But, now, that still doesn't change the fact that, if the government feels that it's so important to give access to this land for wanderers and ramblers, let the government buy that land from the owners and open it up.
My guess is that they'd rather have the landowners maintain ownership so that they can keep hitting them with land taxes for it, while forcing them to allow access to their property. I guess if the government bought it, they would be the ones forced to maintain it and would either be spending money on it or requiring access fees from the wanderers and ramblers.
If I had the money, I would live to purchase a great acreage and then just let it go wild. But it would be mine and, if I wanted to bar access to it, I should be able to do so.
“live” = “love”
For the areas that became national parks, this is what has happened. They are all owned by a charitable organisation called the ‘National Trust’ which is non-governmental, not-for-profit and run largely on donations and volunteering. Which i’m sure you’ll agree is pretty great.
For this particular case, in Dartmoor national park (which by the way is absolutely incredible countryside), is a strange one. The land in question was sold to the lady in 2003. Ultimately I can’t argue with her decision to fence it off then. I would question why the National Trust felt the need to sell it to her in the first place though.
It’s also sad that this is due to fear litigation. I find that the saddest part of all.
Aye, there's the rub. Like every scheme of the european socialists, this one will eventually cross the pond. Be wary. Right now the American left is largely urban and could not give a fig for rambles in the countryside. This will change in a hurry if the urban cores become too crowded or less liveable.