Why is England one of the few countries in the world where there isn't any public land where people can hunt, shoot, fish, or camp? Is it just a matter of overpopulation and a lack of land in this country? Scotland is a bit better with its land access rights, but those only extend to camping.
It's just a matter of not enough space. Almost every bit of land in the country is private property, and the few bits of land that are open to the public tend to have several thousand tourists ambling through every year.
Because we live in an anachronistic system of land ownership where the vast majority of land is owned by a very rich and privileged few and everyone else can get fucked. The monarchy being the prime example.
Once a year perhaps, your perspective is a bit skewed by over saturation of .gs maybe.
OP what exactly is stopping you from doing a bit of course fishing and joining a gun club? You can fish for carp and pike without a permit, same with sea fishing and a]sea bass are lovely if you want to catch and eat. Gun clubs tend to be rural and have clay pigeon shooting outings, and if you really wanted to go hunting you could go to the Highlands and do it. Not even in America do they go hunting every weekend. Once of twice a year is surely within your budget if you are interested in gun ownership, surely?
>>2514 >Why is England one of the few countries in the world where there isn't any public land where people can hunt, shoot, fish, or camp?
Yeah, there must only be about sixty or so other countries where that's the case.
>>2524 I've heard from a friend of a friend that a government body that needs to know about land for its own business has effectively built themselves an ad hoc register of land, dividing the place into parcels and maintaining records of who claims to own what, whether it's subleased and (roughly) on what terms. I wonder if this information may be useful to the public at large?
>>2525 Sounds interesting, I wonder if joe pleb public would even be able to see it though. From that previous article and a few others I've read it all seems purposely obfuscatory and vague as to exactly who owns what and that land only has to be registered when it's sold or transferred so all those old money families who've owned vast acreage for hundreds of years aren't actually on any registers.
Not to mention the fact that technically it's the Monarchy that actually "owns" all the land and it's only actually possible to rent/lease, freehold or whatever.
>>2526 >Not to mention the fact that technically it's the Monarchy that actually "owns" all the land and it's only actually possible to rent/lease, freehold or whatever.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The Monarchy does not have any ability to revoke land ownership, and freehold is exactly that - ownership.
