Strathspey Herald Article

There's an article in the Strathspey Herald which I'll reel off parts of ...

THERE is currently a petition on the Prime Minister's website which is calling for wild camping to be made legal in England and Wales, as it is in Scotland.

...

The new legislation quite clearly states that members of the public can wild camp anywhere there are access rights. And yet, in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code, the booklet that offers advice on how to "act responsibly", it clearly says this type of camping should be "lightweight", but doesn't actually define what "lightweight" is.

The Land Reform Act (2003) opened the way for the legalisation of wild camping in Scotland, which came in under the Scottish Outdoor Access Code. The history can be found on at www.outdooraccess-scotland.com - the setting out of the Access Code is in Chapter 3 of the 2003 Act. So the Act and the Code are the legislation.

As to the legislation not defining "lightweight", this is true. For me, going 4 days in the Cairngorms with a 50 litre backpack is easy, but 2 years ago, I was taking a 70 litre pack out for a weekend. For me, the spirit of the law is that you aren't forming a human chain to pass canvas, suitcases, and the like up the hill for a session. Other definitions of lightweight camping are here: scottishsport.co.uk or read Ryan Jordan's book or any copy of Scotland's own TGO magazine.

Back to the article ...

I must confess I am concerned about the future of this part of the Scottish legislation, simply because it is so poorly defined in the Act.

I can't help but think that those who park their car on the roadside, then camp only a few feet from the verge, are abusing the new legislation, although I do appreciate there are some areas where this is ignored by the landowner.

Err, the Access Code is clear on this point, stating:

This type of camping is lightweight, done in small numbers and only for two or three nights in any one place. You can camp in this way wherever access rights apply but help to avoid causing problems for local people and land managers by not camping in enclosed fields of crops or farm animals and by keeping well away from buildings, roads or historic structures.

See my previous post on the Landward program from June 2007 that the article writer referred to (wild-camping-thoughts).

At the heart of the article is the ePetition, and the writer raises points from the June 2007 episode of Landward that looked at wild camping, but in fact most was dealing with damage caused by people who ignored the Access Code and therefore lost their rights to access under Scots law.

If nothing else, if there was a serious discussion with politicians about the possibility of seeing genuine wild camping made legal in England and Wales then it could also help the situation in Scotland where that part of the Land Reform Act could be under threat because the wording of the law has been so poorly defined.

Sadly, it looks like the serious discussion has already taken place even before the petition is closed. Now, did someone somewhere write that only having 600 signatures was unDemocratic? Means that there's more work to do. In Scotland, over 1500 people were consulted for the Access Code - it would be nice if the same number of signatures were attached to the England & Wales document - then, maybe, just maybe, the democratically elected representatives of the people would at least consider consultations before just waving it aside in to the "too expensive" pile.

Oh, and one more thing, for all these folk who say that Scots law was "different" before the Land Reform Act came in, here's a wee piece of legislation that was amended by the Act - in other words, it was still valid pre 2003.

Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 Section 3 (which creates the offence of occupying or camping on land without the consent of its owner or occupier) ... source

Sounds similar to the comments in a magazine today "the laws regarding wild camping are a little complicated...". In my opinion, they aren't. The only complication is that people writing in print can't tell readers that what you are doing is against the law, even if the landowner's only redress is minor. Corporate lawyers would have something to say, I'd guess.

--

More posts at the central site: legalisewildcamping.com