UKH

Anti social camping has become a hot topic in recent years, but what's the solution? We've asked a proponent of camping bans and a defender of public access to each make their case.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

It should be clear to all in the outdoors community where we stand - it's not even a debate. Do we want to see our rights eroded or do we want to defend our rights?

Litter, human waste, erosion, etc. are problems. But, they can all be dealt with. There should be investment in wardens and facilities like parking, bins and loos. Unfortunately, austerity and Tory funding policies have undermined councils' ability to pay people to look after the land, to collect bins, to manage toilet blocks, etc.

Austerity has also created homelessness, and attacks on "irregular camping near settlements" are often disguised attacks on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities.

Instead of dealing with these problems in democratic and constructive ways, people reach immediately for the most authoritarian solution, dressing up the undermining of our rights in the most Orwellian distortions of language - "empowering communities", "protecting the environment" and "compliment[ing] the right to roam". These are fabrications. No one is empowered by a ban, except landowners who don't want people on their land.

In fact, Councillor Kirsteen Currie writes: "As a local authority, Highland Council do not have the resources to maintain the roads that they currently administer, never mind investing in improvements to them. The current political climate has led to funding being at a real premium and as such priorities have to be made." The reality of what she is saying is that it is ok to attack people's rights in order to balance the books. Redistributing wealth from tax payers to banks, financiers and hedgefund managers means letting roads go to ruin, cutting local jobs and facilities, and banning people from the countryside. And she as a councillor is quite content to "make priorities" that include reducing people's rights in order to reduce the Council's bills. It's right there.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I think the problem with Local Authorities designating areas as "No Camping" areas, is that it will just move the problem, without actually dealing with it.

I wouldn't go to the extreme of expecting Local Authorities to provide toilets and bins etc. If you want to wild camp, be prepared to take your crap with you. People need to be educated about their responsibility. Wild camping isn't just the clear night skies and beautiful sunrises, that we see on Social Media; there are less pleasant aspects too. A price you have to pay, if you want to reap the rewards so to speak..

I can't honestly see a solution that doesn't involve some sort of Warden/Ranger program. Yes there will be some cost in employing people to keep tabs on the area, but that could be offset with some sort of Permit. Obviously, if they were to get silly with the cost of the Permits, there might be repercussions with loss of tourism etc, but there's no need for them to be expensive. A LOT of people head to the outdoors nowadays, so a nominal fee should be more than enough to pay for a Warden.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Would it not be cheaper to just pay to maintain and keep the existing toilets open, as opposed to closing them down, as has already been done in many areas of Scotland, and provide bins at regular/known wild camping hotspots - would be cheaper than employing wardens/rangers I would imagine.

And try and educate the populance about littering - seems to have been forgotten about recently.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I have no time for the clatty bastards that vandalise the Scottish countryside every summer.

If camping was banned within 100m of a road the problem would disappear.

In reply to C Witter:

No one has a right to cut down trees and try and burn them, destroy vegetation with disposable barbecues, shite where they feel like it and drive back to the central belt leaving piles of rubbish behind them that they managed to bring with them in the first place.

These people should be prosecuted for criminal damage and littering, not catered for. The Scottish countryside is a precious asset to us all and should be respected and protected.

In reply to subtle:

In many places, there are no existing toilets and never have been, so the issue of keeping them open does not arise. Bins are provided in some places, but when you have tents every 20 metres or so alongside the road beside the loch, as happens in parts of the LLTNP, it's not really a satisfactory solution. 

This is of course the crux of the matter - too many people think it is acceptable to leave litter and despoil the natural environment. It would be nice to think that such things could and should be taught in schools, but sadly, being a good citizen seems to have fallen off the curriculum. 

In reply to C Witter:

Wouldn't that be a campsite?!

As Eric9 says ^^^ "No one has a right to cut down trees and try and burn them, destroy vegetation with disposable barbecues, shite where they feel like it and drive back to the central belt leaving piles of rubbish behind them that they managed to bring with them in the first place."

NO excuse.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Arran / Cumbrae / Argyll - all have had public toilets closed (although some have reopened as community toilets) - and really, where is there camping every 20m along the roadside  - you may be over stating the problem

It is the crux, peoples own responsibility to clean up their own mess (or better, not make the mess in the first place so they then don't need to clean it up)

In reply to Removed User:

Yes, agreed. Having vented your abundant anger and frustration, would you like to comment on whether it is best to resolve this issue through investment in a local area and its people or through a ban on roadside camping? 

In reply to subtle:

Have you driven along Loch Earn during the summer? There are public toilets in Lochearnhead, and that's your lot. 

Couldn't agree more! 

In reply to Lusk:

You and Eric are only illustrating my point. You see a problem and your first instinct is to come over all tough guy and authoritarian: NO EXCUSE, LOCK THEM UP!

Yeh, whatever. If you're finished with your Trumpian rhetoric, then listen to this: bans, fines and prosecution will not work. Even whilst our rights are trampled on, these problems will still occur. Your hammed up indignation and others' calls for people to take their poop home are not political solutions.

Far better is to actually give local councils money to employ people in conservation and land management, and to build and public maintain amenities - many of which could become self-funding with proper planning. But, instead central government has drastically reduced local authority funding to the bare minimum in order to a) fund bank bailouts; b) reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy; c) erode the very concept of the public and of democracy; d) encourage a petty authoritarian ideology in a populace that has given up on or forgotten the concept of solidarity, civil rights and the common good.

In reply to Removed User:

Whilst I completely agree with you, who's going to police that? Wardens would be cheaper than extra Police Officers and they can concentrate solely on that job.

In reply to Removed User:

Would it? Or would it just move 100m in?

In reply to ScottTalbot:

You could make the argument that it's good to keep it within 100m of the road, so that the really nice spots are left alone. Bit like concentrating the hordes in Cham, Everest, Wasdale, Etive rather than dispersing them all over.

That might, however, not always be the case. There a great spot in the Lakes that I've been going to for years, an hour's walk from the road head, pretty remote for the Lakes, hidden and off the beaten track. In the last few years whenever I've gone it been covered with cans, bottles, general filth, so somehow the word has got out and another piece of loveliness has been lost to the scum.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

In some places it would certainly stop it. The lochside locations which are blighted by litter are selected precisely because they are beside the loch. Move 100m inland and you may be into dense woodland, or onto agricultural land, neither of which are anywhere near as appealing as a pleasant lochside view. 

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Or would the same people who currently ignore rules about littering and cutting down trees, just ignore the rules about camping (as many of them already do around the Loch Lomond area).

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

True. The rules are irrelevant, if no one is policing them.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

I think this is exactly it. You really don't have to go far into the bylaw area of loch lomond to see evidence of people breaching the bylaw. And this is an area with active rangers. If we simply start increasing the ban areas it'll be a bit of a lottery if you end up getting fined or not

In reply to Pina:

Maybe if they open Flamingo land it would reduce the roadside camping at Loch Lomond as people may go there instead, just a thought

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Bad camping practice was a massive issue in Iceland a number of years ago, there are now loads of very cheap campsites where campervans are welcome and there is loads of rooms for tent. Iceland is super expensive and yet these sites are cheaper then in the highlands. 

When people hire vans they are told in no uncertain terms that they must use these sites. They are generally unmanned and some one collects the money at night, if at all.

In the highlands there is a free campsite in Torridon which mitigates people camping wherever they want, but how long that stays open for is beyond me. Finding a public toilet north of Glasgow is almost impossible. 

Personally the NC500 is an disaster, people drive through it pretty quickly without stopping in many places. I'm not sold on the economic benefits except for T-shirt sales. If it was such a boast why can highland and moray councils not even keep a loo open?

From a Policing perspective, I'm a copper East of Inverness and there is legislation in place to prosecute people who dump chemical waste from campers and trash sites. This should be enforced but education and proper facilities are the best solution. The North of Scotland has better police cover then Dan's article suggests and I would encourage all people to report environmental damage. 

Clearly when the north east 500 was set out expecting the popularity it has. The below guardian article sums it up well. 

had. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2019/may/25/dark-side-scotland-north-coa...

Lawrence

In reply to ScottTalbot:

It was an off the cuff remark but I do believe it has some truth in it.

The people who cause problems are the sorts that turn up in vans or big cars, put up a huge tent and a flag (wtf do they always need to fly a flag, they haven't just reached the South Pole ffs) and never stray far from their carry out and barbecue.

If they had to carry their crap a few hundred yards I suspect most of them would stay at home.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Uncomfortably, I think there is a real class bias over car camping.

Tarquin and Olivia meet Hugo and Phillip to camp down Glen etive. Aren't they just charming, arriving in their volvo with their tipi and ethnic blankets. Oh, super, Hugo and Phil have brought their cellos too. That will keep us entertained around the campfire while we work our way through a case of prosecco. 

Meanwhile, Dave and Jordan have arrived with Sharni-Lee and Nicole in their transit vans with pop up tents and a crate of fosters (white lightening for the ladies, of course). To enjoy an evening of interpretive dance to the latest gabba donk house hits.

Both of these scenarios are the same, 2 couples, camping, music, drink. One may seem more acceptable than the other. 

In reply to Presley Whippet:

Both are absolutely fine in my book, if they leave (next to) no trace. It's the scum bags who leave all their shit behind that are the problem.

Hidden cameras and large fines would eventually have an effect as a deterrent against all this.

In reply to Lusk:

It would be interesting to see who got busted by the hidden cameras, Dave with his bag of spice or Hugo with his faitrade cocaine. 

No one should be surprised by the locals and the councils concerns, there has been lots of anti-social behaviour and mess.  

But don't be naïve, any road side ban will be used by land-owners and others to try and limit access, many walkers camp down remote dead-end roaded glens arriving late and leaving early causing no trouble, to access the hills.  Some land owners will immediately prevent this, if the law is changed.  Then the argument will shift to, if its not appropriate by the road why should it be appropriate at.... 'choose spot'.  As its not just roadside camp-spots that suffer damage and abuse.

Its going to take a multi dimensional approach of first publicly exercising Land Reform Act powers, the act allows the right of responsible access to be removed from individuals...we need numerous cases where the rotten apples are dealt with to get the message out and criminally prosecuted as well if appropriate, secondly some education, then thirdly in my view remove the right to have a fire from the out door access legislation, which will decrease the appeal to the Ned element and remove many moderate land owners concerns about fire risk.

Also formal campsites have to up their game, and new ones need to open. I have no desire to camp surrounded by white boxes blotting out the view (ullapool, Scourie, for example), to whom are normally given the best spots, or to be put in the midgey back field (Ardmair) etc...is it any wonder that people camp by the road when at many formal campsites the experience and views afford to campers are rubbish. As for there being space I've been turned away on a couple of occasions this season due to sites being completely full.

In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I agree with much of what you say but suspect that the problem "campers" avoid existing campsites because a) they cost money b) the sites wouldn't put up with their behaviour and c) some of them may see camping outside of a campsite as a wilderness experience, even if it is an abandoned car park by the side of a road.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Maybe a system like that in New Zealand with clearly identified freedom camping sites and zones as well as the normal commercial camp sites might work? 

Facilities range from zero, to full showers and toilets and cost varies accordingly. Having made these available, the authorities then ban ad hoc camping in sensitive areas. 

The investment and impact of doing this in the right location in a national park might be very little, and the litter etc problems could be significantly reduced. Seemed to work well in NZ? 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

As a sometimes roadside camper, i'm upset about two things - 1, the individuals who spoil it for everyone else through antisocial behaviour. 2, the fact this is used as an excuse to clamp down on our freedoms. Unfortunately I find the case against roadside camping presented in the article somewhat biased:

Except food, fuel, pubs, visitor attractions, ...

what is it about antisocial behaviour (litter dropping, cutting down trees) that makes it impossible to police, while camping, apparently, can be banned and policed?

This misrepresents I imagine plenty of UKC types who do plenty of roaming up mountains, to crags etc during the day! Helen gives even better examples of legit roadside camping in the counterpoint.

I love the John Muir trust approach at Sandwood bay: compost toilet, water tap, donations box. Which reminds me, I'd spent all my cash the day I was there so will go donate to them online now.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Excellent article UKC, thanks. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

A balanced article. 

The solution? Charge a nominal fee for camping. Include in the fee; black sacks for waste and collection. Make ID a requirement for stopping overnight (car reg would be enough I would have thought).

No excuse to leave a mess, gives someone a job and raises funds, provides a trace to follow up scumbags who leave a mess. 

If people don’t want full campsite facilities and don’t want to pay for them, give them reduced facilities for a reduced fee. 

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I feel this is a simple topic. I believe that a leave no trace booklet should be written with regulations surrounding. Sone of the enforced regulations should be anything you brought with you needs to leave with you or be disposed of in a reasonable manner, you must notify the land owner or responsible party of the land with your approximate location, you party size and  1 or more  responsible person(s),  if anyone of the outlined regulations these will be the person to blame. Failure to comply with any of these corditions will result in repucutions includind but not limited to (dispersal notices, fines, bans from location and aggravated trespassing convictions,)

In reply to Removed UserPhillips0126:

I have never been a fan of reintroducing wolves and bears, but can now see the attraction to solve the issue.

In reply to Removed UserPhillips0126:

How would you even find out who the land owner is, when pulling up in some random spot!?

I think you're all missing the point of wild camping. It's not about avoiding cost, although there may be an element of that involved.. It's about that feeling of freedom!

Most of the problem is education. The fact that most of these people are learning about wild camping through social media and have no concept of how to do it in a responsible way. Some of it is cultural (anecdotally, most large groups I've seen, that have just pulled up to party, have been Eastern European). 

In reply to ScottTalbot:

For me there are two sorts of wild camping. There's the sort that you mention, which I normally do miles from anywhere.

And then there's roadside camping, which I do not to avoid paying for a campsite, but because there aren't any campsites withing a reasonable travelling distance. So if this were made illegal, it wouldn't make me use campsites instead, it would just make me break the law or go somewhere else.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

I think you misunderstand. The problem isn't with people who put up a small tent overnight by the side of a quiet road.

The problem is with people who spend little time in the outdoors and have little understanding of it, camping for extended periods of time, generally beside main roads in the highlands for their holidays.

In reply to Removed User:

Any laws that get brought in will affect both unfortunately.

I don't think they should be allowed to stay for extended periods though, as it would be impossible to leave no trace, if you're pitched up for a week! Maybe a 1 or 2 night maximum stay? Again, someone would have to police it though.

In reply to ScottTalbot:

Well it depends what those laws are. There are plenty of suggestions in this thread from providing cheap simple campsites to enforcing litter and anti social behaviour laws we already have.

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I can’t help but feel that the fundamental flaw in the ‘Ban it’ approach is that any ban requires enforcement. If we notionally don’t have the money to pay for enforcement of the current, perfectly adequate, laws against fly tipping, littering and anti-social behaviour/breach of the peace, then where is the money for enforcement of the ban going to come from?

In LLTNP, rangers have been employed, presumably notionally paid for by fees at the new campsites that have been set up but I struggle to see how a genuinely cheap but adequate facility (carrot) can be sustainable if it also has to pay for the stick to drive people in to it.

Why not just produce a genuinely attractive budget campsite offering? Toilets but no showers, water tap, plenty of rubbish collection space, fire-pits/BBQs, liberal attitude to acceptable behaviour (no caravan club-esque curfews here), but only a few pitches at any given location to keep the ‘wild’ feel.

In reply to munro90:

Or you could buy 2 weeks worth of a budget "license to roadside camp" that's valid throughout Scotland and the money be funnelled into toilet facilities, policing the poo/litter and cleanup? Though I'm not 100% sure I like this idea as it's still a restriction of existing freedoms.

I can't help but think in the case of Scotland and the NW500 this whole camping issue is but a small part of a bigger issue about who benefits from tourism.

Last year we rocked up at Neist point. It was mid September, on a weekday, raining, gale blowing.

Carpark was full - 1 in 1 out.

Cafe was shut. It could have made a killing that day!

But in their defence, I suspect whoever moved there and bought a cafe did so before these places became so popular and with a somewhat different vision. Serving 500 cups of tea in a single afternoon is probably their idea of hell.

In reply to munro90:

I think the budget site is a good idea but a roadside camping ban would still need to be enforced and no doubt would raise objections from owners of existing sites.

There a few municipal campsites scattered around the North of Scotland. I stayed in the one at Lairg this Summer. It had toilets, a coin operated shower and rubbish bins, not much else. Cost for me with my car was £18.00 for one night.....

Several artices about the problems of the Loch Lomond NP system on http://parkswatchscotland.co.uk/tag/camping/

In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I don't believe that there is any good solution to this symptom because the real problem is a big one: there are simply too many people wanting their share of our limited outdoor spaces and not everyone understands that.

To me, this is entirely a problem of understanding. I simply cannot believe that any rational human being will willingly and deliberately mutilate the flora, destroy the environment and leave behind their damp wads of tissue and toilet paper, excrement, plastic garbage, blackened-aluminium single-use disposable "BBQ", food waste, cheap-and-disposable tent (ban these from sale, please, at the very least!) and other shite while simultaneously understanding that the space they're wrecking, today, is going to be visited by someone with motivations and longings just like theirs, tomorrow. I can only conclude that people who do this believe that they are somehow special and unique and that others do not share their own longings for communion with nature or "pristine wilderness experiences" and, therefore, there is no reason to preserve that experience for anyone else. The effort to live and let live would be wasted, to them, because nobody else wants to be allowed to live, right?

That, or they're just massive arseholes with a self-entitlement problem and the rest of the world that's not them can just f*ck right off, in their opinion.

The problem, then, is that the number of arseholes-with-self-entitlement-issues is increasing steadily (and exacerbated by Facebook and Instagram and the "lifestyle"-promoting advertising of our own climbing and hill-walking industries -- although who can blame them) while the natural area to share is slowly diminishing.

Sadly, while education and bin-building is all fine and well, I just don't believe that these are going to solve the problem. Even if they alleviate the symptom in the short term, SOME form of regulation must come, sooner or later.

Again, "nobody" (out there, camped on the side of a loch and wrecking the place, that is) understands this. Would the arseholes-with-self-entitlement-issues continue to wreck the land if they knew that their own actions will lead to them being regulated the hell out of the place in the future? (The cynic in me says, yes, they surely will, because any sort of legislation or regulation is someone else's problem, tomorrow.)

Some sort of regulation has to appear. The problem, then, is how to enforce it (laws that cannot be enforced firmly but even-handedly are worse than no laws at all) and how to ensure that the regulation does not hurt those of us who strive to leave-no-trace and minimise our impact and aren't causing the problem.

I have no answer for that. But, sure as eggs are eggs, regulation must appear sooner or later because there's not going to be a sudden drop in population.