By Paul Benton
Paul is an educational support worker and freelance writer from Peterborough, UK. He has a particular interest in animal rights and countryside access, and is fiercely anti-political. Born in 1972, he has written many articles on veganism and punk rock. This article highlights how much of England’s countryside is off-limits to the public, controlled by private landowners and outdated laws. From restricted footpaths to hidden wildlife crimes, it exposes how power and privilege keep nature out of reach for many. Paul makes the case for a fair “right to roam” as in Scotland.
Hunt sabotage has become as much a tradition as hunting itself. Both are traditions I would like to see die out; the latter because it will become unnecessary when the former is consigned to history’s dustbin. For more than 60 years, saboteurs have disrupted hunting with the sole aim of stopping people from killing animals for fun. While fox hunt sabotage is the most well-known and is also the most common form of sabotage, hare hunts, stag hunts, shoots and mink hunts are all targeted by direct action protesters. The Conservatives created the offence of aggravated trespass specifically to deal with hunt saboteurs. It criminalises trespass in some instances – it moves those instances out of civil law and plonks them firmly in the jurisdiction of the criminal courts. If you interfere with a legal activity on private property, you can be arrested. Then, in 2004, along comes the totally ineffectual Hunting Act; thus, trail hunting was born and saboteurs had an automatic defence against aggravated trespass accusations. Put simply, hunts can’t prove they are not illegally hunting and therefore there are hardly any saboteurs arrested for aggravated trespass these days.
Of course, shooting still benefits from the protection of aggravated trespass. It is also worth mentioning that vast areas of the UK countryside are closed to the public simply to preserve the “sport”. Obviously, guns can be quite dangerous, but also gamekeepers like to kill anything that may put birds at risk before paid guns can blast them out of sky. This means gamekeepers with guns of their own and a vast array of lethal traps go out of their way to eradicate any native predators that may wish to feast off the intensively-farmed baby birds.
It isn’t just a staunch opposition to animal cruelty which makes land access a bugbear of mine. Like many others, I enjoy a good walk in nature. Especially after the pandemic, the advantages of getting out in the fresh air have been widely publicised. It’s an escape. It gives one the chance to spot wildlife, and it’s free. Therefore, being restricted as to where you can walk simply at the landowner’s discretion is just wrong to me. Scotland has a “right of responsible access” (Land Reform Act 2003) which applies to most land and open water. However, the “responsible” part means private gardens, fields of crops etc. are excluded – and that is fair. With rights comes responsibility; I don’t think anybody would deny that protesters, wild campers, and ramblers alike should respect the nature with which they are connecting. That is all many of us in England want – a similar system to Scotland; well, one exactly the same will do very well thank you. Sadly, Labour U-turned on granting such a system in England late in 2023 after pressure from landowner groups. The party did say it would find other ways to offer more land to access – but campaigners aren’t holding their breath!
“In England we only have a right of access to 8% of the land, and uncontested rights to 3% of our rivers.” (Right to Roam). The website which reports that shocking statistic also points out that there is no legal right of access to 28% of ancient scheduled monuments. This means that more than 5,500 historic sites are inaccessible because the land on which they happen to be built is now in private hands. Those who wish to explore these links to our past and learn the historic lesson these sites can often teach us can only do so with the landowner’s permission – this may even incur a fee! Wild swimmers and campers are prevented from enjoying their pastime because landowners won’t let them. Indeed, there has been a long-running legal battle over the rights to wild camp in an area of Dartmoor.
The power of wealthy landowners and their influence on lawmakers frustrates many of us with a belief in equal opportunities and fair play. The aforementioned pressure on Labour which forced the U-turn on their “right to roam” pledge is a further example of this. Money certainly does talk! Although Boxing Day 2024 did bring a little bit of good news with the revelation that the Labour Government will scrap the 2031 deadline to register forgotten footpaths. This deadline would have meant those paths not registered would cease to be rights of way. Obviously, there are big advantages to registration, as it means landowners must fulfil their legal obligations to maintain rights of way, but having a right of way there at all is at least something.
Lack of access to areas of our countryside also means that wildlife crimes are often hidden from view. The persecution of endangered birds of prey in grouse moor areas is well documented. Prosecutions for such offences are rare and the punishment for those found guilty is usually a fine, which is rendered irrelevant in comparison to the obscene wealth of landowners who have simply inherited their fortunate position. To allow shooting, open access land becomes inaccessible when the big guns come out. The so-called “Glorious 12th” in August heralds the start of the grouse shooting season which runs until around December 10th. it can be argued that such moves are for the public’s protection. However, it also protects the shooters from protest, and means they can pretty much do as they please while causing inconvenience to walkers at the height of summer.
Obviously, most of the population have no interest in shooting and are therefore oblivious to the season’s dates. From a personal perspective, accessibility of designated rights of way has also been problematic while out both walking and running. An overgrown footpath meant I had to change my Sunday morning run route simply because I couldn’t get through the path’s undergrowth. The great British weather does have an effect, and paths will naturally become muddy through constant use – this is especially the case on bridleways used by horses.
Signage is another issue. I have a paid-for OS Maps app on my phone. This works much better than a paper map, because you can tell where you are and the rights of way are clearly shown. If signs have been removed, have fallen into disrepair, or are hidden by undergrowth, this can be very useful in determining whether or not one is following the footpath. Where paths are not properly signposted and the direction of the path isn’t clear, without such an app it can become confusing – especially when said path is not maintained in the expected manner. Some paths do run through the middle of fields and some farmers do “forget” to keep such paths accessible – and walkers may be reluctant to walk through the middle of a field anyway. Guidance from Gov.uk states “As the owner or occupier of land with a public right of way across it, you must keep the route visible and not obstruct or endanger users.” Furthermore, obstructing a public right of way is a criminal offence and the Highway Agency can force a landowner to remove any obstructions – or remove it for them and charge them for the privilege. It actually makes sense for landowners to clearly signpost footpaths and bridleways, as this lessens the likelihood of walkers trespassing on their land. But if a landowner is not fulfilling their obligations, then the Highways Agency is the authority to contact. It is certainly worth reporting issues as we need to protect what little access to the countryside we have.
It's impossible to cover all aspects of land access in one article. I have scratched the surface by highlighting what is important to me personally. Travellers’ rights, planning and building rules and the destruction of woodland, our rivers, and the loss of agricultural land are all vital issues which concern many people. For many, the idea that access is controlled by people who just inherit land is problematic. Historically, the carving up of our countryside by William the Conqueror and the Enclosure Acts were just the beginning of our problems – great injustices which set a precedent from which we have never recovered. The ability to hunt exclusively was, of course, the reason behind much of the original privatisation of land. It is also worth remembering that much of our land has been lost simply because someone has built a motorway that dissects a public footpath or has put up a housing estate on land which one was able to access in the past.
What makes people think they have a ‘human right’ to go onto other people’s property at a whim? What makes people think landowners have a duty to let anyone who wants to to turn up and use their land just as they wish? To walk, run across the land. To picnic on it, to let their dogs run loose on it. To treat it as their own?
How would they like farmers and foresters arriving with chairs and tables and sitting down on their driveways, in their front gardens, in their back gardens?
What loosely gets called “the countryside” is mostly the ‘food factory’ that provides what those rights-demanders eat. There are valuable grain and vegetable crops, livestock that can…