" I do find it sad that we seem to make laws based not on the assumption of a responsible citizenry but on the worst of humanity"

I find it sad, too, Brian. But from my perspective, it is not entirely the fault of the small minded captains of the world. IME, a disturbingly large percentage of the citizenry no longer behaves responsibly. If that is an accurate perception, the ever more restrictive laws we are seeing are a natural and necessary response if we are to preserve what remains of our precious wilderness. I truly wish it were not so, but what is the alternative? Responsible behavior is a necessary requirement for freedom. If people behave irresponsibly, their freedom will inevitably be restricted. Unfortunately, it impacts the freedom of those who do behave responsibly as well. What to do?

I see it the other way around: if you treat people like they're irresponsible, they will so behave.

As for alternatives: the culprit here is motorized access. Where there is none, nature preserves itself. People who hike in tend to behave because they know what it takes to get there and learn to value it. When it takes no effort to get there, people tend to not see the value.

When trying to protect a place, the first thing I'd do is cut motorized access off. In a big buffer area around it. If that doesn't work enough, we could start thinking other ways. Unfortunately, it's usually strictly the other way around: they provide motorized access and create a problem that then try to solve by placing restrictions on the less harmful activities.

Hi Inaki

You need to be very careful about the laws of England and Scotland. The situation there is 'interesting'.

In England there are 'Public Rights of Way' which may date back for a thousand years or more. Yeah, I'm serious! You can NOT block them. They may go straight across your corn field - too bad, the RoW was there before you started planting corn. They may go straight between your farm buildings - too bad, same story.

I think it was Madonna who tried to close one off because she had built her new house right next to a RoW. Big fight. She was assured by her lawyers she could do this - but I think her lawyers were all Americna, and knew not the English law. Well, she had every walking club in the country staging walks past her window! All legal too. She lost.

Now, Scotland is a very different matter. They do not have 'public right of way' there. Every now and then someone tries to introduce legislation to create this concept into the Scottish parliament, but FORTUNATELY it gets shot down every time. Why 'FORTUNATELY'? Because in Scotland there is a 'Right to Roam' which is far, far broader. The people behind the moves to bring in the RoW concept in Scotland are the big landholders, who want to use the new legislation to RESTRICT the right to roam. 'Get off my grouse shooting moors.' But everyone is wise to them, and walkers have called in the police many times.

It is true I do not know the law in every country in Europe, but I have walked in the UK, Spain, France, Switzerland, Slovenia, Germany and Austria. I am reasonably sure of what I wrote for most of those countries, because we had to know. On the other hand, I probably do know more about this than most walkers in Europe, because most of them there (99%?) do not own a tent. They day-walk, or they stay in huts.

You are generally not allowed to camp or bivouac near a mountain hut in Europe without permission from the guardian. That is reasonable. They usually don't mind - especially if you buy dinner. There seems to be a bit of a 'no see, no know' attitude in many places too.

The UK is a special case here. Yes, I have camped right across the UK. But there is just about zero land in the UK which is 'public land'. It is ALL private property, every square inch! Yes, all the big National Parks are actually on private property. So camping rules there are ... complex. But they tend to be easy-going about little mountain tents. Caravans are another matter.

Cheers

Its complicated in the US too. For example in most areas you are free float down a river through private property. You are also generally allowed to camp beside that river as long is it is below the high water line, in other words where it floods and you wouldn't be building a house anyway.
Its also common to have a hunting lease that allows hunters access to land. In Arkansas where I grew up you could join a lease and instantly get access (in hunting season) to a big chunk of timber company land.
What we don't have a lot of is a system for people to legally hike private land. There are some public right of ways but generally trails are in National Forest or other public land. This may be because we have so much public land and because the private land isn't very desirable for hiking by comparison.

Further to what Roger says above Scotland is again different to England. There is no public land either place but the right to roam in Scotland includes the right to camp anywhere that is away from roads and peoples gardens as long as LNT is followed. I think just for one night.
In England it is as Roger says more complex. Legally you can't without the owners permission but people do stealth camp rather visibly in some wilder places

We also have public ROW laws that in some cases allow the public access to private land. I was "recently" involved in a law suit to protect just such a right. A new land owner was blocking access to a dirt road that had existed for about 150 years that gave access to National Forest land and a river. We won with a summary judgment.

Go for it Dean!!!!

Yeah, been there, done that too, on the ocean-front. Got yelled at for walking along the beach, which IS legal right around Australia. Quoted Federal Law at the owner and told him to call the cops if he dared. He was furious at having his bluff called.

Cheers
----------
Dunno what happened here. SW bug???? My posting seems to have overwritten Dean's. Sorry about that Dean.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 05/18/2012 00:39:04 MDT.

"I see it the other way around: if you treat people like they're irresponsible, they will so behave."

Perhaps, but a certain percentage of them will behave irresponsibly in any case. How are those responsible for protecting our wildernesses to differentiate unless they can catch a person in the act? It is not possible, or even desirable, to saturate the backcountry with enforcement personnel, so they typically apply blanket restrictions, which is also not a very desirable solution. I don't have any answers beyond advocating for better education of the population in general. It is a very difficult problem to solve.

"As for alternatives: the culprit here is motorized access. Where there is none, nature preserves itself. People who hike in tend to behave because they know what it takes to get there and learn to value it. When it takes no effort to get there, people tend to not see the value."

I wish I could agree with you, Inaki, but my personal experience leads me to think otherwise. My personal backpacking style has always led me far into the interior of the The Sierra and The Cascades, typically to off trail destinations. I am used to seeing a certain amount of litter on the approach trails, even 15-20 miles back in, but of late I have been finding it in some of the remoter reaches The Sierra, in places where I would have assumed anybody going there would know better. It seems to always have been that way in The Cascades for some reason, which is surprising given the ruggedness of the range. The areas I mention are far enough from roads to lead me to believe that motorized access is not the culprit, as very few people visit them even today. I am not sure what their thinking is, but they definitely lack the proper respect for the wilderness.

It's just too easy to do what you want to, even where that means breaking the law, and then characterise it as some kind of resistance to tyranny. There's a big difference between being a conscientious objecter and simply deciding that a camping rule applies to everyone else but not to you. That's simply called being self-centred.

Ha! Not often I get to correct Roger ;-)

There are public rights of way in Scotland (7000 or so) that existed long before the Outdoor Access legislation was enacted. They are all routes which people have walked for centuries but never got paved over to make roads. They still exist, and are maintained by the Scottish Rights of Way Society. They are less important now that the Outdoor Access legislation legally allows you to walk most places - you still have to respect the rights of landowners to do what they would normally do - grow crops and livestock and shoot wildlife during the season, military training etc. As part of the right to roam you are also allowed overnight camping (bivouac). This Act legalises the practice that most (but not all) landowners has previously tolerated to a greater or lesser extent.

Edited by Scunnered on 05/25/2012 02:08:23 MDT.

Yeah, I think I would agree. The caveate is that motorized access often means more people. Some percentage will liter. Camp grounds with motor vehicals allowed are no different from back woods camping except the volume of people.

I remember remarking that "People out here should know better." to my daughter when we were hiking. She thought a second and said, but carrying that out means more weight. I have since come to think this was correct in many regards. Old canisters are a BIG problem. I find one in many fire pits. ('Corse, I stomp them flat and slip them in my pack.) Old pans, grills are left thinking the next person can use them. Nope, I carry in what I need. Old beer cans 20 mil;es into the woods?? Who would think to bring beer, and, carrying that weight for 20 miles? Generally I have found three regions where I can find trash. Camp grounds(State or DEC), 2-3 miles in are often covered by half empty water bottles, broken straps, pieces of plastic, gum wrappers, snack food containers, toilet paper, broken gear, etc. From 5-10 miles is often pretty good, the people that try. 20mi plus you run into lazy campers, those willing to carry it in, but not out. Canisters from stoves start becoming a problem at this distance. Old tent poles, I carried out a small cooler one time. Grills, a number of steel stakes, a couple pots, frying pans, broken fishing lures, whatever. But, this is generally ONLY at the camp sites or lean-too. Trails remain pretty clean. Surprisingly, I do NOT find much toilet paper 20mi in...

Anyway, stealth camping is by nature uncomfortable for me. Though I cannot say I have NOT done it. Like others you wait till dusk before setting up camp. No fires, often not a perfect tent ground. At first light I wake and start packing, not heating water. After I am packed, then I can heat water and make breakfast. I leave nothing. After breakfast, I put my pack on and check the ground. After hiking a few steps I turn around and check it again. Not perfect, but... IFF I get caught or someone says I cannot stay for any reason, no arguements...I leave. People generally don't care if you are polite, clearly just spending a night, not making permanent scars, etc. This is kind'a like camping in some's back yard though. If they say something like "I wish you wouldn't.", I pack up and leave. I have hiked in the dark before and hiked through the night at times. If I get a ticket, well, that was what I was doing...trespassing. I earned it. If the guy says "Sure, no problem, just be out in the morning." I agree stating that was my plan and I apologize for intruding on his time. It is his land, his time, afterall. And I, by my presence, forced him to check on me. Tell him the truth, I was hiking xxx, but got off the trail and needed a place to sleep. Again, I am uncomfortable, I know he is. Just be prepared to move and usually there is no real problem. BTW, I have never gotten a ticket.

Thanks for all the replies! I started the thread looking for people's experiences and this has surpassed my expectations. I am a permit guy and once in a while I find myself in a situation where I need to bivvy illegally.

This is not a moral issue to me except when stealth camping is severely abused. I believe strongly that everyone here practices respectful and LNT camping practices regardless of the site.

" There's a big difference between being a conscientious objecter and simply deciding that a camping rule applies to everyone else but not to you. That's simply called being self-centered."

+1 - couldn't have said it better myself

Hi Stuart

> There are public rights of way in Scotland (7000 or so) that existed long before the Outdoor
> Access legislation was enacted.
Really? I did not know that. Thank you. Makes sense of course.

> There is no equivalent right or law in England or Wales.
Um - not so sure. My tentative understanding is that areas declared downland and moors etc in England can be legally roamed now. This may have happened some after 2000 when some new maps came out. Any idea?

Cheers

Brian:
"Interesting thread,
to me the real argument here is the difference between
laws and rules and justice and ethics.
sometimes the laws and rules reflect ideas about justice and ethics
sometimes the laws and rules go counter to ethics and justice ( any casual browsing of any history book or newspaper will make that clear. )

many times, especially when it comes to the less serious category of "rules" they are not put in place in the service of ethics but for obscure bureaucratic reasons known only to the small group of people who decide such things in early morning meetings in dreary office rooms.
Many times rules are lots of shades of gray and can be interpreted widely divergent ways
according to your bias. When it comes to stealth camping I find it impossible to believe that anyone in that meeting talked about how it would effect responsible and ethical hikers. I imagine instead they talked about how it would make there job easier or send a "message". I do find it sad that we seem to make laws based not on the assumption of a responsible citizenry but on the worst of humanity by the meddling of a small group of small minded captains of the world."



I am with Brian and I can't remember breaking any camping rules.

I used to live in the middle of a field near Ano Nuevo State Reserve. The land was purchased by Bart because while they were laying rail near the SF airport, they found some SF Garter snakes and so bought the land as mitigation, to protect the snake in this location. The "rules" said that no one could walk their dog in the fields, as they could endanger the snake. I had dogs and was not allowed to let them out. Bart leased the land to a commercial Brussel sprout farmer; the fields were disked, plowed and poisoned regularly. This made absolutely no sense. Unfortunately this is not an exception and unless we have a certain percentage of "rebels" among us, we will just buy into whatever rules are forced upon us, without questioning them or changing them.
This from someone who is generally not inclined to go against the law and is incapable of even been a few minutes late to anything.

"This may have happened some after 2000 when some new maps came out. Any idea?"


31 October 2005: I remember it being somewhere around the time I was living the UK and a quick Google of the Ramblers website confirmed the date:

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/righttoroam/history


And where you can ramble:

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/righttoroam

You are right Roger, there is now a Right to Roam in England. It is specific to walking on designated areas of mountain, moorland, heath, down and common land. These areas are now shown on 1:25k maps.
Most other activities are excluded from this right, including camping.

It's not much (<11% of land area), but England is densely populated and subjected to intensive agriculture.

http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Resources/Ramblers%20Association/Website/Campaigns/AccessFactSheet-FS8.pdf