The argument that R2R will result in a huge increase in litter is a poor one. The vast majority of littering I see in the countryside is from landowners. Animal feed bags, plastic string, bright blue pheasant feeder bins etc.
Farmers also litter.........i walk off of the beaten track (shall we say) across the countryside as part of my job. The amount of 'Cow Lick' buckets, twining cord and black plastic bail wrapping that i come across is shameful........That campaign should be re-ignited from the 70's 'Keep Britain Tidy'.........
Hi Alistair, some good points brought up there. I am lucky enough both to be in Scotland and have parents who brought me up to respect the countryside. Unfortunately not everyone does and although a lack of connection with nature is quite rightly an issue for a large percentage of the population, a certain minority are just purely selfish and disrespectful of other people's way of life. The Scottish system generally works although it became apparent, particularly through lockdown that a lot of education/enforcement is required for the busier areas. Abandoned cheap tents, fire scorched earth and piles of beer cans became a common sight not far from the roadside throughout the Highlands, while the true wild campers were, as they always have been, well out of sight in the mountains and of course leaving no trace. I would hate to see areas such as the Lakes or the Yorkshire Dales suffer the same fate, as I'm afraid they would, especially with a greater population density.
Totally agree. We have a similar problem here in the States-a select group of people trash the landscape because they don’t have any sense of ownership, they don’t have the emotional connection to the land. I believe they are in the minority, but their impact can be profoundly negative. Thanks Alastair, I’ll share your message!
Broadly agree with all you say (nicely covered too), as I've mentioned to you before, those that do not care, are unlikely to have some epiphany where they suddenly realise the err of their ways, and repent (sadly from years of experience)! But, were access is reasonable, yes, rivers, mountains, moors and forests, and yes even small woodlands (like those I use), I support the right to access with the expectation that those that do will treat the land with respect. To that end, perhaps the campaign should be "Right to Roam Responsibly" (the 3r's), this is far more likely to have broader support, and yes there will need to be a 'mechanism' to deal with those that don't comply or care (community service, and yes including cleaning up and perhaps helping educating others who don't care).
Fantastic video Alastair.You have explained the issues within out country perfectly regarding lack of access to our Country side and spaces .I hope the message ripples out and spreads across society to build support for the right to roam.
In Nepal no one owns the wilderness, you can roam anywhere, camp anywhere. These restrictions are absurd. We never witnessed the wilderness grab which happened in these parts, almost all the wilderness are nationalized and many are community managed.
Great arguments Alastair and very interesting to hear what its like in England. I'm in australia and we have so many places that you can roam, and legally wild camp. Of course with that comes responsibility. Hoping you guys in the motherland get to keep some of your rights to enjoy the great outdoors.
Your're right, introducing outdoor lesson in schools like they have in Scandinavia will kill 2 birds with 1 stone - teach people their responsibilities (thus reduce the problems) and introduce everyone to the countryside. Do most LA education departments still have outdoor centres?
Good vid -but I would challenge the term "right to roam". There is no "right to roam" in Scotland, but there is a right of responsible access with clear guidelines for what constitutes responsibility. The right to access for an individual can be lost if they do not act responsibly. The system works well in Scotland in the main, but there are many issues which urgently need to be addressed. The land use is also clearly very different, with a much less dense population and lower intensity use of the land.
@@al_humphreys It's a really good video and the phrase is easy to remember. Just frustrating up here that people seem to use the term "right to roam" to justify themselves when they act irresponsibly.
@@Tom_Quixote Indeed it does - and you have a right to roam as long as you act responsibly - so there is a right of responsible access but no right to roam without taking on those responsibilities
Hiya Alasdair. Absolutely agree with everything you’ve shared in this video. I’m currently reading a book by Robert Macfarlane called ‘Landmarks’ and I encourage you to have a wee look as I feel it may be of use in your journey. Kyle, from Scotland.
I remember kayaking down a Welsh river (a fair few years ago) and having a “fisherman” (with no rod etc but with his toddler son) started throwing stones at us screaming to get off the river…. how daft and dangerous!
Hi Alan, I'd say two things in response to this. 1) Unrealistically, and Idealistically I don't believe anyone should 'own' a river, lake, forest, mountain... and definitely not to the exclusion of other people. 2) I think a right to roam is still compatible with private land ownership. Of course, I'm now saying we should walk through each other's gardens! But I believe I should be allowed to walk over someone's hill (along with the responsibility to leave no trace and care for the land.)
@@al_humphreys Hi Alastair, Thanks for the reply. Have loved reading your books and it is you who made me move to Tashkent a few years ago. But I don't agree with you on this. People do own land. It *IS* theirs. If there was not enough 'left over' for other people to enjoy, I'd think your argument has some more weight. But it simply isn't true in the England. We have public access routes other countries can only envy. Your position is like arguing that you already have free access to trains but also think you should have access to people's cars as well.
The 8% in England includes Dartmoor where the existing access and wild camping rights are under threat from an exceedingly wealthy investment fund manager - it seems ridiculous that an individual who bought land knowing the access conditions, is attempting to dictate to the National Park Authority how they should carry out their business. I am fully behind you
The argument that R2R will result in a huge increase in litter is a poor one. The vast majority of littering I see in the countryside is from landowners. Animal feed bags, plastic string, bright blue pheasant feeder bins etc.
so spot on what you say about teaching connection to the land to remedy the littering and disrespect
Great talk and completely agree with you 🙏
Farmers also litter.........i walk off of the beaten track (shall we say) across the countryside as part of my job. The amount of 'Cow Lick' buckets, twining cord and black plastic bail wrapping that i come across is shameful........That campaign should be re-ignited from the 70's 'Keep Britain Tidy'.........
Hi Alistair, some good points brought up there. I am lucky enough both to be in Scotland and have parents who brought me up to respect the countryside. Unfortunately not everyone does and although a lack of connection with nature is quite rightly an issue for a large percentage of the population, a certain minority are just purely selfish and disrespectful of other people's way of life. The Scottish system generally works although it became apparent, particularly through lockdown that a lot of education/enforcement is required for the busier areas. Abandoned cheap tents, fire scorched earth and piles of beer cans became a common sight not far from the roadside throughout the Highlands, while the true wild campers were, as they always have been, well out of sight in the mountains and of course leaving no trace.
I would hate to see areas such as the Lakes or the Yorkshire Dales suffer the same fate, as I'm afraid they would, especially with a greater population density.
Totally agree. We have a similar problem here in the States-a select group of people trash the landscape because they don’t have any sense of ownership, they don’t have the emotional connection to the land. I believe they are in the minority, but their impact can be profoundly negative.
Thanks Alastair, I’ll share your message!
Broadly agree with all you say (nicely covered too), as I've mentioned to you before, those that do not care, are unlikely to have some epiphany where they suddenly realise the err of their ways, and repent (sadly from years of experience)! But, were access is reasonable, yes, rivers, mountains, moors and forests, and yes even small woodlands (like those I use), I support the right to access with the expectation that those that do will treat the land with respect. To that end, perhaps the campaign should be "Right to Roam Responsibly" (the 3r's), this is far more likely to have broader support, and yes there will need to be a 'mechanism' to deal with those that don't comply or care (community service, and yes including cleaning up and perhaps helping educating others who don't care).
I like that idea of the 3Rs!
Fantastic video Alastair.You have explained the issues within out country perfectly regarding lack of access to our Country side and spaces .I hope the message ripples out and spreads across society to build support for the right to roam.
In Nepal no one owns the wilderness, you can roam anywhere, camp anywhere. These restrictions are absurd. We never witnessed the wilderness grab which happened in these parts, almost all the wilderness are nationalized and many are community managed.
Great arguments Alastair and very interesting to hear what its like in England. I'm in australia and we have so many places that you can roam, and legally wild camp. Of course with that comes responsibility. Hoping you guys in the motherland get to keep some of your rights to enjoy the great outdoors.
Thank you for making and sharing your thoughts. I hope that we are able to adopt others ways of sharing and caring for nature. 🌲🌄🗻🌳
Your're right, introducing outdoor lesson in schools like they have in Scandinavia will kill 2 birds with 1 stone - teach people their responsibilities (thus reduce the problems) and introduce everyone to the countryside. Do most LA education departments still have outdoor centres?
Most LA centres have closed with only a few hanging on.
Overnight first dump of snow at sea level West Coast Scotland Dunoon…..where thankfully we have R2R 🏴👍🏽
And most litter on private and public land comes from fast food and coffee corporations 🤬
Good vid -but I would challenge the term "right to roam". There is no "right to roam" in Scotland, but there is a right of responsible access with clear guidelines for what constitutes responsibility. The right to access for an individual can be lost if they do not act responsibly. The system works well in Scotland in the main, but there are many issues which urgently need to be addressed. The land use is also clearly very different, with a much less dense population and lower intensity use of the land.
Hi, I thought / hoped that I expressed the rights / responsibilities issues. But thank you for clarifying.
@@al_humphreys It's a really good video and the phrase is easy to remember. Just frustrating up here that people seem to use the term "right to roam" to justify themselves when they act irresponsibly.
@@alexandermajor6467 The word "roam" doesn't mean to throw litter or behave unresponsibly. It just means to wander without a specific purpose.
@@Tom_Quixote Indeed it does - and you have a right to roam as long as you act responsibly - so there is a right of responsible access but no right to roam without taking on those responsibilities
Hiya Alasdair. Absolutely agree with everything you’ve shared in this video. I’m currently reading a book by Robert Macfarlane called ‘Landmarks’ and I encourage you to have a wee look as I feel it may be of use in your journey. Kyle, from Scotland.
I remember kayaking down a Welsh river (a fair few years ago) and having a “fisherman” (with no rod etc but with his toddler son) started throwing stones at us screaming to get off the river…. how daft and dangerous!
YES
My left ear is happy
You missed the key argument against the right to roam: it isn't your land. Play around with property rights at your peril.
Hi Alan, I'd say two things in response to this. 1) Unrealistically, and Idealistically I don't believe anyone should 'own' a river, lake, forest, mountain... and definitely not to the exclusion of other people. 2) I think a right to roam is still compatible with private land ownership. Of course, I'm now saying we should walk through each other's gardens! But I believe I should be allowed to walk over someone's hill (along with the responsibility to leave no trace and care for the land.)
@@al_humphreys Hi Alastair, Thanks for the reply. Have loved reading your books and it is you who made me move to Tashkent a few years ago. But I don't agree with you on this. People do own land. It *IS* theirs. If there was not enough 'left over' for other people to enjoy, I'd think your argument has some more weight. But it simply isn't true in the England. We have public access routes other countries can only envy. Your position is like arguing that you already have free access to trains but also think you should have access to people's cars as well.
@@alanbuckingham8788 haha! Shall we amicably agree to disagree on this one?!
The 8% in England includes Dartmoor where the existing access and wild camping rights are under threat from an exceedingly wealthy investment fund manager - it seems ridiculous that an individual who bought land knowing the access conditions, is attempting to dictate to the National Park Authority how they should carry out their business.
I am fully behind you
@@alanbuckingham8788 so let's say you own a few thousand (almost empty) hectares. Should people be able to walk through or not?