Rambling on the Right to Roam

Roy J Denney

Every expatriate is said to dream of the green, green grass of home but urban sprawl and extensive road building are painting a very different picture.

The continuing debate between the countryside supporters and a government supposedly largely elected by townies is providing much entertainment as the extremes of both sides wax lyrical but it does involve issues with an impact on our club not least the question of access. There is a body of opinion in the cities which patently does not understand the ways of country life but the vast majority of us love the outdoors and enjoy it whenever we can, pursuing whatever particular interests we have.

It is important that this majority do not stand idly by ignoring the debate, but it is equally important that we take serious stock of the issues as many of us are not as informed as we think we are. The right to roam is at first glance a potential boon to our sport but with my involvement on the committee of the National Forest (This committee brings together representatives of many different organisations with different views and requirements) I am starting to realise that every change is a trade-off and that we may not be much better off. Unfortunately the track record of bureaucratic involvement in environmental issues is at best chequered.

I am warned not to smoke as it kills millions but banned from eating meat on the bone as it may kill a few. To eat or not to eat red meat, that is the question. We subsidise overproduction of food then pay farmers to set aside land and others to store unwanted food which is subsequently destroyed or sold below cost.

Returning to the Right to Roam the Country Sports enthusiasts are on one side of the fence (if you will excuse the pun) but the other side does not appear to think this includes men on horses in funny red clothes chasing vermin. Most people are against any cruelty to animals including foxes (one of which frequents my garden nightly) but I have not seen any convincing case made that other proposed methods of killing them are any less cruel. Provided some practices of rogue hunters are curtailed most people seem to see no reason to change a way of life which has survived centuries and is supported by the great majority of the people in the areas in question.

Similar arguments will be used against hare coursing but in the case of both sports, hunting animal against animal could be said to improve the stock of both creatures as the old, infirm and less athletic will be taken leaving survival of the fittest to enhance the gene bank.

Civilised people are completely opposed to badger baiting where man takes a direct hand in the kill employing technology to disturb any natural balance between the animals and shooting stags with telescopic-sighted rifles comes low in many peoples estimation of a sport. Both are still pursued largely at opposite ends of the social strata.

Rough shooting of live game with shotguns and taking fish by hook are more even contests but neither are to everyone’s taste and must involve cruel situations. If moorland management for grouse shooting were to be abandoned the grouse population would plummet and the moors as we know them would deteriorate into impenetrable tangles of heather above climbing hillsides of bracken. Whatever our well-meaning inclinations there is the danger, however, that once animal ‘rights’ are established as a basis for legislation there is no knowing where it will end. The worm on an angler’s hook does not have much of a fighting chance.

As a sport fell walkers require largely unfettered access which is not always easy to come by. Land owners feel that if all and sundry can wander at will many of the areas we value will be spoiled for our purposes which speaking selfishly it is hard to disagree with.

Talking to the representatives of landowners and agents of some large estates it is apparent that given the pressure they are coming under from the government they are likely to try to achieve voluntary arrangements falling short of full access. They hope that the creation of paths through their land will be accepted which would not be any great help to us if such paths did not happen to go in the direction we want to travel. If these paths were created in areas where we have managed to agree occasional access rights such as Bowland Forest it is likely that in restricting access to other areas by the general public they could impede our use and make us worse off.

Present discussions as to possible legislation are concentrating on mountains, moors, heaths and commons, downs and pasture land. Many of these are poorly defined but obviously come within the ambit of our sport. Agricultural land is excluded and much woodland is not being included at present presumably as it is considered a cash crop and therefore agriculture.

Some landowners are seeking support for their subsidised way of life and are at the same time fighting a rear-guard action to keep us out of areas where with proper agreement we could coexist. Despite over-production and reducing returns they still seek to circumvent rules keeping them out of SSSIs (Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and similar.

The bureaucrats creating these nature reserves and protected zones are equally blinkered. They often seek to preserve habitats supporting rare flora or fauna without realising that present activities by man have created the habitat and by restricting our use they may destroy what they seek to preserve.

We all wish to preserve the natural beauty of our countryside but if the truth be known very little of it is natural. The charming dry stone walls are man-made as are the hedges which wild life relishes. Truly natural countryside would have neither but would involve a full cover of heath, moor or woodland.

Subsidies rarely work as intended and could be re-directed to better effect for all our sakes. The nonsense of them manifests itself in many ways but a classic example is butter. I am not sure whether we still have a butter mountain but not long ago we were transporting unwanted butter to East Europe and USSR at a cost to both the environment and the taxpayers at the same time as butter was being shipped all the way round the world from New Zealand to be sold in the UK. The EU did try to resolve this by further bureaucratic means by restricting the tonnage which could be imported and making it subject to a levy. Notwithstanding the cost of transport and this levy this butter from New Zealand where it is produced without any taxpayer support can still be found on our supermarket shelves competing happily with European butters produced nearer to home with substantial tax payer subsidy.

If as a nation we want more access to a well-maintained countryside we should stop subsidising unwanted production but support the landowners and farmers in their lifestyles by effectively paying them for access and the maintenance of walls, styles etc. If money now spent on set aside and produce subsidy was only made available to them in exchange for the usage we all wish to have they would have a vested interest in working with the likes of ourselves to our mutual benefit. To be fair to him the present EU Agriculture Commissioner (Commissar) Hans Fishler of Austria is trying to reform the CAP along these lines but is meeting strong resistance from Countries looking after the vested interests of their own landowners.

The governments avowed intent of gaining unrestricted access to four million acres of open land can only be of encouragement to all country lovers but we need to keep pressing them not to be deflected by restricted voluntary arrangements whilst at the same time not antagonising landowners with whom we have existing good relationships and bearing in mind their very real concerns. Not a small order.

I cannot personally look forward with great confidence to a major change as a result of this exercise as it seems to be wrapped around with untold get out clauses.

It appears likely that designated access land will be able to be closed for short periods at the owners whim, or for health and safety reasons, military training, to protect wildlife or for archaeological interests. It would be very disconcerting after several hours walking to find one’s route barred by a temporary and unpublicised closure. It is not expected that any access should be charged for although specific facilities provided could be.

There is a consultation process in hand at present on the proposals for Right to Roam legislation. Copies of the paper can be obtained from the D of E (0181 691 9191) The Countryside Commission have their own web site at http://www.countryside.gov.uk and is advising the government and issuing news releases. The Ramblers’ Association is obviously active in this matter and by virtue of their size are better represented at Westminster than we can hope to be. Their interests do not exactly match ours but you may wish to support their activities and keep up to date with developments through them. Their parliamentary office is at 36 Great Smith St., London SWlP 3 BD.

Alongside the Right to Roam considerations the Countryside Commission is also apparently working on suggestions for a complete rethink on Rights of Way. During, I think, the late fifties a comprehensive review of existing rights of way was carried out and all local authorities are now obliged to maintain a definitive footpaths register and have responsibilities to ensure these rights of way are kept open. Quite rightly it is a difficult process to close a path or indeed divert one as a right of way is a benefit to all the population if they choose to exercise it.

Paths can be added to this list where historic evidence can be produced much to the annoyance of landowners and the Ramblers Association amongst others complain of the difficulty of creating new routes.

It seems likely that The Commission will suggest doing away with the definitive record and the virtual obligation to re-open paths which can be proved to have been there in the past and a system of authorisation by Local Authorities be set up backed up by arbitration. The intention is to simplify both the creation of new routes and closure of ‘inconvenient ones’. I see obvious dangers in this given the power of vested interests set against the vigilance of occasional users of some of these facilities.

My own experience is that money speaks and if landowners are compensated as I have suggested previously the creation and retention of paths should not be a problem. The new National Forest is setting a good example.

Since its launch in 1990 as an idea born of the Countryside Commission our new forest has been growing if you will excuse the pun. Intended to cover over 100,000 acres across the North and East Midlands it will Eventually merge the surviving historic woodlands including Charnwood with large tracts of reclaimed former mining land.

Whilst described as a forest it is not conceived that it will ever be continuous woodland as the aim is for diversity of land-form to encourage all forms of wildlife. On the same tack this is not to be swathes of conifer plantations. Trees being planted include most native species in particular Birch, Willow and Rowan. Also going in are Hazel, Oak, Ash, Wild Cherry, Maple and Alder. The new plantings take many forms from verges on the side of new roads and new hawthorn hedges, through copses to sizeable tracts of new woodland.

The National Forest Company charged with ‘making it happen’ has been actively working to promote the concept for three years. They are basically facilitators and promoters with the land involved being owned either by local authorities or private individuals. They do direct grants of state aid to applicants who tender for support for what are deemed to be worthy schemes. A sort of scoring system for various elements is used to decide between applicants and points are given for public access along with other considerations which hopefully will lead to many new areas for use by walkers amongst others. To date about 70% of the newly planted areas have entered into agreements giving some public access although not always as free ranging as we would wish. Of this nearly three-quarters is in perpetuity and the rest subject to 10-year agreements.

Many of the new areas are small by our requirements and trees do take a considerable time to grow but in the long-term as areas meet up with others and the trees get taller we should have some good prospects for new long distance walks.

There have been comments that more National Forest road signs have been planted than trees but this is unfair. Much of the new planting is so immature that it is not yet noticeable but I have visited dozens of sites where in all over 2,000,000 new trees have been planted so far out of a target of 30,000,000.

We will all have differing views on many of these points but if we do not make our views known as far as is practical, we can have little complaint about the outcome. The last thing a democracy needs is change for its own sake without a full debate involving the informed views of the whole populace. The favourite ploy of a fox seeking to avoid the dogs once it has been flushed from its hiding place is a series of sudden U-turns and if public opinion is clearly against the direction of present policies this would not be an altogether unknown practice for politicians.

It seems to have stopped raining outside now so perhaps I had better shut up.