Right to roam

ALLHONE hunting knives designed and made in NZ
I'm afraid this a typical Guardian clickbait article.

The research came out last May, and was published with a press release on the Forest Research website:

www.forestresearch.gov.uk

New research on public access to woodlands released - Forest Research

Research to understand the existing provision of public access to woodlands in England, as well as opportunities for increasing access, has been published by Forest Research.
www.forestresearch.gov.uk www.forestresearch.gov.uk

So the Guardian has not exactly sourced this information from "buried government documents" as their article likes to put it!!

The same study also found that "66% of households have access to a woodland larger than 20 ha within 4 km", but I guess that doesn't make for the kind of angry headline the Guardian likes to put out?

Similarly the Guardian article states "Many woodlands are off-limits as they are used for business interests such as pheasant shoots and timber plantations", as if to imply that this also comes from the study, whereas in reality no mention is made of shooting.

You can access the full report here: https://cdn.forestresearch.gov.uk/2025/05/Access-to-woodland-in-England-2025.pdf
 
It also transpires that the advocacy group "Right to Roam", which is quoted extensively in the above article, happen to have 2 out of 6 members on their current team who either currently write, or have written extensively for,......you guessed it, The Guardian!!

www.righttoroam.org.uk

ABOUT | RIGHT TO ROAM

We are campaigning to bring a Right to Roam Act to England and Wales so that millions more people can connect with the natural world.
www.righttoroam.org.uk www.righttoroam.org.uk

As I said, pure clickbait.
 
If you have an interest in knowing where the information about shooting and woodlands comes from, check out this article from 2020 on the "Who owns England?" website:

whoownsengland.org

Who owns England’s woods?

This post is by Guy Shrubsole. Image: Max Porter, with thanks. If you go down to the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise: a third of England’s woodlands are owned by just a thousand landowner…
whoownsengland.org whoownsengland.org

As the article states "The analysis also raises questions how private woods are used – with many of them kept off-limits to the general public in order to maintain them as pheasant shoots", and uses this as the basis for a lengthy diatribe about both private landowners and game shooting.

But let's go back and take another look at that opening quote:

"If you go down to the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise: a third of England’s woodlands are owned by just a thousand landowners."

Seems kind of familiar?

Of course it is, as the author of it, Guy Shrubsole, repeats it pretty much verbatim for the article in today's Guardian:

“If you go down to the woods today, you’re in for a big surprise – most of them are closed to the public."

I suppose the best you can say is that he's doing his bit for recycling!
 
HonestJohn said:
I do have to say. An awful lot of litter is left behind in places where the public do have access, so until responsible access can be demonstrated, there is an argument as to why not allowed. 🚫
Click to expand...
100% this.

The vast majority of the woods where we stalk have unrestricted public access. The public can roam wherever they want to, and encountering dog walkers, mountain bikers, trail riders, and other members of the public can happen 24x7. Thank God for thermal spotters!

Frequently when stalking I pick up the litter that the public carelessly discards, but I draw the line at soiled nappies, human faeces and the like.

Last Summer the public was lighting fires and using disposable barbecues in the woods, despite the dry weather.

The Estate struggles to stop the mountain bikers creating ad-hoc trails through the woods, with the cyclists even chopping down small trees to make jumps. The Estate has even gone to the extent of creating special cycle trails to discourage them from vandalising the woods, but to no avail.

The public may want a right to roam, but they shouldn’t get it until they accept all the responsibilities that go with it.
 
HonestJohn said:
I do have to say. An awful lot of litter is left behind in places where the public do have access, so until responsible access can be demonstrated, there is an argument as to why not allowed. 🚫
Click to expand...

While we have have the right of responsible access in Scotland since 2003 and have pretty much come to accept it, (I have got a bollocking when going for a walk off piste while visiting Englandshire!), it's not without it problems and can be a real pain. Access taking is frequently not responsible and many most people are now of the view that they have an absolute right to do what they like, where they like and when they like.

I stalk on commercial forestry but you really need to be on the ball (as we should be anyway) and just be prepared to shrug your shoulders and walk away. On of my foresters got a complaint recently from a dog walker who had heard a shot and complained that shooting shouldn't be allowed in woods where people walked dogs - this was a 700 ac block of commercial softwoods, 4 miles from the nearest settlement. Turned out the complainer was a commercial dog walker who refused to believe that the right of responsible access didn't apply to commercial dog walking.

IMHO a large part of the problem stems back to the messaging when the rights were introduced - they were touted as a Right to Roam, not a right of responsible access taking
 
Last edited:
Fuc£ing public and their right to roam

As ive said to.many...
There is no right to roam

There is a right to responsible access no go read countryside code and tell me where you fu5ed up?

Caused nothing but problems up here and 90% of those abuse it .
Litter
Sheep worrying
Breaking down fences etc
Not sticking to established paths trails
Wildfires
 
artschool said:
what about a right to stalk!
Click to expand...
That's covered in the Scottish Outdoor Access code - but largely ignore by those that don't want to know.

Actions you can take​

Throughout the year:

  • Plan ahead - use the Heading for the Scottish Hills service (and other information sources such as Walkhighlands and some estate websites) to help you find out where stalking is happening. Fewer routes are affected by stalking on Saturdays, and stalking does not usually take place on Sundays.
  • Plan and follow a route that avoids crossing land where deer management is taking place.
  • Pay close attention to signage on arrival and throughout your visit, and follow reasonable advice from land managers on alternative routes.
  • Be flexible - be prepared to adjust your plans to take a different route if necessary.
  • If there isn’t any specific information available for your route, you can minimise the risk of disturbing stalking activity by using paths and following ridges.
  • Always keep your dog in sight and under control when exploring the Scottish hills - if in doubt use a lead.
During the busier key deer stalking periods in the autumn (especially the first 3 weeks of October) and winter (late January to mid-February):

Be prepared for more stalking activity to be taking place in the hills during the working week (Monday to Friday) and that you are more likely to be asked to use alternative routes. The hills are still accessible during this period, but it is essential that you plan ahead carefully and take extra care to minimise the chance of disturbing stalking.
 
How many of the people posting on this thread actually own land that's affected by the "right to roam"?
Not many, I bet!
There will be plenty of you who've been granted your own privileged "right to roam" on private land for recreational purposes (ie, stalking), but take objection to the suggestion that anyone else should use the land for recreation.

Since I started stalking some 15 or so years ago I've met a lot of recreational stalkers, many through this site, and most are just honest ordinary people, living in ordinary houses in ordinary neighbourhoods and having ordinary, fairly mundane, day jobs. Basically the same in all respects to those other ordinary people who would also like access to a bit of countryside for recreational purposes such as dog walking, mountain biking or skinny dipping. All harmless activities when carried out responsibly, just like stalking.

(Just for the record, I do own quite a bit of land that's designated "open access" (ie, right to roam). Sometimes it's a problem, but mostly it's not. I can't do anything about it, whatever. Having people shooting on my land was much more of a problem. I don't allow that anymore).

(No doubt someone's going to chip in now and say I'm being a pompous git, or an extreme lefty, or something equally derogatory, but I do feel that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy spouted by the fieldsports sector, and I feel no shame in calling it out because I think it reflects badly on us all).
 
Last edited:
VSS said:
How many of the people posting on this thread actually own land that's affected by the "right to roam"?
Not many, I bet!
There will be plenty of you who've been granted your own privileged "right to roam" on private land for recreational purposes (ie, stalking), but take objection to the suggestion that anyone else should use the land for recreation.

Since I started stalking some 15 or so years ago I've met a lot of recreational stalkers, many through this site, and most are just honest ordinary people, living in ordinary houses in ordinary neighbourhoods and having ordinary, fairly mundane, day jobs. Basically the same in all respects to those other ordinary people who would also like access to a bit of countryside for recreational purposes such as dog walking, mountain biking or skinny dipping. All harmless activities when carried out responsibly, just like stalking.

(Just for the record, I do own quite a bit of land that's designated "open access" (ie, right to roam). Sometimes it's a problem, but mostly it's not. I can't do anything about it, whatever. Having people shooting on my land was much more of a problem. I don't allow that anymore).

(No doubt someone's going to chip in now and say I'm being a pompous git, or an extreme lefty, or something equally derogatory, but I do feel that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy spouted by the fieldsports sector, and I feel no shame in calling it out because I think it reflects badly on us all).
Click to expand...
I have less of an issue with responsible users having access to land but I think that's the nub- with rights come responsibilities. Too many want the rights without the responsibility, and disturb wildlife, litter, breach the peace and ignore the countryside code. As a result I don't think the right to access should be by default.

I still have some issues with responsible users as there are plenty of studies showing humans alone, and especially humans with dogs, disturb wildlife within a certain radius of their route simply by walking through, with effects lasting half an hour or so after they've been through. This disturbance drives wildlife from heavily used areas and for the creatures not displaced, reduces their feeding and reproductive behaviours, reducing overall survival. Places like the Lake District aren't low on wildlife solely because of sheep farming, despite Monbiot and his ilk's claims- it's also because of the hordes of people tramping through and perturbing the wildlife. I say that as someone who enjoys hiking. Public access to land is not great for nature. Maybe there needs to be a middle ground of some sacrificial areas where the public have access, some where only those who can demonstrate they are responsible have access, and other areas where it's even more restrictive. Which isn't far off where things are currently.
 
If you can't control access to your property, then you don't really own it. You are simply leasing it from the government and the property tax is your payment. Get behind on your "lease" payment and they will take it back. Maybe all these ramblers can chip in on your ownership fees as it seems only fair.


Scott
 
Mountain Bug said:
If you can't control access to your property, then you don't really own it. You are simply leasing it from the government and the property tax is your payment. Get behind on your "lease" payment and they will take it back. Maybe all these ramblers can chip in on your ownership fees as it seems only fair.


Scott
Click to expand...
dont you have property taxes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VPN for android phones [free] - Orbot leverages onion routing
Replies
3
Views
507
zambezi
zambezi
Generous shooters.
Replies
6
Views
393
John Gryphon
John Gryphon
Devine intervention.
Replies
8
Views
552
Malxwal
Malxwal
Sold: Nikko Sterling Diamond 2.5 to 10 by 50 illuminated £25 posted.
Replies
3
Views
117
old 30-06
O
Paperless Firearms Licensing Process - Impact on older applicants.
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
5K
Foxyboy43
Foxyboy43
New Avon Arms
Back
Top