The Loss of the Land: Wild Camping on Dartmoor Ruling
Today, the simple right to wild camp beneath the stars on Dartmoor in Devon was taken away. Why is this significant? Because it was the only place in England where you were legally permitted to do so without seeking the landowner’s permission.
Alexander Darwall, owner of a 4,000 acre estate on Dartmoor, brought a case against Dartmoor National Park. He argued that the long-held right to wild camp on Dartmoor did not exist.
There was plenty of protest, online, in person on Dartmoor and in the surrounding area, from individuals, campaign groups, as well as the Dartmoor National Park Authority itself. It was clear that the many, many people who enjoy Dartmoor and the opportunity to wild camp were opposed to this.
But the judge ruled that the right to wild camp had never existed. Darwall won. This sets a precedent for all the landowners on Dartmoor, who can now follow suit and demand permission for people to responsibly wild camp on Dartmoor.
“So what?” you might ask. “You can still walk in Darwall’s estate. You can still spend time outdoors on Dartmoor, just like you can in all those places in England where you can’t wild camp.”
And that is true. But wild camping adds so much to walking and the experience of being outdoors. You walk for a day and then, weary, find a comfortable place to pitch a tent, cook and eat a simple meal. You sleep, wake up with the world about you, and then pack it all up in the morning, so it as if you were never there at all. Doing this offers a vital sense of self-sufficiency not often found in the modern world. Wild camping gives you the chance to whittle down the chaos of modern life down to the necessities you can carry on your back. It offers a beautiful simplicity.
“Okay, fine. But two more things? What about all the mess people leave when they wild camp? And, after all, it’s Darwall’s land. He can do what he likes. You wouldn’t want people camping in YOUR garden, would you?”
I saw plenty of comments like this online in reaction to the ruling. The answers to them are simple enough. Firstly, most wild campers do not leave litter and debris. Not doing so is kind of the point of it. There are idiots who wild camp, just as there are idiots in most things. Stopping the vast majority of people who leave no trace from doing a thing they love is not going to deter those who do leave traces. Besides, is education, rather than exclusion, a better solution? I think so.
Secondly, wild camping in a 4000 acre estate is very different from camping in somebody’s garden. No one wants to go and wild camp right by Darwall’s house (he does not exactly sound like somebody who it would be fun to have a drink with) and besides, it would be an invasion of privacy. Other countries that do permit wild camping – Sweden, Norway, Scotland – all stipulate that you should not camp within a certain distance of a dwelling or garden. Camping discreetly on a very large piece of wild moorland in a National Park is hardly a damaging or intrusive activity. Yet Darwall seems to think it is.
Whilst wild camping – sometimes in Scotland, sometimes in Dartmoor, sometimes elsewhere – I have seen the sun rise through woods as the dawn chorus sings around me. I have opened my tent and looked upon mountains in the morning, a far cry from opening the curtains and seeing tarmac and cars. I have felt like I am the only person in the world, as though it is just me and the landscape. I have been drawn closer to the beauty of the natural world, have been made to feel content in a way that words fall short of describing. I have had experiences that nothing else other than wild camping can give me.
They are very special experiences, and to deny people the chance to have them is deeply selfish.
Much has been made of the fact that Darwall is a wealthy hedge-fund manager. That he has donated considerable funds to UKIP, Vote Leave and the Conservatives. That he owns an estate in Scotland four times the size of his Dartmoor one. But what the primary focus should be is the fact that he cannot seem to stomach the thought of people pitching tiny rectangles of canvas in his 4,000 acre estate.
It should be the primary focus for the simple reason that it is symbolic of the wider denial of people from the land in England.
I move now to ideas that the brilliant Right to Roam campaign have explained far better and more eloquently than me, but that I will repeat here nonetheless. Not only are we now not able to wild camp legally anywhere in England. We are also legally permitted to access a paltry 8% of England’s land and 3% of its waterways. Walk off the path, veer into the woods, and you’re trespassing.
Why is this a problem?
It is a problem because it means that we are excluded from huge swathes of natural beauty. From the outdoors. It is a problem because it means that environmental damage can be hidden from us. It is a problem because it means that one person can wander freely through an enormous estate while another cannot, creating a hierarchy through exclusion. It is a problem because it means that many people cannot easily access the outdoors or may not know how to.
Most of all, it is a problem because it means that, by being denied access to the land and the natural world within it, apathy towards the natural world grows. And apathy towards the natural world is the last thing we need at the moment.
To return to what prompted this article, many people will not be bothered about today’s ruling about wild camping. This may be because they have never wild camped, and they might not have done that for the simple reason that they are not allowed to.
And so why care about the destruction of the land, when you cannot walk on most of it, experience it for yourself, and therefore see that this destruction must be reversed?
Today’s ruling is the result of one man’s selfishness. But it stands for so much more. Let that not be forgotten.
Comments