| This sign at Knepp intrigued me. It raises so many different questions.
While typical “Keep Out” signs usually irritate me, this one had a positive effect. It highlighted that my customary annoyance isn’t about being restricted per se, but rather it is down to the reasons behind the restrictions.
They bother me when the restriction comes from someone who has inherited or bought a vast tract of land and wants to exclude others just because he can (eg the recent debacle about wild camping on Dartmoor [note to self: don’t forget to write about wild camping in this newsletter!], or when the message feels condescending – suggesting that the countryside is being protected from oiks like me who will wreck it, even though the land is usually being used for environmentally-disastrous intensive agriculture.
However, I felt much more supportive of a sign meant to protect wildlife. There is a tinge of sadness, though, recognising that accessing wildlife has become similar to visiting a theme park, as my friend Zanna put it. It used to be that wildlife was all around us; we lived amidst it. The sign underscores a troubling separation between us and nature, perpetuating the idea that we are distinct and dominant over it, which is a mindset that has contributed significantly to our current environmental crises.
I love the spirit of the rewilding project where I found this sign. I understand the damage that pedestrians, especially those with dogs, can cause to delicate ecosystems. I fully support efforts to set aside land for the restoration of habitats and the reduction of greenhouse emissions. And, of course, I’m also respectful of farmland and the hard work done there, and careful not to disrupt or damage it.
Overall, I support the use of such signs when they serve a purpose that benefits the environment and promotes the coexistence and recovery of natural habitats.
What about you? What does it make you feel?
I originally posted this picture on Instagram (before I’d decided to start sharing my thoughts in this newsletter). The comments were fascinating.
A selection:
@hg.adventure.co: Had some deep discussion about this topic in my Leave No Trace Trainer course. At the end of the day, we didn’t come to a consensus but we did learn a hell of a lot about our personal Outdoor Philosophies. It was actually really eye-opening to consider that different people place different values on different outdoor ethics, it’s all a sliding scale from dog poop bags to speakers blasting to signage in the wilderness. Definitely made me re-think my own philosophy and how I interact with others who don’t share the same values (or perhaps do share them but not on the same scale I do) as me.
@alex.buckland: Wildlife must read this sign and think “Yes! Finally some bloody peace” ? Definitely support this kind of thing, it’s a small and hopefully short term (in the grand scheme of sapiens) idea until we’ve learned to better balance ourselves with our creations.
@thedanimalexplores: I hope you went in because we are wildlife too.
@destinney: I’m flip flopping over this. what’s next for this area, a fence around it, glass screens, so we can go and look at what the countryside used to look like.
@martinyroberts: I just love it Al – thanks v much for sharing. I am feeling more and more that this is the missing message! Space for nature is such a burning and pushed aside action. In Essex we are drowning under massive housing developments. My heart breaks when I go past space that I used to see barn owls hunting on and wonder what else has to seek new rather limited pastures.
@palmergareth: To me, a lot of society’s problems are the disconnect from nature and that we, as humans, need to be/experience wildlife ?♀️
@stump.chunkman: For hundreds of thousands of years, we were part of that wildlife…
@chaos_and_curiosity: I find right to roam so tricky because it’s so variable and unfortunately easier to access places suffer from litter if opened to the public. There’s two private woodlands near me. One the landowner has given permission for people to enjoy it, however it’s a mile or so from easy parking, and not many people even know it exists, so it stays very quiet. However I’ve still found litter and broken glass there several times. The other is an outdoor nursery and so obviously broken glass etc from trespassers can be dangerous. The popular public dog walking woodland has comparatively little wildlife compared to either of the private ones. Especially in terms of fungi, and mammals – deer, foxes, badger etc. A handful of respectful people passing through causes no real problems but when places become popular and busier the easily accessible areas quickly become overwhelmed, littered or damaged.
@wallstonej: Don’t get angry at conservation gating. Get angry at the 92% of English land which is inaccessible to the public. Over half of England is owned by only 1% of the population and this has been the case since 1066. If we had stronger public access rights then normal people would have a better relationship with nature.
@hollyastle: @wallstonej I would say Right to Roam’s latest book actually opposes conservation gating quite readily. “Fortress conservation only exacerbates the problem of separation. It is a model which is neither healing nature nor healing ourselves. Like the ideology it theoretically opposes, it is also reliant on growth… it replicates a hierarchy and paternalism of existing land injustices.”
-
If you’d like to read more articles about Adventure + Purpose, please sign up for my free weekly newsletter here.
|
