I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed on here, so apologies if I've missed it, but I did search.

I've seen this Telegraph article linked in a few places, including just now on a well-meaning friend's Facebook page, alongside an expression of glee:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news ... and-wales/
(Yes, it's behind a paywall, which I'm not able to get through either, but you get the jist)

The article links to this site:
https://www.ukwildcamp.org/

I don't think I need to pick this apart here - I'm sure other 'boners will make up their own minds, but suffice to say I can't see any benefits to this to the bikepacking or wider outdoors communities. Nor can I see how camping which is booked in advance, paid for, and offers facilities such as showers, bars, and firewood for sale can be considered wild camping.

It seems their definition of "Wild camping" is a campsite without any of the usual facilities?
You still need to book and pay for your pitch. Not really what I'd consider "Wild camping".

£20 to camp for the privilege of no amenities...

A fool and their money soon part

Not even no amenities the first place I saw has showers.
https://www.ukwildcamp.org/pitches/room ... price%3D20

'Wildcamping legalised in England and Wales' ... let's be honest, it's something of a lie isn't it. It's a headline that grabs the attention but in truth should read, 'More campsites opening in England and Wales'. Crap like this just adds confusion to an already potentially confusing and emotive subject.

Indeed and exactly.

Note the inverted commas in my title

Guardian take on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2019 ... onal-parks

on the plus side its a handy guide on where not to camp

I see this as a step backward, not forward. This means that landowners, who previously wouldn't have even noticed us arriving late and leaving early, will now be keeping their eyes peeled, viewing us as missed revenue.

ootini wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 5:03 pm I see this as a step backward, not forward. This means that landowners, who previously wouldn't have even noticed us arriving late and leaving early, will now be keeping their eyes peeled, viewing us as missed revenue.

This.

FWIW there was a similar discussion before the creation of the West Highland Way in Scotland. The fear was that that nominating one route would cause restrictions to be applied surrounding it. Mostly, it didn't happen, though of course we now have the controversial camping control zones around Loch Lomond which, though not charged, are causing exactly the results feared in this thread,

Slightly ridiculous but overall, as long as it doesn't increase rubbish and fire scars, it's going to get more people out and about

And it'll have little impact on us (unless they're in all the best spots!)

benp1 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 5:14 pm as long as it doesn't increase rubbish and fire scars

I think that's optimistic thinking. It almost certainly will.

Guardian take on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2019 ... onal-parks

She makes some good points many / most of which will be echoed here. However, she raises the question of increased and easier access into the countryside / camping, etc and I know that I shouldn't say this because you're not meant to and it's probably not pc but it bothers me a bit ...

The countryside is busier than I've ever known it to be. While that's not a bad thing, the lack of infrastructure within the countryside coupled with increasing numbers can bring problems. It genuinely troubles me but I don't know what the answer is. At times I feel partly responsible, even to the point of wondering whether this place should cease to exist. Maybe education and awareness is the answer? I don't know but I do know that if the countryside is to retain its character then it can't continue unchecked. If we're happy to lose the very things that draw people to it in the first place, then yes, we can build carparks, toilets, waymarked graded trails, etc but do people really want that?

As you were.

Is this just a way of allowing "low use" campsites without the rigmarole of planning permission, amenities, etc? Next time I speak to my brother (a Lakes farmer) I'll ask him if he was approached about it or if there'd been any discussion among local farmers' groups.

Might be worth someone stumping up the £20 to find where these spots are

Of course, the interesting wild camping spots in the Lakes are mostly in the fells so unlikely to have passing farmers checking up on you.

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 5:23 pm
The countryside is busier than I've ever known it to be. While that's not a bad thing, the lack of infrastructure within the countryside coupled with increasing numbers can bring problems. It genuinely troubles me but I don't know what the answer is. At times I feel partly responsible, even to the point of wondering whether this place should cease to exist. Maybe education and awareness is the answer? I don't know but I do know that if the countryside is to retain its character then it can't continue unchecked. If we're happy to lose the very things that draw people to it in the first place, then yes, we can build carparks, toilets, waymarked graded trails, etc but do people really want that?

Tis a conundrum to be sure. And it affects more than just the UK. Without a doubt, all those lovely travel and wildlife documentaries have encouraged folk to travel. Why watch baby turtles on a beach on your telly when you can see it in real life? If it's good enough for Saint David of Attenborough then why shouldn't Fred from around the corner go too? Every travel writer since (and before) Johnson and Boswell have had a similar impact.

What do we do? I reckon that things will find a balance. Maybe it'll not be where you and I want it to be. Maybe giving more folk encouragement to get into the wilds will, however, make them appreciate it more, want to protect it more and, with any luck, will get many of them off their fat arses and get some exercise, reducing the load on the NHS too.

when you live in a tourist area there annual summer invasion is a massive pain in the arse but it is the price you pay for having the joy of living somewhere so nice that people want to travel there just to see it for a week.

Being a largely cheeky rider when on the MTB my set off very early approach means i have not really noticed any increased footfall any of the remote places i go [ even the lakes on Bank holiday weekends].

Agree with above , now its been pointed out, that this may lead to authorities going well we gave you sites so what is your excuse and also landowners being more vigilant as you are lost revenue rather than a curiosity.

Its all about education innit. Look at Scandinavia - kids get respect for the land drummed into them from the word go. Our system focuses on attainment and competitiveness (it seems) so fluffy stuff like respecting the countryside is seen as a very minor part of schooling and gets largely ignored by the majority....

But more visitors = more voters wanting dosh spent on the places they want to see, so maybe things will change??....

But more visitors = more voters wanting dosh spent on the places they want to see, so maybe things will change??....

Uhm, does change mean ruined? Does it mean sanitised tracks, signs, barriers, wardens, tarmac, etc?

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 6:39 pm

But more visitors = more voters wanting dosh spent on the places they want to see, so maybe things will change??....

Uhm, does change mean ruined? Does it mean sanitised tracks, signs, barriers, wardens, tarmac, etc?

Maybe. But it might also mean more protection, so less of the things you mentioned and improved awareness and education. Maybe...

ootini wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 7:13 pm

Bearbonesnorm wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 6:39 pm

But more visitors = more voters wanting dosh spent on the places they want to see, so maybe things will change??....

Uhm, does change mean ruined? Does it mean sanitised tracks, signs, barriers, wardens, tarmac, etc?

Maybe. But it might also mean more protection, so less of the things you mentioned and improved awareness and education. Maybe...

More Ranger services, more path management, more protection in law, more education, more awareness of issues? I'm an idealist I know but done right, these things are what is needed.

It’s just another way of commodifying the outdoors. Imagine if it caught on in a big way.., say if lots of farmers in the Lakes saw it as a way of boosting their income a bit. If you had a couple of scenic hill tarns on your land where you might see a tent or two on a summer weekend, why not put a sign up asking for £20 from campers? If your neighbour charges £20 to pitch on his wood or field, it’s the same thing.

ChrisF wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2019 10:03 pm It’s just another way of commodifying the outdoors. Imagine if it caught on in a big way.., say if lots of farmers in the Lakes saw it as a way of boosting their income a bit. If you had a couple of scenic hill tarns on your land where you might see a tent or two on a summer weekend, why not put a sign up asking for £20 from campers? If your neighbour charges £20 to pitch on his wood or field, it’s the same thing.

Before you know it farmers will be issuing on the spot £20 'fines' if you get caught wild camping.

Also apart from a minority who enjoy open fires, I guess most folks try and be unobtrusive and leave no trace, worry is that if wild camping is legitimised that level of care may disappear.

It appears the people behind this have now realised what everyone else already knew and sacked it off as a sh1te idea.

https://www.ukwildcamp.org/?fbclid=IwAR ... EFgom8TKko

"suspend"

"... and have a re-think ... won’t describe any future version ... as “wild camping” because for many of you that specifically means free and unplanned camping. Nor are we likely to stray into a debate around relaxing the laws on wild camping, because we now understand this is a highly charged area" - surely not?!

"... and have a re-think ... won’t describe any future version ... as “wild camping” because for many of you that specifically means free and unplanned camping. Nor are we likely to stray into a debate around relaxing the laws on wild camping, because we now understand this is a highly charged area" - surely not?!

Hard to believe that they actually unrolled this 'thing' without any notion of what they were doing. I think the problem was compounded by them seemingly having the backing of the National Parks - Lakes anyway. Certainly doesn't give you much faith in whatever sh1te gets rolled out in the next version.