Our Right to Roam campaign advocates exclusion where access rights are not compatible with the survival of vulnerable species that are being conserved – think of places like salt marshes, seabird habitats and some beaches.
We might go a step further socially and agree to incorporate the exclusion zone into itself, perhaps to gather basic data on what the absence of people accomplishes and what it does not accomplish.
democracy
What is important is that these projects are transparent and socially just. They are not simply escape clauses that perpetuate arbitrary exclusion through the back door. In fact, non-arbitrary models are important for these projects to be perceived as legitimate, which is what is needed to enforce compliance with restrictions and rules that are much more legitimate than a “No Entry!” sign.
But I don’t think we should accept the negative framing of accessibility that the authors suggest. We’ve become too accustomed to seeing the presence of people on the land as a problem to be managed, not an asset to be embraced.
In Britain this idea has a long and ambiguous history, having been used for centuries to justify the abolition of common rights or to preserve the interests of the gentry.
Then, in the early 20th century, preservationists developed their own arrogant class morality, deploring the re-entry of commoners into the countryside and coining strange terms like “disobedient bathing” and “punishing noisy people.”
As someone succinctly summarized in the 1930s, shortly after the expansion of suffrage, “The only way to save the countryside for democracy is to keep democracy out of the countryside.”
The Critics
Today, these arguments often get a conservationist gloss (what gamekeeper hasn’t now rebranded himself as a “pragmatic conservationist”? False or not), but their roots are much the same. Then and now, these narratives prove a convenient distraction from the real causes of ecological loss.
Lloyd asked us etc. I wonder what Dartmoor’s last white-tailed godwits think of the “tourist raids” that come every Easter, as if that had anything to do with the species’ precipitous decline.
We only have to take a quick look at the fate of the egret in Ireland. Reduced to 98 In a country where there is no right-of-way, no equivalent law on the CRoW Act, and no proper right-of-way network, there has been a 100% decline in right-of-way over the past 30 years.
These factors are not much different from those driving the decline of the goby in the UK: habitat destruction by silage harvesting, commercial forestry, increasing predator abundance, and draining wetlands and marshes. The strange walker has little to do with this.
Okay, but can people – and that almost always means their dogs – make a bad situation worse? There’s a common thread here between those campaigning for access and their critics.
ecosystem
We do not believe that full access should be extended to companion animals, and interventions into dog ownership and related industries have long been urgently needed for both wild and farm animals.
As far as I know, Right to Roam activists are actually pioneers on this issue. A raft of comprehensive measures We believe that reforms in our approach to dogs are necessary. [full list: here].
For those who want the former without the latter: OK, but how do we get there? Packaging specific, reasonable regulations into popular rights is a way to motivate politicians and offset all political risk. A strong proposal for accessibility reform could be the means to such legislation.
And for those concerned about the impact of accessibility, it is difficult to understand why the status quo is so acceptable. The effect is to suppress public access along with places already meant for nature conservation. More than half of our existing access lands (which cover around 8% of the land in England) are designated as areas of special scientific interest, national nature reserves or local nature reserves.
The first monitoring of the site by Natural England after the CRoW Act (which gave walkers and hikers a ‘right to roam’ primarily in highlands) came into force found that the ecosystem had not changed significantly as a result of the experience.
protect
But for those who still object: A flexible, habitat-agnostic model that eases access pressure to designated sites certainly offers more potential. And while honeypots will always exist, greater doorstep accessibility is likely to reduce the number of visitors who drive hours to remote national parks to walk and swim.
It is also important for nature, because our local areas are where we have the most influence and power. Like us, the authors support the rights of nature.
But they seem to be resentful of those who are most likely to support them. Even our current modest approach shows us what is possible, and communities across the country are rising up to defend their natural heritage. We call this the concept of: Wild Service.
We saw it Sheffieldin Wellingborough. to Warp and wyethat cam and Avon. in countless other places across the country where connectivity is a prerequisite for protection.
connection
These practices are rarely considered to be conservation benefits of access, but that is precisely what they are. In fact, they are at the heart of our environmental policy because of the pollution of rivers. Fly to the forefront Even in situations where we have to debate the fundamentals of the political agenda, right to swim.
I think all of these basic conservationists, and the authors themselves, are motivated by formative experiences with the natural world, the basic prerequisite of which is access to the outdoors.
But more and more Micro Enclosure Get up Throughout the countryAnd try to limit Even the long-standing rights In places like Dartmoor, we are making such basic experiences more difficult than ever. According to Chris Packham, the most endangered species in the countryside today is the young naturalist.
The authors also express concern that “many people, especially in our urban communities, have lost their sense of being vital, living participants in the natural world,” making the outrageous claim that “accessibility itself does not lead to connection.” Well, it doesn’t. But without it, it’s much harder.
police
I do not doubt the sincerity of the authors’ convictions, nor do I doubt that they are motivated by anything other than the plight of the natural world they fiercely defend as a shared right. But it is a dangerous gamble to piggyback their agenda on a fundamentally unjust system.
Doing so would undermine the legitimacy of conservation action in the long run and encourage those who seek to profit by trading human interests for nature’s interests to join forces, as if their fates were not intertwined.
Ultimately, those of us who define ourselves as environmentalists need to stop thinking that we are somehow better, more unique, or more special than those who don’t.
Given everyone’s means, time and experience – Everyone – We have the same ability to be nature’s guardians. The future of conservation lies in making each element more accessible, not in policing who we think we can care about and who we don’t.
This author
John Moses is a freelance writer and organiser for Right to Roam, a campaign group fighting for free, fair and informed access to land and water across the UK.
