The dangers of trampling

[Lancashire Lad]

Apologies animartco, we appear to be hijacking your thread, but I think this is worth concluding.

Originally Posted by fairplay

....This phrase is now defunct, all you are doing is confusing more people.
As it was the Ramblers who first coined this phrase, and having achieved most of what we were fighting for, I feel I am entitled to ask that you use the correct wording, so can we finally knock this on the head please ?

Neil.

Neil, I think it is now your turn at being pedantic!

My post was to confirm that the actual legislation is the CRoW Act 2000.

Your original assertion was that you "get really annoyed" when people use the term "Right To Roam", and also that the term is defunct and would not be found in use by either the Ramblers Association, or Natural England.

My replies have merely confirmed that both these organisations acknowledge the term, and continue to make reference to the term on their respective websites.

Neither of these organisations suggest that "Right To Roam" is in any way erroneous terminology.

Just as it is your preference, along with natural England, to call it "Open Access" it is my preference, to call it "Right To Roam", and I don't see any reason, why there should be any problem with that, when both the Ramblers and National England seemingly have no objections to the continued use of the phrase.

There is no legislation named "Open Access", just as there is no legislation named "Right to Roam". I repeat, the legislation is the CroW Act 2000.

The definitions and references within the CRoW Act itself refer to "Access Land", and "Open Country", and not "Open Access".

Regards,
Mike.

[fairplay]

I am not here to try to score points, or to make sarcastic remarks with a big grinning face, or to argue with you over the CROW ACT - you know as well as I do, Open Access is part of the Crow Act, you also know when you go onto Open Access land there is a disc and information board explaining what Open Access is, where you can go, and where you cannot go.

You stated 'Right to Roam' is the universally accepted name, what qualifications do you have for saying this ? Why is this phrase no longer used at the Ramblers very own General Council meetings of which, as appointed delegate for Suffolk, I have been attending for the last 3 years?

Why is the phrase 'Right to Roam' never used by Natural England at any meetings they are invited to attend ?
Why is this phrase never used at Local Access Forums ?

You are clearly out of your depth on this issue and are simply stuck in a rut and being stubborn. It's time to move on Mike.

Neil.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by fairplay

I am not here to try to score points, or to make sarcastic remarks with a big grinning face, or to argue with you over the CROW ACT - you know as well as I do, Open Access is part of the Crow Act...

I'm not here to score points either Neil, and would certainly not wish to make any sarcastic comment, but you are incorrect in your assertions.

If I felt that you were correct, I would readily capitulate and accept your opinion, but I just don't understand why you are so much against the words "Right To Roam".

If you are so certain that Open Access is part of the CRoW Act 2000, then I challenge you to find just one mention of the phrase "open access" anywhere within it.

Open Access is the terminology of Natural England, and they are perfectly entitled to use it as they wish, as are you. I can accept that over time, open access might well become the most commonly used reference.

However, for the present, right to roam is certainly not defunct. The Ramblers Association currently has a complete webpage entitled "The Right To Roam", and they are fully entitled to make use of that phraseology, as am I.

You challenge me on what qualification I have to say that right to roam is the universally accepted name. I did not say it was. I did say that it is universally accepted as a reference to the CRoW Act 2000. That was obviously an assertion on my part, and I'm quite willing to retract it, but I think you understand my intended meaning.

An advanced google search brings up several times more results for "Right To Roam", than it does for "Open Access" (with specific regard to land enquiries and not picking up on usage of the words that would be irrelevant to this issue).

Originally Posted by fairplay

....Why is this phrase no longer used at the Ramblers very own General Council meetings of which, as appointed delegate for Suffolk, I have been attending for the last 3 years?

Why is the phrase 'Right to Roam' never used by Natural England at any meetings they are invited to attend ? Why is this phrase never used at Local Access Forums ?...

Since you have so much of an issue with the phrase, and you attend these meetings, why don't you put your concerns to the meetings? I would be just as delighted as yourself, to hear exactly what both organisations actually have to say.

As things stand, the phrase "open access" is just that, a phrase, and in itself, like "Right To Roam" carries no legal meaning or weight, in this context. It is purely being used as a reference to the CRoW Act.

If I am stuck in a rut and being stubborn, then that makes two of us.

Regards,
Mike.

EDIT: -

Originally Posted by fairplay

I am not here to try to score points, or to make sarcastic remarks with a big grinning face...

I've just realised that your comment: -obviously relates to my post 39 above. That post was meant to be a light humoured jibe, (witness the grin smilie). I'm sorry if you took it otherwise, and apologise unreservedly.

[earthdragon64]

Just to add to the mix, the "Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 is usually referred to as the "Right to Roam".

If you google the phrase "Right to Roam", then the Ramblers website is the first hit you get.

[fairplay]

If I am stuck in a rut and being stubborn, then that makes two of us.

Regards,
Mike.



No Mike, I'm using the accepted current name, you are sticking with the old defunct name.
That's your choice and I can't change that.

Neil.

[fairplay]

Originally Posted by earthdragon64

Just to add to the mix, the "Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 is usually referred to as the "Right to Roam".

If you google the phrase "Right to Roam", then the Ramblers website is the first hit you get.

Yes I did mention at the beginning Scotland is different to England and Wales.

Neil.

[animartco]

hi Earthdragon Fairplay Et Al.
I am so sorry that this has developed into an argument over phraseology. Let us forget the terms used please and look at the argument itself?
Let me make a couple of things clear.
1 when I referred to Joe Public I was not including anyone reading these threads in the phrase, because everyone here is interested in wildlife. However there are many people living in towns, who look for the nearest wild space when they want to go out and roam around, who really HAVE no interest in that space other than that it is green and open, allowing them to stretch their legs. It also allows them to chuck litter, and tip out and burn old mattresses and cars, and do various other things without being seen. If the wild space is labelled SSSI they wouldn't have a clue what that meant. They wouldn't read any notice anyway.
2 This is why I was being a bit disparaging in the use of the phrase 'the right to roam', since Joe Public would probably refer to whatever act in those terms.
About fencing off sensitive areas. It makes sense to make and fence off a solid path through woodland where there is likely to be a density of recreational use. If paths are left unmade, they become very muddy in winter and people start making other parallel paths and trampling a very wide area. There are woods near London where all the bluebells have been trampled away. Of course open spaces should be left every so often and I am certainy not advocated the fencing of paths out on the moors!
I hope this thread can stop now!

[fairplay]

No need to end this, as you now have us back on topic.

It seems you live near a built up area, so your SSSI's will be under more pressure than the ones near me.

Naturally your council will not want to draw too much attention to SSSI's, especially those which do not have the extra protection of being made into a nature reserve with a warden.
A village common/common land could be designated as an SSSI if say it had rare plant species or some ponds with GC Newts, rare snails, or in the case of one near me - Nightjars.

All common land will be marked on new Ordnance Survey maps as Open Access land, but because of this new legislation, only the nightjars will be afforded any protection and that will only be that dogs are kept on short leads between certain months when the birds are breeding.
But apart from that, Open Access means precisely what it says - you can walk anywhere within the given area un/fortunately. (with certain exceptions like Stone Curlews for example)

An SSSI can be anywhere and any size. One near me is just an old sand pit in a corner of a forest, but it is a very important site to one of the rarest orchids in Britain. Because this is a private site (and SSSI) the owners have erected a raised boardwalk zig-zagging into the pit to control the damage caused by trampling and photographers getting the ideal position.

Other SSSI's can be rock formations which can be rare themselves or may be fossil rich although some are now being classed as RIGG sites (Regionally Important Geological and Geosomething else) !

So really, what I'm saying is each SSSI is different, there are good reasons for not putting up notice boards and also certain members of the public do not like to see a proliferation of notices everywhere and everyone will be managed by how Natural England and the owner (if different) think best.

Neil.