the land is what we cherish, to tread on it doesn't add any additional magic. One of the most concerning aspects of people wandering willy-nilly is our security, interesting that your presentation doesn't address this. Your home in Acacia Ave or wherever will have numerous neighbours peering out of windows, if someone is spotted in your garden you'll know soon enough, and so will the police. Our homes are remote, isolated, not overlooked. We know our neighbours, we know why they may be walking through our local area.. if a stranger decides to check out our locality and we become concerned, our police station, if it's open, may be 12 miles or more away. We may may not suffer the levels of street crime associated with towns but rural crime is very real .. hugely expensive equipment and animals are at serious threat of theft. Our fields are your garden in Acacia Ave, but without the nosey neighbours.
I can see this from both sides, the main problem will be a minority who have no regard for anything, we see this on the banks of the Thames were an increasingly expanding group leave rubbish on moorings. The result being that the landowners rightly refuse access to these areas at the expense of all of us.
Interesting video, although I have real issue with the interpretation of "responsibility" given in your interview. Unfortunately you only need to look at many areas where the general public already has open access to realise that in the UK giving people the responsibility to treat other peoples property with respect does not work. While most will take their litter home and not cause damage, many others will treat it with disregard and spoil it for everyone. Just look at the state of many parks in the UK. While it may be true that only a small percentage of the population own the land, many others rely on that same land to earn a living and feed the nation. In general they are the responsible ones because it physically affects their income.
Some dog owners in our local country parks can't control their dogs off the leash...and I was quite disturbed to encounter a dog walker with 6 dogs, some off the leash, that she could not control. Most are fine, of course, but not everyone wants to meet someone's darling doggo who's "just excitable" and has left their owner far far behind.
A very interesting interview loved it, this should be taught in schools for kids to explore and land owners to teach to the schools around the countries about responsibilites. It helps growth and understanding of nature. Some kids do not even know how an apple grows other than it comes from Marks and Sparks. Well done Paul for bringing the Right to roam Video to our attention.
For me the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Many of Jon's points are absolutely valid and one of the frustrating things of having to live in UK is what happens on Bank holidays when far too many people have to crowd into areas too small to accommodate them comfortably. But the other side of the coin is that the British in particular are averse to following rules which are for the good of the many. It would absolutely have to be policed or everywhere will become a hellhole. I say let's create the culture of care first, before letting them loose. And start with 5 year olds when they start school. Teach them civic pride and responsibility and the reasons for rule-following. The little 'uns did a sterling job in making parents feel guilty about smoking. Maybe they could do the same for learning to share open spaces civilly.
I have heard all these arguments before and, while on paper it seems quite fair, it’s based on the assumption that everyone will treat nature like you. My experience from having footpaths across animal fields is that for every three responsible people there was one that littered, cut my fences down because using the stile was a bother and let their dogs chase my sheep (occasionally to death). When you love your land and animals you begin to resent and distrust all walkers based on the bad behaviour of a few. So maybe there should be a roaming licence? Something that can be removed from those who don’t respect the places they go to. Perhaps this enforced responsibility could grow trust between owner and roamer?
The irony of the “what if they don’t want you leaving litter and disturbing the habitat” type arguments is that the people who want the right to roam access are exactly the kind of people who will be considerate about their impact and their litter 😂
Exactly: if you're already breaking the law why would you care what the access law is and isn't. It's those who are who worry what the law says. The more responsible people in the countryside, the better the culture we'll get around it (and the greater weight of pro-social activity by those who do access: picking up litter, speaking out for nature and so on).
same with wild camping. Being solitary in the midst of nature in a small, quietly coloured tent or bivi bag, brewing your tea on a tiny efficient stove, packing up every single item you brought with you and taking it away again, leaving nothing behind except a few bent blades of grass - the whole point of wild camping is to be there in the wild and to leave no trace.
But the people who will most likely use the rights granted will have midnight parties and leave piles of booze cans,the bbq,lots of litter and their mess in the bushes.
@@janebaker966 if you think the people who would behave like that would obey a trespass law I think you are mistaken, unless I missed sarcasm in your comment
They aren't likely to be the same folks who will illegally tip/dump/unload their construction rubble or strike bound waste on your fields or into a ravine watercourse - that is an entirely different type of trespass.
The best place to start is more education for all ages about respecting the environment especially taking kids in schools out into nature and teaching them there, whilst this is more difficult for innercity schools, it's possibly even more important for the kids to get them outside into nature and the correct funding should be given to it!
Nimby's and WhatAbouters will make what should be a right an absolute nightmare. It needs legislation to make England and Wales exactly the same as Scotland. 😊❤😊
The problem with "responsible access" is the lack of respect by many people using existing rights of way. Great example is on the Thames Path in my part of Oxfordshire. Local farmer is doing a great job of restoring traditional watermeadows viac reintroducing wild flowers, encouraging ground nesting birds, etc. Every summer he is battling litter, disposable bbq's burning holes in the turf, out of control dogs, poo bags, etc. I am commenting as a keen walker with a farming background so I can see both sides of the argument. I don't see generic right to roam as a solution. We have a massive mileage of PROW, more than enough for everyone to enjoy. The issue of open access islands should be resolvable via local negotiation.
Couldn't agree more. When the general public shows respect for those areas that they can legally access, then maybe 'right to roam' can be considered. But as of now the disrespect shown via litter, uncontrolled dogs and children, etc cannot support any campaign to widen the general public's access to our countryside.
Well, that's not responsible access by definition. The question is how you create a wider culture of responsibility: giving people a sense of belonging to their environment is crucial for that. And if we have a more legitimate system that's not founded on arbitrary exclusion we can more readily introduce exclusion where it's justified.
I was watching a Wildlife rehab video, releasing raptors (falcons etc that have been rescued and then rehab are now able to be released back to the wild). A good point was the gentleman who runs this encourages volunteers to assist in the running of the organisation but then when a release is to occur they have a chance to do the actual release under supervision. He encourages the people to be there so that they are now aware and feel involved - thus becoming more emotive about these birds and their welfare.
Yes I think this is exactly the right attitude: bring people in, make them part of the solution rather than a "problem" to be managed. That's very much what Wild Service is about.
There already is a sort of right to roam, in that the Police and other state representative can freely roam across land in pursuit of their duties. I have had police even come through my garden in hot pursuit. The right to roam just needs to be extended to other people carrying out harmless or beneficial activity like walking.
Paul - any chance you can make a video about accessing rivers in Eng and wales pls? Context is that as somebody who lives very close the river Wye on the Welsh border I’m confused by what I can and can’t do. On one hand all the official literature says to only use a small number of set launching points to access. However, logically there are many more points where footpaths either go to, or handrail the river. There are even one or two points where footpaths appear to cross the river in what I presume were historic fords, and then of course there are a handful of points where access land borders the river. On the basis that the river can be got to via a right of way, and the banks of the river below the highest point are crown land (as I understand it), then there is nothing legally preventing me from launching from any point where a footpath meets a river bank. The problem of course is I can’t find this written anywhere and the absence of any confirmation makes me think it could be more nuanced and therefore maybe not legal? What I need is some Paul Whitwick light thrown on this subject to clear it up once and for all!
The land is owned by farmers it is private I have horses I have seen dogs attack horses. People feeding horses that has lead to the death of horses. It's not about right to roam, these roamers should have a license to roam having done a course on protocols over livestock and nature. And keep their dogs on the lead at all times. Or not take dogs at all. When I was a kid farmers didn't mind us on their land because we knew to behave because we grew up in the countryside. My concern is city people with no idea how the countryside works. More deaths from cows attacking people with dogs. If you get this law passed then the government should be liable for accidents. Or enter at own risk. If u get attacked by a cow the farmer should not be liable.. but if livestock gets injured or dies due to roamers then the roamers should pay for damages.
We agree that you should be obliged to complete e.g. an online course before being allowed to own a dog and also that roaming rights wouldn't / shouldn't apply de facto to dogs (especially off-lead). Would obviously support much better education: our campaign already shamed the government into upping the pathetic £2k it was spending annually to promote the code. And the code isn't great. More to be done. Agree the farmer should not be liable unless they're breaking laws around livestock and existing RoW. Livestock worrying is of couse already a criminal offence. And it's worth noting that the existing studies suggest most livestock worrying occurs due to unaccompanied dogs, which isn't an access issue, it's a wider issue with dog ownership. That isn't to excuse the remainder that is access related. As I say: dog reform is needed regardless of access reform, but access reform may create the political motivation and opportunity to do it.
When I was 10 years old in Ohio USA, I accidentally trespassed on an old lady's property. She detained me with her shotgun and said she was going to call the police. I talked her out of it and promised I'd never be in her property again. There is hardly any property, other than state and federal land where one can walk. The dog issue is important. I'm tired of stepping on dog manure in my garden. As people become less responsible, it's a big issue. Thanks for an interesting video.
Luckily in England, no old Granny will be able to threaten anyone with a shotgun. I wonder if she had actually shot you, could she have claimed self defence? 🇬🇧🇺🇸👍
I find it amazing that in the land of the free, there is so little freedom when it comes to access and the large majority of the vast US is completely barred.
Let's be realistic and get our priorities right. On the whole, this is not a considerate, sensible, or law-abiding country, sadly. Denmark (for example) by comparison, is. Changes will have to be by stages. Some suggestions: 1) Give highway authorities enough money to maintain Rights of Way. Volunteers are great, but they cannot enforce anti-cropping laws. 2) Give government backing to a user-preference upgrade to ROWs and Access Land. Give landowners small payments for locally important new routes, to make the network better, and enforce access points onto Access Islands, where sensible, instead of leaving it to 'consultation'. 3) Pass a law on dog control, with serious penalties. To avoid alienating dog-walkers (who are a huge proportion of path-users), make this legislation part of a universal updated country code. 4) Only then, once this has all been shown to actually work - consider wider Right-to-Roam legislation. We have fresh reports of farmers in Scotland illegally barring access. If consensus does not there, what hope in England?
Agree with RoW protection being central to this. Wider access rights create powerful incentives to maintain and expanding the existing network, as it becomes a tool of access management rather than an imposition. I don't think there's anything innate to English people which makes them less considerate, sensible or law-abiding. It's a question of culture, education, and legitimacy. Scandinavians have a different relationship to land because rights of access have long been enshrined in their culture.
Excellent presentation of the case for this. Will we see anything on Right to Roam in the Labour Party’s manifesto, I wonder. It’s hard for the “no” lobby to argue against Right to Roam when Scotland has been so successful with it. That access land you filmed on was particularly bizarre - it looked like it’s three quite narrow strips - private in the middle!
I don’t think we’ll see anything on the Labour manifesto. I was a member of the party for decades but I cancelled my membership when they dropped their commitment to RTR. They were got at by landowners.
We learn that those who have preserved the land for centuries now have to give way to those who often know nothing about it and remember that ravers and fly tippers can use these privileges as much as the ramblers.
'preserving the land' was axed in the 1950's when subsidies and quotas led to the loss of hedgerows, field margins and wildlife in favour of industrialised farming and monoculture. A few walkers can't do anymore damage than what modern farming methods have already done.
I don't know about Great Britain, but here in the US if we allowed the public to wonder all over private land, the very first thing that would happen is someone falling down and getting hurt then suing the land owner in court. I guarantee this would happen week one!! Then there is vandalism, litter, theft, unauthorized hunting, etc.
Yeah the difference is you're a nation that thrives on fucking over your neighbour for gain whilst blindly following which of the whole two political parties you worship that are bending you over.
I really hope we DONT get right to roam. Most of Joe Public doesn’t care for the access we do have. They leave farm gates open, let their dogs hassle wildlife and farm animals, drop litter, trample and damage crops and get aggressive when told to get back on the footpath. England is not Scandinavia or the US with its wilderness areas. Most of England is farm land which is being used. If you want to talk about responsibility, let’s see Joe Public be responsible with the access they do have before giving them any more.
farm land ought to be improved for the sake of nature, to allow wildflowers to grow amongst crops, and to generally monetarily encourage farmers to maintain their land for nature, to allow people access to nature in the best form possible is to try to encourage them to respect and care for it
Guess as long as people are respectful of people’s land, not going through grain fields, or taking dogs who leave “calling cards”, etc., it should be ok.
1) It's all fine and dandy until people start leaving garbage in pastures/fields or someone leaves a gate open, the cattle get out and the farmer/landowner gets sued for any damage caused by the animals. 2) Farmland is private property, just as much as someone's back yard. Once again, the farmer gets screwed by a bunch of do-gooders who have no concept of the implications of their policies.
@vermeerofdelftscotlandwalk3294 A fence post costs about 4 quid now, not to mention two strands of wire and pig netting all the way around the boundary.
Over 92% of the land in the UK is not developed. All developed land includes all the roads, all the houses, all the gardens, all the businesses, all the parks, all the golf courses.
Promote proper maintenance of public rights of way and the creation of new permissive paths. Your campaign to steal people's land just creates confrontation. The access situation in Scotland is WORSE than England, because England has an extensive network of public rights of way with responsibilities to maintain them and access points such as stiles, and excellent mapping for route planning.
There isn't a conflict between wider access rights and rights of way, they work together. You're right England has a headstart on that. It's not stealing anyone's land. Access doesn't change ownership. That said, much of the current land ownership in England is hardly rooted in legitimate acquisition and the public contribute large amounts of money to landowners. Access is a reasonable exchange under that 'public goods' model.
You are wanting to steal part of it. Quiet enjoyment is one of rights that is part of property ownership and you want to take that away. You’re always going on about dukes who got land hundreds of years ago. What about people who save up all their lives to buy a 20 acre small holding? You demanding the right to use their land against their wishes IS stealing from them. Anyway, you offered to have people round to your garden. What’s the address then?
Unfortunately I feel you have a lot more faith in the general public than a lot of land owners do. There is a massive divide between town and country in the UK and I think it’s one of respect. A “country person" isn’t necessarily someone who lives in the countryside. It’s someone who respects the culture, the environment and the history of the countryside. With all the new homes being plastered across the greenbelt we’re seeing more and more disrespectful behaviour in the countryside. Society can only progress as fast as its slowest participants.
@@pwhitewick and so what are the repercussions if general public litters, causes damage to the land, disrupt livestock, and generally put people’s livelihoods at risk? The police will not have time to follow up cold cases. Is there a restraint where a landowner can say "No I’m sorry but the conduct of a few people has ruined it for the rest of you and now my land is off limits”?The difference between the England vs Scotland or Scandinavia for example is population density. Added to this the fact that many people see the countryside as a leisure facility here in England. It saddens me to see how Londoners treat the area where I live when they come up on their holidays.
This a good idea however, there needs to be more education on what the laws and regulations and an understanding of the countryside (like closing gates behind you and leaving it how you left it so people can enjoy it). Like you mentioned about dogs and how people let them loose but can’t control them, on the other side of that is the livestock of farmers like cows such as mothers and calves can get very aggressive if you get close or bulls if people without the right understanding encounter this then they could get injured. With rights of ways such as footpaths you can help the general public know that maybe a bull is in the field, whereas a right to roam you’re going to need a lot more signs or more education. Who’s going to flip the bill? The government? Tax payers money?
Agree that we need something better than the countryside code and that it needs to be promoted properly. We're also long overdue an intervention on dogs. The government were spending a mighty £2k a year on the countryside code (basically printing a few leaflets) until we pushed them to do more, but it's still not enough. The small investment in education and opportunities to learn how to access the countryside responsibly is massively outweighed by the benefits for physical and mental health (the poor state of which costs the health system huge amounts of money) and the potential benefits for ecology by giving people an investment in their own environment (as we're seeing all around the country with rivers at the moment).
As a farmer our family have been farming our land for over 300 years. We have plenty of footpaths and bridleways across our fields and we don’t want anymore people just wandering where they want to. We are running a business and are growing crops or grazing livestock. We are also doing far more for wildlife with wild flowers, grass margins or winter bird seed areas and don’t want people disturbing these areas and the wildlife. Dog owners let their dogs run where ever and it is a huge problem, especially with ground nesting birds and our livestock. You have no idea what damage the general public do like littering, starting fires, damaging fences or gates and leaving gates open, or camping and damaging the area, damaging crops and disturbing grazing livestock, damaging trees in woodland areas and disturbing feeding areas for pheasant shoots. Security is also a problem with isolated farms. Farms are working areas where there can be danger. There is plenty of open access across the country and places for people to access nature.
@@Lucysmom26 could you imagine if farms were treated like communities? The community gets the right to roam (respectfully), and in turn they are invited to work WITH the farmers to repair fences, install hedgerows, maintain dry stone walls, plant trees etc. Which would help people build up useful skills for elsewhere in life. Local communities used to help farmers bring in the harvest, but these days they use massive diesel chugging monstrosities to do it themselves. I feel segregation breeds dissent.
Please go visit www.righttoroam.org.uk/ You can buy the book mentioned here: uk.bookshop.org/p/books/wild-.... Massive thanks to Jon Moses for his time.
History is the most mysterious and hidden entity in GOD'S world.
We know of the entity called the Antichrist.
Almost a millennium ago, the monarchy was signed over to (not roam) but the geographic location of the same word.
Look up the lecture from Walter Veith called beamable, sustainable princes.
The series is restoring the reformation.
You will find how the kingdom was, under great sufferance, signed over to roam (wink wink)
Proof of the ownership claim of everything as well as everyone can be found in the R.C.Church "cannon Law"
333.3
Interestingly if you double that number you have the number of the Antichrist.
While you wait for laws to change in the UK, I'd recommend visiting Norway and enjoy our beautiful nature, and our right to roam.
It's on my todo list
Yes, I want to move to Norway. Will they let me live there? I am from England.
As fare as I've been told you can walk into a private garden in Norway if you got to pass though it
Erm, only 3% of Norway (1 million hectares) is farmland, in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
Scotland has Right to Roam laws, this video is for England only.
There is a right to roam in my back garden, I have a public foot path about 4 yards from the bottom of it. But due to a secondary 6' fence that's all they can get to. It's a 130 foot section of the path that follows the river Teme. I was out there 2 days ago with the edge trimmer cutting back the brambles and nettles for the walkers, I must get out there again when we next have a dry day because one of the stiles is a bit wobbly so needs to be repaired.
Well done 👍
Sounds like you have the perfect spot to set up a snack box! They were one of the highlights of the C2C. And a nice little money earner I bet if the route is popular ;-)
A wee honesty box like they have on the first part of the West Highland way
Good of you to do some maintainence because lets be honest, a lot of the paths are in a horrendous state and are often unusable in winter, or summer for over growth or mud "both applicable to both seasons in the uk lol" and frankly given that we have had 30 plus years of government whinging about how fat we are, you'd think they'd make good paths we'd want to walk down without getting covered in shit, injured...or hell, even be able to park somewhere near to actually access them in the first place.
@@matthewbooth9265 I've reported other paths in the area that need maintenance on the Worcestershire portal. On it you can see all the reports and dates, and they have not done anything about them for years.
I trespass fairly regularly, although a lot of the landowners round here don't mind if you stick to the edges of fields.
We never break anything to enter, never damage crops, never disturb livestock and never leave litter. And mostly we're sitting photographing wildlife under a camouflage net so you'd probably never even see us.
Once got found by an estate manager while we were in private woods photographing fly agaric mushrooms. He'd seen our cars nearby and thought we might be poachers. Had a lovely chat and he gave me his phone number to let him know when we wanted to come back.
It doesn't always have to end in confrontation.
Agree. We always tell people to be polite and look for the most positive outcome in any confrontation. Some landowners / estate managers / farmers take an enlightened view and you can have interesting and productive conversations. I've had several thoughtful conversations with gamekeepers once we've gotten over the initial disagreement.
@@jm0sesrtr we were parked up on a public road once when a gamekeeper drove up and asked what we were doing. We had every right do be there and didn't need to answer him, but we showed him our camera gear and explained we were photographing the local wildlife.
He then told us where we might spot a goshalk, which was awesome, particularly because gamekeepers are often tarred with the brush of being anti bird of prey.
🙂
To us from the Netherlands, the UK's public footpaths are one major asset. We wouldn't dream of doing anything but walk along.
Meanwhile, in northern Ireland there is basically zero access to the countryside. Since moving here from England Ive come to regard the countryside as something people drive past as they travel from town to town. Visible only from a window.
I feel your frustration, having moved back to southern Ireland from England myself.
That said, the Mourne mountain's loop is very enjoyable.
The Ulster Way Footpath.
my friend moved from england to kilkenny. he says he misses the walks and miles of accessible countryside.
ireland is all locked up
That’s a really odd situation in Ireland. By the way the most Northerly point of "Southern Ireland" is further north than Northern Ireland. Please call it Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.
@@JD-yz9kr Yes I'm aware of this footpath and a few others. Either you've never lived in england and don't understand the sheer number of footpaths in comparison to NI... ....or you live outside NI and don't understand the situation in NI.
As a Swede I come at this whole "right to roam" with different eyes.
However, I also think a lot of people have a rather skewed perspective of the right to roam in Scandinavia.
Like yes, in general one do have the right to walk almost anywhere. Exceptions being industrial sites, mines, farmed fields, gardens, military areas, railway tracks, motorways and a fair few more places.
The core philosophy is to not destroy. So don't break branches on trees and bushes, don't damage vegetation in general or even the geology, don't destroy property, don't leave garbage behind, don't disturb nature as in wild animals and so forth. The most destructive thing one can do is collect 1 handful of hazelnuts a day along one's journey, and set up a tent for 1 night.
In general one isn't allowed to tent within proximity to a house, nor in a garden, or within reasonable visible distance. (A distance that depending on the location can be very very far.)
And only set up fires in designated fireplaces, anywhere else is generally not legal. And most importantly, don't damage the geology, so no fires on the exposed bedrock or other rocks in general. (also good to check with the authorities regarding the current wildfire risk, since if it is high enough (as it often is) then you can't really have a fire at all. And yes, we are very particular about or granite geology, smoothly ice polished rock doesn't grow on trees.)
One can also pick wild berries and mushrooms, but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation. Since whatever one does isn't allowed to meaningfully impact other people's ability to enjoy their right to roam as well. Since everyone is allowed to pick berries, then you can't pick so many that there isn't a meaningful amount left for others to enjoy. This general philosophy is more or less the foundation of Allemansrätten or the Scandinavian right to roam, the foundation is simple, "leave nature as close to undisturbed as you can."
All you said is true except "but don't arrive with 10+ friends to make a profit on blueberries or such. Even picking for personal use has its legal limitation". This is still an issue and has not been proven in court yet. Every year, particularly in the north of Sweden, berry picking companies fly in 5000-6000 pickers from Thailand to pick berries for profit on others peoples land, this I think should be changed in Sweden. But the angry farmers of England is just strange, why be so mad if someone take a stroll across your land. But as someone mentioned, how to treat the land and "freedom to roam/allemansrätten" is taught from a very early age in Sweden.
@@watchmobiletvnow It is true that it hasn't really been legally established where the line in the sand is.
But the foundation of the law is still that one can't meaningfully impact the environment.
Large scale berry picking is debatable how much it meaningfully impacts the environment.
Now, if one sweeps through an area picking every single berry in the process, then that obviously meaningfully impacts other people's ability to pick berries in that area. Ie, breaking this law. (one can't argue that "people can go elsewhere." since that is a meaningful impact to have to go somewhere else.)
But what if one picks half the berries? There is still half left for other people. Except, if others also picks half, it won't take particularly long before practically all berries are gone. So half is likely still a noticeable impact.
If one only picks a few in each square meter, then it likely isn't particularly noticeable that one even were there.
It is simply debatable.
However, a lot of people use tools to pick berries, especially those doing it as a profession, greatly speeding up the process. Is this acceptable by law?
Hand picking berries is fairly slow and easy to argue that it doesn't impact other people's ability to also pick berries. (I can pick a kg of blueberries in around 2-3 hours with this process, more than I personally need.)
While anyone using the "proper" tool can completely empty a sizable area in an hour.
(Then here is me being annoyed... And reading various articles on the subject makes me ponder if people at large are already not following allemansrätten. Since everyone seems to only talk about how to most efficiently pick every single berry and quickly remove any leafs and stems that got torn along for the ride. Btw, isn't the foundation of the law "inte bryta grenar", surely that also applies to berry bushes? If one needs to filter these out after picking, then one hasn't really followed Allemansrätten to start with in my opinion. And picking all berries is obviously having a meaningful impact for other people so that too isn't in accordance to the law in my opinion.)
In the end.
I see it as somewhat logical to draw the line at the tool as a simple solution. Want to use a berry picker then you need the landowner's permission to use it. Otherwise pick by hand.
And I know a lot of Swedes will consider my conclusion as ridiculously harsh. But read what I have written and ponder, is it okay to pick all the berries? Does it matter if it is you who do it, your friend, neighbor, or someone from Thiland? I say no, picking the majority of the berries is picking too many berries. And stop ripping apart the bushes...
(I also think this comment has gotten needlessly long. But apparently berry picking is a highly debatable subject.)
@@todayonthebench I would have no problem if they picked berries for profit on state owned land, like SCA, Svea Skog, but picking berries for profit (companies hiring 1000s of people) on non state landowner land without consent is kind of weird. This was never a problem before, the industry has grown a lot in a few years, I think it a 2-3 billion SEK industry in the consumer end of things. Before people picked berries for personal use and to sell to get some extra money during summer. Now it an industry. On my 100 hektar almost all blueberries got picked by companies in a few days, kind of sucks. If they asked for consent I would not even mind having pickers on the land but picking "my" berries before me and my family have picked anything is plain wrong. But I think this will change...
@@watchmobiletvnow I personally have just as much of a problem with industrial scale picking on state owned land. (Mainly since I live nearby such a forest)
But the core philosophy of the law is still "No major impact on the environment." and clean picking the forests is a major impact on the environment and therefore isn't legal.
Now, the law is hard to enforce in practice.
And landowners have a hard time going after the pickers and the companies behind them. (since the law requires one to be more specific than "berry pickers took everything.")
But regardless.
If you have issues with berry pickers on your land to the point that you and your family can't pick any berries growing on your property, then the ones picking aren't following the law and you do have grounds to take legal action.
Exactly. It's not a Right to Roam. In Scotland we have a Right to Responsible Access.
It's really bad marketing and 'ask' to keep calling it a Right to Roam
Well done Paul. Excellent video which needed making. There’s so much nonsense talked about the right to roam, often by landowners implacably opposed to it. Jon Moses is a great communicator and puts the case in an empathetic and reasoned way. I thought I knew a lot about the CROW Act 2000 but he taught me something today.
Cheers Paul. And... he said all that with every clip... "one take"
as a small farm owner i work eally hard to keep crops growing well. they dont grow well when people walk across them. my farm is inbetween 2 villages and has 2 footpath on eather side that do join up in about a mile walk from whee they last joined. people often walk up our field to get from 1 path to another and have dogs running loos at same time. i put polite sighns telling people to plese keep to the foot paths and keep dogs on leads but people have riped them out. the fields are my garden that i take time and spend money on looking after and it is really annoying when people walk across it for no readon. also other farmers can have wiled cattle that they keep in a field away from foot paths but if people go there cos of the ""right to roam" they could let dangerous cattle out or get killed them. farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths
I know how you feel, we have a track which goes to fields and our back entrance to the property. Farm vehicles are always damaging Hedges, fencing etc. We even caught the farmer cutting down protected trees on our land which is actually illegal. In Essex the farmers are 99% entitled wankers.
I'm curious about this bit - "farmes alleady get prosecuted for having dangeous cattle where there are footpaths". Is it correct, do you know of any cases or have sources? I've come across plenty of cattle in my walks, although I don't know if they were considered dangerous cattle. I thought that the walker has to avoid harm to the livestock or crops in the field, not the other way round.
@@Macbobob i know of farmes getting fined for having bulls in field without a sighn and farmers that have had cows and calves in fields that have chased people in the field potecting thee calves. also farmers been told by councils they have to repair gates and stiles. anothe thing i have come across is farmers been told they cant have stiles and needs kissing gates in to fields but with cattle kissing gates get damaged and pushed ove from cattle rubing against them making it easy for them to escape then the farme getting fined by the council when the cattle escape on to a main road evan tho its because of the kissing gate failing
typical move to the countryside but don't want farming
@@Macbobobno you don't
An unpretentious man who talks a whole load of common sense. How refreshing 🙂
now if we had such a one as president......wont ever happen i am afraid.
You should rejoice @wout123100
That exalting one man above another is not something any of us should do.
Furthermore it's actually sin to do so.
Bible. Romans 2:1,11
[1]Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
[11]For there is no respect of persons with God.
Bible. Ephesians 6:9
[9]And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Bible. Colossians 3:25
[25]But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons.
Bible. James 2:1,8-9
[1]My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
[8]If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
[9]But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are ( reproved see Definition) of the law as transgressors.
Merriam-Webster's definition of "reprove": www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprove
@@wout123100 Makes no difference in the USA who occupies the Oval Office. The imperialist state continues regardless.
If they called it "The right to Responsible Access" rather than "The Right To Roam" I think there would be more farmers willing to go along with it however the term "Responsible Access" would need to be spelled out in the law!
Yup, I don't disagree. I think the Roam word has come from 300 years of history though.
It's a fair point but right to roam is the colloquial expression we've used for hundreds of years and realistically it's how it gets discussed in the media etc. What we're calling for is, in fact, a right of responsible access - as per Scotland.
@@pwhitewick The term "right" is the problem.
It's from entirely different (combative) legal system (like USA) which grants absolute legal rights instead of UK's typical legal framework which grants freedom to e.g. trespass conditional on meeting terms that do not violate another's "rights".
Nobody has any 'rights' without their respective 'responsibilities'.
Nobody has the right to roam regardless of making it legal you immediately take away someone else's rights under false pretences.
Like other sports and recreational activities people will have to be licenced, pay access fees and fines etc and access rights legally bought and paid for.
In Scotland it is called that and the rules are very clear. This is still not enough, however, for some visitors who seem to think that they can go wherever they want.
Large swathes of the British public are unfortunately not responsible enough to leave an area as they found it. This aggravates me deeply because if they were, the landed gentry sat in the house of lords might be more open to change. Litter dropping needs tackling first. Then land access.
I agree from what I've seen on this channel that there are access rights that need fixing, that's obvious. I'd say farming and rural communities have enough on their plates without a mass influx of townies. So - just how much land are they suggesting we need access to for our 'wellbeing' as this is how it's being sold on their website? We currently have the right to 8% of the land, opening up other areas won't necessarily mean less overcrowding or that many more people will leave the cities looking to enjoy nature, it could just increase rural tourism from overseas. Worst case is you may end up with what's happened in other parts of the world that now see overtourism in selfie-scenic areas, to the point that access is now being restricted by lottery and prebooking, hint - people go to places that are popular to be seen at not just because they're open for access. I can see the countryside is going to end up like Cornwall in the Summer, that'll make the working natives happy (along with all the wild camping...and the rise in Lyme and TBE cases). With 70% of England being farmland, do farmers get a say in this? The 'Normans' btw do have freeholds on 30 to 47% of all the land (as 17% is unaccounted for so 'assumed; to be theirs), so almost half a Yoake, then. How do you convince the remaining near 50% to comply, especially the 18% owned by companies and 17% by 'new money'?
Reading their website, is there no currently fashionable issue not mentioned? Like a modern-day Digger movement crossed with Post-war Lebensreform, it also covers Anti-establishmentism, Anti-game shooting, Anti-National Trust, Colonialism, Slavery, Diversity and Inclusivity, Mental Health and Wellness...all by promoting a romanticised view of a rural life that we've lost (reading too much Edward Thomas me thinkst). Were we ever really 'connected' to Natures since we were hunter gathers? That seems like such a middle-class, Guardian view. Rural life was a hard one for the majority and since the Celts arrived we have always managed the Natural environment to serve our needs, not the other way around. Essentially, this is just a CC and environmental agenda, and nothing more.
Well said
We have much more right to roam here in Scotland thanks to the Land Reform act. It is underpined with responsibility and care of the environment. I hope England gets the same.
we have had the right to roam since at least 1320 declaration of Arbroath etc. The land reform act was a labour con. Why should anyone need permission to roam in their own country . The powers that be are quick enough to conscript you to go and fight for the land that you are not allowed to roam on.
Is it that clear cut, you don't have the right to roam on farmland much of the Land in England is farm land.
@@hetrodoxlysonov-wh9oo And most of Scotland's farmland is pretty poor quality anyway.
Having the right, doesn't mean many more will exercise that right as this is being sold to the English population. It would be interesting to see just how many more of the Scottish population now venture into the countryside these days and what actual positive effect that has had on mental health and wellbeing in Scotland. Surely there must have been at least one study done on this!
But then it's terrible, only can walk or ride a bloody bike. We want proper public land for recreational activities like is seen in the rest of the world.
A classic example is Salisbury plain and similar where the military play war games constantly but the wildlife in these places thrive!!
Absolutely! Normans out!
The right to roam freely in England and Wales is 1000 years overdue.
At 7:38 and 8:40 you somewhat dodged the question of livestock. In order to be taken seriously, it is important for right-to-roam advocates to actively take a stand that protects the farm animals. Letting a dog loose in a field with sheep or cows, lambs or calfs, or bothering such animals in a way that gets you, or them, injured, should be treated as serious property crimes.
It's middle-class, eco-loon policy masquerading as a wellness campaign, I was half expecting to see Chris Packham at some point. You need to read what's on their website. We've had the Countr(side) Code since 1951, item 3 of 10 "Keep dogs under proper control", if that hasn't worked in all those years since, I don't believe the assurances given here. You're not going to educate all the masses of people they want in the countryside and a lot of bad things will happen. Last thing you need is even more townies...yes, I was brought up in a country village 🤣
Well yeah, obviously. That's why they're called livestock. Why wouldn't they be protected under property laws?
Sheep worrying is already considered a criminal offence in the UK
@@Oppurtunafish you'd have to catch the dog in the act, so, CCTV on every gatepost? This will work out well...🤔👎
The problem here is not the right to walk across a field, but dogs. Any right to roam should exclude dogs, as they cause enormous harm to nature, wildlife, and livestock. Try looking up the number of sheep and cows killed by dogs every year.
I don't think it's as easy as just allowing right to roam. I bought my farm 20 years ago and will be still paying for it for many years to come. My experience of the public just using a footpath on my land is regular left with litter, dog excrement and damaged fences and gates left open. Keeping stock and growing has enormous investment and this is where is goes wrong. I have had animals abort by being chased by dogs, another animal eating rubbish left and vets required and gates left open with animals getting onto the road. My farm is my livelihood and business but making it public has enormous consequences. Hay making last year could have ended in tragedy where a couple were picnicking in the field and had air pods on and didn't hear my tractor/grass cutter. We do have organised visits to the farm but people freely entering would be difficult and would also be a security risk where we have extensive machines and valuable products on site. I think the ability to walk the country is very idyllic and I'm sure lots of people will do that with respect. We do use guns to control vermin and that bothers me enormously if a mistake occurred.
Not all the public act like you say. You can not restrict access because of a few bad apples. Please try not to be too selfish, it is not just about how much profit you make. It is about enjoyment of the land. The last time I checked, most famers had nice big houses and expensive land rovers. You are not getting my sympathy.
As someone fortunate enough to have been brought up in a rural area the idea of leaving gates ajar, breaking fences, damaging crops and letting the dogs run wild (especially in Spring) just never occurs to me.
I understand your point of view, and I respect what you say, but when you look at just how much of the country is inaccessible to the people it is upsetting and ultimately unhealthy for body and mind, it feels like a wealth inequality, only those that are more affluent get the opportunity to experience nature, it creates anger.
I don't have a solution, but I would suggest that a destination is made between working farms and land that is owned by the 8% that simply cut off because their family own it and they don't like peasants.
@@MrLeighmanit's people like you and your ignorant attitude that makes farmers keep people off the land.
Majority of farmers don't own their houses as they are a part of the farm tenancy they pay silly amounts of rent for. It's also the farmers who spend hundreds of hours working the land so it's actually accessible.
It only takes 1 bad apple with a dog and a farmer can lose thousands of £ worth of lambs in 10 minutes and any profit for the year. You can't just simply re grow a lamb in 5 minutes. You lose a lamb then that's months of work lost.
You don't have to give farmers your sympathy but don't cry and moan when farmers and landowners don't have sympathy for you either when you have nowhere to walk in the countryside because we don't want you and your ignorant city mind.
And everyone knows your attitude would be the complete opposite if it was your garden that people are throwing little in, leaving dog poo in and letting their dogs run wild while they attack your family pets and kill them. You would lose your mind.
I read a book written by a man who walked the English coastline from somewhere down in Essex up to near Hull. It was a sort spiritual pilgrimage for him. The only part of his coastline walk that was cut off by stout strong wire fences and big signs saying "No entry - Private Property " was a stretch of land in Essex that was the private estate of that great Socialist and Man of the People MP Tony Benn. Our walking guy had to do a long inland journey around it. Definitely No Access there.
Don't we have the Countryside Code to tell people how to behave when out walking? Is this reluctance for the right to roam across all land owners, or is it just a few ? A great video btw, highlighting the issues in the difference in Scottish law and English law.
As a farmer my objection to a general right to roam in densely populated England is partly due to the disturbance caused to wildlife by dogs running free in particular. I've experienced it on areas I've set aside for wildlife. So pleased to see that tackled in the video. The other thing is that the land I farm is my 'factory' floor, with machinery moving around and cattle grazing. I don't want to have to be watching for random people when I'm working, other than on the already clear and established footpaths. Don't dare sue me when you get injured!
Yup, all for points and all covered by Jon.
No one I know has ever said the "general" right to roam. We are talking about access to centuries old paths and reasonable access. Something some land owners unlawfully restrict.
Do Farmers ever try to connect with the public? I mean you are human like us, the last time I checked.
How was the unleashed dog issue "tackled in the video"? As a farmer, can you tell me how farmers are compensated for loss of livestock, such as lambs and sheep? We've had the Country(side) Code since 1951, key message No3 "Keep dogs under proper control
", the Code is not legally enforceable (though parts fall under other laws). Wilful anti-social or illegal behaviour are not covered by the Code - do you think this should be revised, given the current 'wellness' and 'diversity' push to get urban people out into the countryside? Growing up in a village in the 70s we had plenty of instruction and warning over playing with tractors, don't go near the PTO, near silage pits, etc. are all these people going to get the same instruction? [and I didn't even mention wild camping...]
I don't own a dog and never intend to, as a keen walker with an ecology degree, it is sad that I can't access nature due to unregulated dog ownership.
Also had to clamber over fences in the past to avoid an angry bull protecting his herd in the field with the footpath. The actions of some farmers just prove why alternative routes are essential.
I think that dogs (or more accurately, dog owners) are a big problem. I'm been hiking the length and breath of the South Downs for decades, but when walking along the SDW you know when you're coming close to a car park because of the increase in dog poo left on the path (despite the bins). Sheep-worrying is also a big issue. Also littering, and increasingly the lighting of fires. People are very often, I'm very sad to say, destructive, unthinking, and selfish. For example, damage was caused to land at the Devil's Dyke by an illegal rave that will take years and millions of pounds to recover. There's a lot that can be done to vastly improve Britain's natural environment: less intensive farming; rewilding; stopping sewage entering rivers; and so on - but a 'right to roam', in my opinion, would be another backward step. No matter how well intentioned, you just can't trust people to be responsible. I would say that the rights of flora and fauna to exist trump any perceived rights of people to disturb their environments. After all, there are already 140,000 miles of footpaths in the UK - that's more than five-and-a-half times the length of the equator. If you have a specific want or need to go somewhere out of bounds please just politely talk to the landowner and ask permission. You'll be surprised how understanding they can be. And before anyone asks; I am not a land owner myself, or associated with anyone who is. I'm just someone who is genuinely worried about nature, and what we collectively are doing to it.
Rambling, with respect for nature, is one thing. Being wilfully negligent or destructive (including leaving dogs mess lying around) is quite another.
stop pushing ravers onto nature reserves
Dog ownership needs to change, full stop. But the right to roam works here in Scotland.
Last year a local ranger told us they went out with an army of litter pickers to a frequented wild camping spot around a loch. They spent the entire day at it, and what did they find? A single, one, plastic bag that had blown on to the central island in the loch that they needed a kayak to retrieve.
Here in Scotland, the right to roam is respected, and because of that, the majority of people respect the land in kind.
The problem here is tourists not respecting the land, probably because they come from regions that don't educate on how to respect it, and irresponsible dog owners. Lets change dog ownership laws.
We wonder why the youth of today are disengaged and unpatriotic, well perhaps that's because they own no part of this country, and they are allowed no access to this country, it is therefore no wonder, that they feel no connection to this country. It's vital for the future of our nation and nationality, that everyone is allowed to roam, and connect with this land, and to feel connected with the United Kingdom.
You are kidding? Public footpaths and commons provide fantastic access to the countryside. Try walking across farmland anywhere else you'll soon appreciate how the British are intimately connected with their landscape.
In most Commonwealth countries, and the US private land is private.
A lot of Australians cannot understand walking across farmland, they are so conditioned to drive to an "attraction" read a sign, then drive on.
I would argue that an access island creates a implied right of access across surrounding land. As long as you follow the rules about using gates, not causing damage etc I'd say you were fine.
It's a grey area for sure.
@@pwhitewick Seemed to be pretty green to me, is my monitor setting wrong? :P
Ho ho ho!
Always take an OS map with you where you can validate a PF . Keep dogs on a lead in sensitive areas and where there is live stock, keep calm if a landowner approach’s you . Remember if the police are called the chances are they will not know the law or rights but having a map showing clearly where you are and why you have justification to walk/ access a certain area and show that you haven’t done anything to damage land or wildlife. Unfortunately there are just as many irresponsible members of the public accessing land as there are responsible members of the public.
@@stephennutkin2477 The police can only be called for criminal damage - not trespass to land. They won't attend, otherwise.
I'm in Scotland and there are new paths being built where I am. The Crieff - Muthill cycle path is a three mile path that will soon link the two places. It uses a farm track, a new path using the fenced off edge of a field that grows crops, and stretches of a minor road. Together with the Crieff - Comrie path (7 miles) and the Loch Earn Railway Path this will create about 25 miles of an almost car free cycle path, linking Lochearnhead to Muthill. More paths could be made in lots of other places by using the fenced off edges of fields, as the farmer would only lose a small percentage of the total area of each field. All at the right price to the farmer, of course!
Bike racetracks are not paths. All the money is going into converting paths into bike racetracks, none into actual paths so there is a net loss. Who wants to walk with the continual "ting ting" which whatever they say really means "get out of my way". One of the good aspects of the current English legislation is they are not allowed on many paths, make sure any new right to roam doesn't erode this.
Thank you. Rights and Responsibilities are inextricably linked. They are the same concept. Can't have one without the other.
If roamers didn't litter I think landowners (who are responsible for picking up the litter and caring for the land) wouldn't mind so much.
Every non landowner likes the idea of right to roam but in my experience hardly anyone wants to go off the established paths unless lost. Off path walking is tough because of bogs, streams and undergrowth. Striding freely over the land is a lovely egalitarian dream but in practice very few will want to do it.
....which is why there is no reason not to permit it.
If that's the case, why worry about it? I agree that many people use paths in practice. But default rights of access provide a statutory basis which helps support the path network: it removes the incentive to 'disappear' or obstruct paths, because they become a means of access management, it encourages the creation of new paths, it helps make the path network more connected, and it frees people to go off-path where it's appropriate and they have their own reasons for doing so. It's also worth noting that access reform is also about things like e.g. the ability to swim in reservoirs and rivers, or stopping very wealthy landowners removing people's rights to wild camp on Dartmoor, or aristocrats to take away a whole town's most important green space at a whim...
Perhaps the time, effort and money would be better spent protecting, improving and extending the existing path network, and creating new routes. This would benefit far more people than the tiny number who would want to struggle through brambles, waist high heather and gorse.
@@jamesthomas4841spread of diseases like foot and mouth is a very good reason. Along with every soft city dweller who twists their ankle and wants to take the landowner to court because they haven't smoothed the ground for them.
@kieranb7047
Curently Foot and Mouth outbreaks leads to the temporay closure of rights of way the same would apply to any extended right of access.
As for the risk of being sued for a twisted ankle I suggest you watch the video a bit more carefully 😉
If you give right to roam, you will have a massive vehicular camping problem and particularly campervans and motorhomes have no regard for rare wild life in the Highlands of Scotland. Motorhomes do not have right to roam, but most owners think that are entitled to use them on other people's property. Before a right to roam is opened up, there needs to be promise of law enforcement against motorhomes camped on other people's property; and dumping human poo and rubbish and chemical toilets.
Moving to Scotland was a breath of fresh air in terms of access rights and I frequently feel hemmed in when I visit English countryside. That said, the population pressures are very different. Even in the more densely populated central belt we have significant amounts of countryside locally and huge swathes to explore to our north and south.
My main hobby is natural history. Watching wildlife and observing and recording species as I find them. I'm not talking about the showy well-known mammals and birds that tend to draw nature lovers but vascular plants, mosses, insects and other invertebrates. The right to roam allows me to gingerly hop field fences (helps to be lanky) and delve into deans and gullies and other remote corners few ever visit. Often I will find something unusual and unnoticed living in these places. Sometimes what I find turns out to be the most northerly record for it and in that sense expands our knowledge of what that organism can endure (or perhaps how much climate change has affected things). I couldn't do this in England and that's a shame. Designated footpaths are probably enough for most but I'm glad of the right to roam allowing me to truly explore.
Great Vid and Damn right, it shouldn't be confrontational from the off, granted sometimes things are taken advantage of but god we're human, just bloody talk and be responsible and keep your dogs on a lead where needed and show damn respect - too many people, thinking they've got the right to rule everything!! Not in my world you don't!
Having to state these things in such a way just underlines how bad the situation is. Everything the man is saying is sensible logic - why does it need to be explained? Because of people, people are not logical or sensible. That's how bad it is.
The UK have cultured plastering signs. The architectural damage is 100% with regards to buildings of public access - a total mess. The people even relates to any sign as laws. (In other forums I would argue why the UK is a Police State.)
However, it is very refreshing witnessing Jon Moses in the battlefields of the rights of the people. As a Norwegian, hearing him argue of the more than a thousand years old Nordic rules of freedoms is refreshing.
(Your battle is lost when seeing a sign in the fields stating “dis da private”.)
With the right to roam always comes responsibility. Respect for nature and wildlife, farming, forestry and privacy included. It works perfectly well here in Scandinavia and people tend to be more prone to taking care of their environment in general when they're allowed to take part of it.
Yes, but the English are not the Swedish. Our rural histories are different. Agricultural land in Sweden is just over 7% (2.7 million hectares), in England it's 70% (17.0 million hectares).
@@LoremIpsum1970 Yes, and forestry covers 70% of Sweden, that's 22.5 million hectares compared to 0.25 million hectares in England... However, the responsibilities that comes with the right to roam includes that you don't trample around in fields and destroy the crops as well as not destroying the forest, so your comparison is pretty irrelevant.
@@Balkongodlaren Not irrelevant at all, just how many Swedes spend time in your agricultural areas? I don't think I've ever seen a video showing anyone enjoying the right to roam in Swedish farmland. Is that a destination for many? Or do most go to the islands and forests where there's a much smaller population? Look forward to your answers.
One thing you have to realise is we haven't got a generation that's been exposed to the countryside, or taught how to conduct themselves when they are there.
Yep because we're not allowed in these places, when we find ourselves there, the rebel is already active. I remember as a teen roaming and we'd cause trouble cause we knew we weren't meant to be there. Maybe treat people with more respect and they'll be more respectful
It also works well here in Scotland.
An interesting video and it would be interesting to get the other side of the debate on roaming rights from the NFU. What does the NFU think about the fox hunting ban.
The countryside is where we grow our food and food security comes first in my view.
Curious as what fox hunting, which is an archaic barbaric, cruel, and illegal activity, has to do with rights of way?
It’s also worth noting that we grow less and less of our own food and import more and more, although food and biosecurity and animal welfare are key issues.
We’ve all met the ‘get off my land’ brigade, enclosures act when they stole away common land from the common man.
@@daveswhite90 Do farmers need to keep fox numbers down and is fox hunting the way to do it? I would think that fox hunting must damage hedges and growing crops. It would be interesting to hear what the NFU has to say about all of this.
Time to finally lift the Norman yoke.
And the enclosure act, so much public land stolen.
@@Corialtavi Dream on. We don't need common land as much anymore since a lot of us moved left the countryside, unless you have some livestock needing to graze. Any change to the law regarding land ownership will affect us plebs as well.
@@LoremIpsum1970 I'd love some geese 🙂
Oh puh-leeze. You sound like a Marxist.
Yes, the Normans have a lot to answer for.......In fact, I detest the celebration of them by many historians.
I have liability insurance as a member of the Irish mountaineering club and also have it when in the UK.
Nice interview and notice Rebecca making a little appearance
I own a tiny piece of land by a river. Never minded people using it. But last month someone came on picked all the bluebells and stole my kayak . Don't want to fence it but........
Yeah no this is the thing is that it's unfair to expect everyone to be completely fine with this tbh
Mhm, the scottish Land Reform Act 2003 explicitly only allows you to roam as long as you follow its rules of respect. Disrupting the environment isn't permitted.
The asshole who tore up all your bluebells would still be committing a crime under right to roam.
@EStewart573 wish I could pick and choose who came by but..... I won't fence it off as its a lovely little secret place I dreamed about finding when I had young children.
We have enough footpaths here in England for the majority of ramblers or walkers etc. In my case there are footpaths across our land that are are pain at times as I cannot fence for stock without erecting signs etc. and despite what the man said, liability is an issue. There is a well marked on an old map in one of our fields: has it been filled in, capped, open or disused, how deep, etc. are the insurers questions. As we have not been able to locate it, the insureres tried to quadrupple our premiums. We already had to take down a 200+ year old Pear Tree as a footpath passed near to it and it was deemed a liability. It is the 'right-to-roam' warriors (townies) that I object to - only had to deal with a couple over the years - they seem to take 'right-to-roam' as meaning they can go anywhere they want with their dogs running loose. Ramblers occasionally stray as it can be difficult sometimes to follow paths, and I have no objection to these people. It will be the few that ruin it for the majority. Regards from Somerset.
Insurance companies always want to push things for no reason. I feel for you. Above all, though, every other point you raise, we do cover in this video. Dogs, liability education, and reform. Finally, there is absolutely no reason any court would agree that a 200 year old pear tree needs removal.
I agree there's a difference between what the law states and how insurers may interpret it (or, you might argue: exploit it). As I say in the video, we're proposing that is addressed as part of access reform. The people you're describing - going anywhere with dogs etc - aren't 'right to roamers' though, they're people who either don't understand the current access laws, or don't care. Reform means creating a clearer, more legitimate access model that can be easily communicated to the public and places a greater emphasis on the responsibility of access users. It will predominantly affect those who *do* care what the law is. It will also create more political interest in interventions around dogs. That can only help with irresponsible access.
In America you'd get in trouble for crossing the road diagonally... I love our country 🇬🇧
What a fantastic communicator for the right to roam. Long may he continue.
Get out there and trespass!
can i come n trespass accross ur garden..? or is it only country lands that one can trespass on. there shd be a 'right to roam' accross the gardens in a city/town... fairs fair n all...
@@fugoogle9757 I live in a mid terrace, my neighbours and anyone they invite over are allowed across my garden, as are any delivery people.
@@DraftingandCrafting i live in the country n my land is private.. i don't want strangers wandering over my land or peering in my windows or looking in my sheds! i'm all for wild camping, but theres plenty of commanage about without the need t be traipsing accross my land. when people do, i tell them theyve no right of way and point them t my gate, all very politely mind, cos manners cost nothing. i bet if you found some strangers camping in ur back garden you'd likely call the fuzz...
@@fugoogle9757 life is much better when you aren't scared of your own shadow
Footpaths and bridleways need far more protection, but allowing everyone to wander Willy nilly is stupid. I saw this happening during COVID lockdown. Idiots everywhere, lighting barbecues and camping. Shit and litter left everywhere.
I'm not sure taking an example from lockdown - when gathering indoors was illegal, and there was no preparatory communication, education, or resource to handle unprecedented numbers - tells us much about what will happen following access reform. Apocalyptic predictions were made prior to the 1949 Act, the CRoW Act, the LRA. None of them came to pass.
What lockdown did show us is that access to nature is limited and unequal. That needs redress.
I live in Texas so idk how I got recommended this but it is super interesting. Thank you. ❤
Welcome!
Just a thought... The entire premise of the Norwegian right to roam system is kind of based on the acknowledgement that using your right entails accepting responsibility... You get the right once you can show personal understanding of the responsibilities. . So you also accept the possibility of punishment such as a fine or the likes.
All these freedoms are basically the ability to accept responsibility for your actions..
Do you know Jesus Christ can set you free from sins and save you from hell today
Jesus Christ is the only hope in this world no other gods will lead you to heaven
There is no security or hope with out Jesus Christ in this world come and repent of all sins today
Today is the day of salvation come to the loving savior Today repent and do not go to hell
Come to Jesus Christ today
Jesus Christ is only way to heaven
Repent and follow him today seek his heart Jesus Christ can fill the emptiness he can fill the void
Heaven and hell is real cone to the loving savior today
Today is the day of salvation tomorrow might be to late come to the loving savior today
Romans 6.23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
John 3:16-21
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Mark 1.15
15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Hebrews 11:6
6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Jesus
In my US state (NH) there is a presumed right to pass over unimproved land that is not fenced or legally posted every 300 feet around its perimeter. This has sometimes been called the "inherent right of trespass". My land is just under 50 acres, and although it does have a conservation easement that limits motorized vehicles I have no objection to people walking through my woods or following the brook. It is not posted.
Good to hear Bob. I moved to Tasmania from Scotland and the biggest issue is the access I lost. It's sunnier though!
Typical America, it's all down to your individual rights? So paths can appear and disappear depending on who owns it and their whims? The truth is no one should own land, it's totally mental that we allow it at all.
@@Ludd439 you rip it violently from the hands of those you exterminate, you keep every bugger off it thereafter. Like you say, totally mental.
As someone who only hears about the US on telly, I'd be worried about accidentally trespassing and getting shot (I'm not black though so maybe I'd be fine in that case). Or perhaps that's just Florida 🤷
@@shyft09 There are far more guns than people in the US. In some states no permit is required to carry one, either openly or concealed. In some states even the mentally unstable can own or purchase a gun. However, if you stay off improved or posted land (obviously trespassing) and avoid unruly gatherings, that would improve the odds to avoid being shot by an armed crazy. Oh, and stay out of the woods during deer hunting season!
Right to Roam is one of those things I've always been jealous of Europe for, its such a fantastic idea. Sure its nice having neatly manicured local, state, and national parks, but theres so much more out there to experience
Things are very different in the US. Private property ownership trumps everything thing.
your Freudian slip Trumps your argument
@mrhis2ry
And do you prefer it that way? Or would a Scottish/Scandinavian model be preferable to you?
@@brettmeikle That is a very good question. In the US we don't have all the great old Roman roads or numerous canals or other historic routes to hike on. We do have some a few old rail lines to hike and bike on as well as a few canals, but most reverted back to private ownership. But it would be nice to have access to the historic sites we do that are on private property.
And yet those same land owners will call it theft when you ask them to pay taxes in return for exclusive use of that land
Even so, the US has a lot more public land than the UK. Only 8% of the UK's surface is publicly accessible, while in the US that figure is 28%. Granted, a lot of it is in the Rockies, but that still counts.
i have seen people extending their gardens over a few foot paths, one was on the most recent map, printed that year, it was an area with many paths, but the one i needed was the one newly fenced. i was very pregnant and i could not manage the extra 6miles to walk around, as i would have missed the bus home, so i climbed the fence and broke it
That final point is spot on. It is/was under serious threat from the current Government who want to criminalise simple non intrusion, not threatening trespass.
We used to have lots of anti litter advertising and countryside code stuff but given people don't watch the same level of TV that they did, how do we go about ensuring that we cultivate that responsible access and get the message to everyone? It can't be policed so we need to police ourselves which means buying into the idea of doing no harm. And if we don't understand when we're causing harm, we won't know to avoid it.
I live in Edale, Peak District. We had the big infamous mass trespass in the 30's that is considered the moment the public sympathy changed to start supporting the right to roam.
Yep. And the gamekeepers came out in force. Sadly, most of the people who go in private land have no idea about conservation.
@@crazyferret9409 Please provide your evidence.
Lucky person!
We used to have 'access to the land' until The Enclosures of Common Land predominantly in the 18th & 19th Centuries. Perhaps we could start with reversing some of that?
I believe in the right to roam. In fact, I love walking in the countryside and respect the codes. The only problem is I don't trust dog owners. Unfortunately, I find dog owners irresponsible. You see them in the towns not exercising their dogs on greens or in parks but in the cemeteries, and I constantly see them messing on graves, cocking their legs on the headstones and tearing up children's memorials with their teeth. Dog owners also let off their dog's leads in areas they shouldn't and some use long leads instead of short leads on narrow pathways.
Perhaps we could start a land owners members group to allow more access. I have 5 acres of land without any public right of way. I was on my own land 1 night only to have a council enforcement officer pop around the next day to say I cannot live on the land. 28 days a year is impossible to look after land and farm it with a organic forest system or maintain proper paths. I wonder if we could all work together to mutually support all parties. I feel the whole system needs to change. It's taken me 3 years now to try to find a house in the area to finally be able to manage my land. Cross fingers I might just be at the point of buying a house.
Hi Paul, What an excellent video, very well presented. Jon made the case for right to roam very well, it really is absurd to have these islands. I note from one of the other comments that each clip was done in one take, he must have been a joy to interview
All the best!!
A lot of landowners seem to think that someone out for a nice walk is somehow going to steal their land off them. Hence the endlsss private property, trespassers will be prosecuted etc signs. This is probably because they're aware on some level that the only reason they have a huge tract of land in the first place is that somewhere back in time someone really did steal it. Real justice would be stealing it all back, a mere right to roam is pretty mild by comparison. But those with more than their share will always take violent exception to even a 1% shift back towards fairness.
Been roaming for 60 years, not stopping now.
👍
+1 when visiting England or Wales.
Q. Why would you need to tread on that piece of land.. ? The view over the land is what we cherish, to tread on it doesn't add any additional magic.
One of the most concerning aspects of people wandering willy-nilly is our security, interesting that your presentation doesn't address this. Your home in Acacia Ave or wherever will have numerous neighbours peering out of windows, if someone is spotted in your garden you'll know soon enough, and so will the police. Our homes are remote, isolated, not overlooked. We know our neighbours, we know why they may be walking through our local area.. if a stranger decides to check out our locality and we become concerned, our police station, if it's open, may be 12 miles or more away. We may may not suffer the levels of street crime associated with towns but rural crime is very real .. hugely expensive equipment and animals are at serious threat of theft. Our fields are your garden in Acacia Ave, but without the nosey neighbours.
I can see this from both sides, the main problem will be a minority who have no regard for anything, we see this on the banks of the Thames were an increasingly expanding group leave rubbish on moorings. The result being that the landowners rightly refuse access to these areas at the expense of all of us.
Interesting video, although I have real issue with the interpretation of "responsibility" given in your interview. Unfortunately you only need to look at many areas where the general public already has open access to realise that in the UK giving people the responsibility to treat other peoples property with respect does not work. While most will take their litter home and not cause damage, many others will treat it with disregard and spoil it for everyone. Just look at the state of many parks in the UK. While it may be true that only a small percentage of the population own the land, many others rely on that same land to earn a living and feed the nation. In general they are the responsible ones because it physically affects their income.
3:35 It's not just 1% of the population owning more than 50% of the land. There are businesses and organisations that own a huge amount of land too.
Some dog owners in our local country parks can't control their dogs off the leash...and I was quite disturbed to encounter a dog walker with 6 dogs, some off the leash, that she could not control. Most are fine, of course, but not everyone wants to meet someone's darling doggo who's "just excitable" and has left their owner far far behind.
A very interesting interview loved it, this should be taught in schools for kids to explore and land owners to teach to the schools around the countries about responsibilites. It helps growth and understanding of nature. Some kids do not even know how an apple grows other than it comes from Marks and Sparks. Well done Paul for bringing the Right to roam Video to our attention.
For me the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Many of Jon's points are absolutely valid and one of the frustrating things of having to live in UK is what happens on Bank holidays when far too many people have to crowd into areas too small to accommodate them comfortably. But the other side of the coin is that the British in particular are averse to following rules which are for the good of the many. It would absolutely have to be policed or everywhere will become a hellhole. I say let's create the culture of care first, before letting them loose. And start with 5 year olds when they start school. Teach them civic pride and responsibility and the reasons for rule-following. The little 'uns did a sterling job in making parents feel guilty about smoking. Maybe they could do the same for learning to share open spaces civilly.
Excellent presentation!
I have heard all these arguments before and, while on paper it seems quite fair, it’s based on the assumption that everyone will treat nature like you. My experience from having footpaths across animal fields is that for every three responsible people there was one that littered, cut my fences down because using the stile was a bother and let their dogs chase my sheep (occasionally to death). When you love your land and animals you begin to resent and distrust all walkers based on the bad behaviour of a few. So maybe there should be a roaming licence? Something that can be removed from those who don’t respect the places they go to. Perhaps this enforced responsibility could grow trust between owner and roamer?
The irony of the “what if they don’t want you leaving litter and disturbing the habitat” type arguments is that the people who want the right to roam access are exactly the kind of people who will be considerate about their impact and their litter 😂
Exactly: if you're already breaking the law why would you care what the access law is and isn't. It's those who are who worry what the law says. The more responsible people in the countryside, the better the culture we'll get around it (and the greater weight of pro-social activity by those who do access: picking up litter, speaking out for nature and so on).
same with wild camping. Being solitary in the midst of nature in a small, quietly coloured tent or bivi bag, brewing your tea on a tiny efficient stove, packing up every single item you brought with you and taking it away again, leaving nothing behind except a few bent blades of grass - the whole point of wild camping is to be there in the wild and to leave no trace.
But the people who will most likely use the rights granted will have midnight parties and leave piles of booze cans,the bbq,lots of litter and their mess in the bushes.
@@janebaker966 if you think the people who would behave like that would obey a trespass law I think you are mistaken, unless I missed sarcasm in your comment
They aren't likely to be the same folks who will illegally tip/dump/unload their construction rubble or strike bound waste on your fields or into a ravine watercourse - that is an entirely different type of trespass.
It works well in Scotland. Although I would definitely think about not including dogs in right to roam.
Thank you and Jon for a very well argued and informative video.
Can I roam in your back garden
The best place to start is more education for all ages about respecting the environment especially taking kids in schools out into nature and teaching them there, whilst this is more difficult for innercity schools, it's possibly even more important for the kids to get them outside into nature and the correct funding should be given to it!
Nimby's and WhatAbouters will make what should be a right an absolute nightmare. It needs legislation to make England and Wales exactly the same as Scotland. 😊❤😊
Surely most people fall into the nimby category?
"In Sweden, Scandinavia, central Europe"....maybe that would have been the time to mention Scotland.
The problem with "responsible access" is the lack of respect by many people using existing rights of way. Great example is on the Thames Path in my part of Oxfordshire. Local farmer is doing a great job of restoring traditional watermeadows viac reintroducing wild flowers, encouraging ground nesting birds, etc. Every summer he is battling litter, disposable bbq's burning holes in the turf, out of control dogs, poo bags, etc. I am commenting as a keen walker with a farming background so I can see both sides of the argument. I don't see generic right to roam as a solution. We have a massive mileage of PROW, more than enough for everyone to enjoy. The issue of open access islands should be resolvable via local negotiation.
Couldn't agree more. When the general public shows respect for those areas that they can legally access, then maybe 'right to roam' can be considered. But as of now the disrespect shown via litter, uncontrolled dogs and children, etc cannot support any campaign to widen the general public's access to our countryside.
Well said
Well, that's not responsible access by definition. The question is how you create a wider culture of responsibility: giving people a sense of belonging to their environment is crucial for that. And if we have a more legitimate system that's not founded on arbitrary exclusion we can more readily introduce exclusion where it's justified.
I'll bet if you made mister Moses sit on his hands while trying to talk he would start stuttering!!! 🤠👍
I was watching a Wildlife rehab video, releasing raptors (falcons etc that have been rescued and then rehab are now able to be released back to the wild). A good point was the gentleman who runs this encourages volunteers to assist in the running of the organisation but then when a release is to occur they have a chance to do the actual release under supervision. He encourages the people to be there so that they are now aware and feel involved - thus becoming more emotive about these birds and their welfare.
Yes I think this is exactly the right attitude: bring people in, make them part of the solution rather than a "problem" to be managed. That's very much what Wild Service is about.
I am going to refer to this video when people have questions, occurrences within, and want to talk about: Right to Roam
There already is a sort of right to roam, in that the Police and other state representative can freely roam across land in pursuit of their duties. I have had police even come through my garden in hot pursuit. The right to roam just needs to be extended to other people carrying out harmless or beneficial activity like walking.
Paul - any chance you can make a video about accessing rivers in Eng and wales pls?
Context is that as somebody who lives very close the river Wye on the Welsh border I’m confused by what I can and can’t do. On one hand all the official literature says to only use a small number of set launching points to access.
However, logically there are many more points where footpaths either go to, or handrail the river. There are even one or two points where footpaths appear to cross the river in what I presume were historic fords, and then of course there are a handful of points where access land borders the river.
On the basis that the river can be got to via a right of way, and the banks of the river below the highest point are crown land (as I understand it), then there is nothing legally preventing me from launching from any point where a footpath meets a river bank.
The problem of course is I can’t find this written anywhere and the absence of any confirmation makes me think it could be more nuanced and therefore maybe not legal?
What I need is some Paul Whitwick light thrown on this subject to clear it up once and for all!
I think we did around a year ago. Have a look on our "Campaign" playlist. 🙂
The land is owned by farmers it is private I have horses I have seen dogs attack horses. People feeding horses that has lead to the death of horses. It's not about right to roam, these roamers should have a license to roam having done a course on protocols over livestock and nature. And keep their dogs on the lead at all times. Or not take dogs at all. When I was a kid farmers didn't mind us on their land because we knew to behave because we grew up in the countryside. My concern is city people with no idea how the countryside works. More deaths from cows attacking people with dogs. If you get this law passed then the government should be liable for accidents. Or enter at own risk. If u get attacked by a cow the farmer should not be liable.. but if livestock gets injured or dies due to roamers then the roamers should pay for damages.
We agree that you should be obliged to complete e.g. an online course before being allowed to own a dog and also that roaming rights wouldn't / shouldn't apply de facto to dogs (especially off-lead). Would obviously support much better education: our campaign already shamed the government into upping the pathetic £2k it was spending annually to promote the code. And the code isn't great. More to be done. Agree the farmer should not be liable unless they're breaking laws around livestock and existing RoW. Livestock worrying is of couse already a criminal offence. And it's worth noting that the existing studies suggest most livestock worrying occurs due to unaccompanied dogs, which isn't an access issue, it's a wider issue with dog ownership. That isn't to excuse the remainder that is access related. As I say: dog reform is needed regardless of access reform, but access reform may create the political motivation and opportunity to do it.
Great video Paul, ‘Right to roam’ works fine up here & elsewhere too 😃 🏴
Yes it does!
When I was 10 years old in Ohio USA, I accidentally trespassed on an old lady's property. She detained me with her shotgun and said she was going to call the police. I talked her out of it and promised I'd never be in her property again. There is hardly any property, other than state and federal land where one can walk. The dog issue is important. I'm tired of stepping on dog manure in my garden. As people become less responsible, it's a big issue. Thanks for an interesting video.
Luckily in England, no old Granny will be able to threaten anyone with a shotgun. I wonder if she had actually shot you, could she have claimed self defence? 🇬🇧🇺🇸👍
@@autisticdrone.you’re wrong. Shotguns are common in all four countries of the United Kingdom. I’ve been threatened with a shotgun in Wales.
I find it amazing that in the land of the free, there is so little freedom when it comes to access and the large majority of the vast US is completely barred.
The US has a lot more public accessible land than people realize.
@@autisticdrone. It's relatively easy to get a shotgun licence in the UK, especially as a farmer.
Let's be realistic and get our priorities right. On the whole, this is not a considerate, sensible, or law-abiding country, sadly. Denmark (for example) by comparison, is.
Changes will have to be by stages. Some suggestions:
1) Give highway authorities enough money to maintain Rights of Way. Volunteers are great, but they cannot enforce anti-cropping laws.
2) Give government backing to a user-preference upgrade to ROWs and Access Land. Give landowners small payments for locally important new routes, to make the network better, and enforce access points onto Access Islands, where sensible, instead of leaving it to 'consultation'.
3) Pass a law on dog control, with serious penalties. To avoid alienating dog-walkers (who are a huge proportion of path-users), make this legislation part of a universal updated country code.
4) Only then, once this has all been shown to actually work - consider wider Right-to-Roam legislation. We have fresh reports of farmers in Scotland illegally barring access. If consensus does not there, what hope in England?
Agree with RoW protection being central to this. Wider access rights create powerful incentives to maintain and expanding the existing network, as it becomes a tool of access management rather than an imposition.
I don't think there's anything innate to English people which makes them less considerate, sensible or law-abiding. It's a question of culture, education, and legitimacy. Scandinavians have a different relationship to land because rights of access have long been enshrined in their culture.
@@jm0sesrtr Obviously I agree with your views as an idealist. But I'm a local footpath officer, so realism takes over.
Excellent presentation of the case for this. Will we see anything on Right to Roam in the Labour Party’s manifesto, I wonder.
It’s hard for the “no” lobby to argue against Right to Roam when Scotland has been so successful with it.
That access land you filmed on was particularly bizarre - it looked like it’s three quite narrow strips - private in the middle!
I don’t think we’ll see anything on the Labour manifesto. I was a member of the party for decades but I cancelled my membership when they dropped their commitment to RTR. They were got at by landowners.
So, if you really really really want to access these right to roam islands get a helicopter licence first.
Fair
We learn that those who have preserved the land for centuries now have to give way to those who often know nothing about it and remember that ravers and fly tippers can use these privileges as much as the ramblers.
'preserving the land' was axed in the 1950's when subsidies and quotas led to the loss of hedgerows, field margins and wildlife in favour of industrialised farming and monoculture.
A few walkers can't do anymore damage than what modern farming methods have already done.
I don't know about Great Britain, but here in the US if we allowed the public to wonder all over private land, the very first thing that would happen is someone falling down and getting hurt then suing the land owner in court. I guarantee this would happen week one!! Then there is vandalism, litter, theft, unauthorized hunting, etc.
Yeah the difference is you're a nation that thrives on fucking over your neighbour for gain whilst blindly following which of the whole two political parties you worship that are bending you over.
I really hope we DONT get right to roam. Most of Joe Public doesn’t care for the access we do have. They leave farm gates open, let their dogs hassle wildlife and farm animals, drop litter, trample and damage crops and get aggressive when told to get back on the footpath. England is not Scandinavia or the US with its wilderness areas. Most of England is farm land which is being used. If you want to talk about responsibility, let’s see Joe Public be responsible with the access they do have before giving them any more.
farm land ought to be improved for the sake of nature, to allow wildflowers to grow amongst crops, and to generally monetarily encourage farmers to maintain their land for nature, to allow people access to nature in the best form possible is to try to encourage them to respect and care for it
Guess as long as people are respectful of people’s land, not going through grain fields, or taking dogs who leave “calling cards”, etc., it should be ok.
Another thing is that I went to boarding school just outside Wincanton, Somerset, so I saw fox hunting in the distance.
It has worked well in Scotland..
1) It's all fine and dandy until people start leaving garbage in pastures/fields or someone leaves a gate open, the cattle get out and the farmer/landowner gets sued for any damage caused by the animals. 2) Farmland is private property, just as much as someone's back yard. Once again, the farmer gets screwed by a bunch of do-gooders who have no concept of the implications of their policies.
Fenced of paths at the edges of fields could be the answer. No problems about gates being left open.
@vermeerofdelftscotlandwalk3294 A fence post costs about 4 quid now, not to mention two strands of wire and pig netting all the way around the boundary.
@@vermeerofdelftscotlandwalk3294Could end up being about 200 quid per 100 metres that way.
Over 92% of the land in the UK is not developed. All developed land includes all the roads, all the houses, all the gardens, all the businesses, all the parks, all the golf courses.
"Property will cost us the earth" - Malm
Promote proper maintenance of public rights of way and the creation of new permissive paths. Your campaign to steal people's land just creates confrontation. The access situation in Scotland is WORSE than England, because England has an extensive network of public rights of way with responsibilities to maintain them and access points such as stiles, and excellent mapping for route planning.
There isn't a conflict between wider access rights and rights of way, they work together. You're right England has a headstart on that. It's not stealing anyone's land. Access doesn't change ownership. That said, much of the current land ownership in England is hardly rooted in legitimate acquisition and the public contribute large amounts of money to landowners. Access is a reasonable exchange under that 'public goods' model.
You are wanting to steal part of it. Quiet enjoyment is one of rights that is part of property ownership and you want to take that away. You’re always going on about dukes who got land hundreds of years ago. What about people who save up all their lives to buy a 20 acre small holding? You demanding the right to use their land against their wishes IS stealing from them. Anyway, you offered to have people round to your garden. What’s the address then?
6:10 stream water's nice and clean. Now that's responsible...
The right to roam works in Scotland why not in England
Excellent video, Paul.
Unfortunately I feel you have a lot more faith in the general public than a lot of land owners do. There is a massive divide between town and country in the UK and I think it’s one of respect. A “country person" isn’t necessarily someone who lives in the countryside. It’s someone who respects the culture, the environment and the history of the countryside. With all the new homes being plastered across the greenbelt we’re seeing more and more disrespectful behaviour in the countryside. Society can only progress as fast as its slowest participants.
I'm a townie at heart. But I love and respect everything outside of that environment. We must give proper chance and opportunity to enjoy
@@pwhitewick and so what are the repercussions if general public litters, causes damage to the land, disrupt livestock, and generally put people’s livelihoods at risk? The police will not have time to follow up cold cases. Is there a restraint where a landowner can say "No I’m sorry but the conduct of a few people has ruined it for the rest of you and now my land is off limits”?The difference between the England vs Scotland or Scandinavia for example is population density. Added to this the fact that many people see the countryside as a leisure facility here in England. It saddens me to see how Londoners treat the area where I live when they come up on their holidays.
I liked the ground nesting birds' eye view.
AT LAST. Someone noticed.
This a good idea however, there needs to be more education on what the laws and regulations and an understanding of the countryside (like closing gates behind you and leaving it how you left it so people can enjoy it). Like you mentioned about dogs and how people let them loose but can’t control them, on the other side of that is the livestock of farmers like cows such as mothers and calves can get very aggressive if you get close or bulls if people without the right understanding encounter this then they could get injured. With rights of ways such as footpaths you can help the general public know that maybe a bull is in the field, whereas a right to roam you’re going to need a lot more signs or more education. Who’s going to flip the bill? The government? Tax payers money?
Very true and when farmers are really up against it financially, the last thing they need to put investment into additional signage, etc.
Agree that we need something better than the countryside code and that it needs to be promoted properly. We're also long overdue an intervention on dogs. The government were spending a mighty £2k a year on the countryside code (basically printing a few leaflets) until we pushed them to do more, but it's still not enough. The small investment in education and opportunities to learn how to access the countryside responsibly is massively outweighed by the benefits for physical and mental health (the poor state of which costs the health system huge amounts of money) and the potential benefits for ecology by giving people an investment in their own environment (as we're seeing all around the country with rivers at the moment).
As a farmer our family have been farming our land for over 300 years. We have plenty of footpaths and bridleways across our fields and we don’t want anymore people just wandering where they want to. We are running a business and are growing crops or grazing livestock. We are also doing far more for wildlife with wild flowers, grass margins or winter bird seed areas and don’t want people disturbing these areas and the wildlife. Dog owners let their dogs run where ever and it is a huge problem, especially with ground nesting birds and our livestock. You have no idea what damage the general public do like littering, starting fires, damaging fences or gates and leaving gates open, or camping and damaging the area, damaging crops and disturbing grazing livestock, damaging trees in woodland areas and disturbing feeding areas for pheasant shoots. Security is also a problem with isolated farms. Farms are working areas where there can be danger.
There is plenty of open access across the country and places for people to access nature.
its almost like you didn't actually bother to watch the video
I had no idea there were so many miserable, self-righteous farmers in the UK.
@@Lucysmom26 could you imagine if farms were treated like communities? The community gets the right to roam (respectfully), and in turn they are invited to work WITH the farmers to repair fences, install hedgerows, maintain dry stone walls, plant trees etc. Which would help people build up useful skills for elsewhere in life.
Local communities used to help farmers bring in the harvest, but these days they use massive diesel chugging monstrosities to do it themselves. I feel segregation breeds dissent.
@@RotGoblin I completely agree with you, Rotgoblin. Sorry for my tone.
@@Lucysmom26 But you are quite happy to each their produce 3 times a day.