# Riding Access, Bridleways, Itinerant Keepers, Farmers and Landowners who are unreason



## Judgemental (25 January 2011)

Things have been a little quiet on this forum and there has been a complete lack of controversial debate, so I thought I would inject a little on the subject of Riding Access, Bridleways, Itinerant Keepers, Farmers and Landowners who are unreasonable.Who want to demonstrate their power and influence and every Tom, Dick and Harry who dilute riding access. That includes speeding car drivers.

What a &#8216;bute&#8217;, I guarantee everybody on this forum who hunts, has at one time or another encountered one or other of the above. 

Now is the time to pour out your heart about the time you were only nine years old and some beastly keeper or farmer told you should not be where you where! 

We all know about the blocked bridleways, the gun being discharged remarkably close to where you ride, the car driver who hates horses. The keeper who thinks the whole countryside should be awash with pheasants.

The farmer who will not have hounds........


----------



## JenHunt (25 January 2011)

.... hmmm, to bite or not to bite?..... 

oh go on then... why not...

We have a local farmer who can't see that the reason his "birds" keep disappearing is not down to the fact that, as he puts it, "some wayward hounds got in there" (the incident to which he refers was about 10 years ago, and the hound was retrieved with no damage done to any birds), but is, in fact, due to the very large dog fox who lives in a stinking great 4 bedroom detached den and regularly raids my hens for take out!

the same farmer is convinced that 1 landrover parking 200yards from his yard entrance consitutes "blocking him in"


----------



## RunToEarth (25 January 2011)

God yeah, really hate those farmers who disagree with hateful riders ripping up their crops. 
Or not, guess you have to understand land values and stresses of farming it to appriciate why they get waspy. 
As for gamekeepers- yeah, if I were a gamekeeper I would hate horses too. 
And the bridleway debate? If I had my way there would be none. 
Lots of love


----------



## Alec Swan (26 January 2011)

These days I refer to myself,  as a "reformed 'keeper"!  I try to look at the problems from all sides.  When I was a 'keeper,  mostly when I was in Heythrop country,  I've seen hounds draw a large wood,  where I've known there to be several hundred pheasants on a feed ride,  and to my astonishment,  virtually nothing was flushed,  and when I fed the next morning,  the feed ride was as full as the previous day.

Riders hacking down woodland rides?  To be honest,  it never really bothered me.  Providing that they were quiet and didn't have dogs hunting out the woods,  then it was generally someone to stop,  and pass the time of day with.

I think that these days,  the mounted field are generally kept off drilled ground when the going is soft.  If they aren't then those who farm have every right to complain.  Growing corn isn't the profitable job which it once was.

The vital point is that we have to coexist,  without that we will have division,  and with predictable results!

Alec.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 January 2011)

Alec, who did you keeper for in the Heythrop, Lordy or Mr Brown, i was working as a groom for years in that area?


----------



## Alec Swan (26 January 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			Alec, who did you keeper for in the Heythrop, Lordy or Mr Brown, i was working as a groom for years in that area?
		
Click to expand...

I was at Cornbury Park,  for Lordy,  mid '70s!!  Halcyon days!!

Alec.


----------



## mon (26 January 2011)

sometimes wonder if non farmers deliberately set out as farmer haters, what i dislike is the motorised hobbyist who trash b.o.a.t.s. as a farmer invested hard earned time and money in land and glad we only have a couple of little used footpaths.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 January 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			I was at Cornbury Park,  for Lordy,  mid '70s!!  Halcyon days!!

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

wrong Lordy i think unless you mean Coln St Aldwyn which is where i was from 70-75.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (26 January 2011)

looking at Cornbury you were with Lord Rotherwick so my mistake!


----------



## Paddydou (26 January 2011)

We used to have a local game keeper who would shoot any dog off a lead be it on the footpath or not. He even shot a dog that was walking ahead of its owner on one of those retractable leads. It was horrific. 

The land owner eventually got rid and got a new one who is equally as grumpy but doesn't shoot unless he has to!

I have also been told off for riding on some publicly owned land... Sadly it was by the MOD and I was in the middle of a mock battle at the time. Shouldn't have been there but it was a nice ride and used the "play it very dumb and keep smiling tactic" to get out of it! Now regularly stop and have chats with the chap who's duty it was to tell me off! How many of us own horses who have actually been in the middle of a battle??? The old boy it has to be said was superb as only he can be! 

I am on side with the farmers though. I have seen riders churn up crop for the sake of a canter and cause thousands of pounds worth of damage. Sorry but the its not crop because it hasn't grown very big yet idea does not wash with me!

We have some bikers near by who use the local tracks but then we also have a dialouge with them and they work hard to clear the tracks and tidy up after themselves. I am very lucky in my immediate area that we are all able to share and get on together after all we are all out for the same thing in the end!


----------



## houndsplease (26 January 2011)

haha you can tell RTE is part of the farmer brigade. if all farmers had the same attitudes the sport you love so much would not exist.


----------



## RunToEarth (26 January 2011)

houndsplease said:



			haha you can tell RTE is part of the farmer brigade. if all farmers had the same attitudes the sport you love so much would not exist.
		
Click to expand...

If you asked any farmer in the UK about horses hammering their crops, they would say the same, it doesn't mean they don't allow hunts on, does it? 
My parents have hunted and allowed the hunt for many years, my OH whips in and whinges about how much mess he has made on his own fields. The balance is always toppled when someone rides on grass margins they shouldn't, goes crop side when they shouldn't, crosses tram lines when they shouldn't, or can't stand their horse still- which is largely why I think field mastering is such a thankless task- how many people can honestly say they can remember every single grass margin to keep on/off of and recieve very little thanks for it week in, week out? 
Largely (IMO) farmers are a lot more accepting of hunting than they are of hacking, but farmers will always need something to moan about.


----------



## JenHunt (26 January 2011)

Don't get me wrong, I do understand the farmer's point of view, and I think every hunt has their fair share of grumbly farmers/landowners/keeprers, but as RTE says most of them are reasonably accepting of hunting. We really only have the one really awkward dealing (as in my original post) who is out and out unreasonable!


----------



## mon (26 January 2011)

hunting is seen as a social for many farmers and since the hunt ban i have leaned towards accepting them, i now hunt a few times a year hopefully more with my young horse, allow them over my farm and that s my choice, why should every tom dick and harry beable to ride over my farm and i get nothing back, at the moment never paid when i have gone with the oakley.


----------



## Orangehorse (26 January 2011)

My OH is not a lover of horses at all, but since the hunting ban he is far more enthusiastic about hunting.

Still even I was annoyed when I had to chase our cattle back into their field when someone left a gate open - I think it was foot followers who "thought" the field was empty, but the cattle were tucked into a corner and decided to go exploring later all over a field of winter wheat.  I too shudder when I look at the damage the hunt will do to a field of grass.  I don't think it matters much before christmas, but later on in the season the damage doesn't repair so well.

I know a lady who was a tenant farmer who hates horses because they used to have the hunt over their land, jumping the hedges and upsetting the stock, and they couldn't do anything about it as the landlord had the sporting rights.  She also complained that riders from a local equestrian centre were looking in her windows.  I said they were probably admiring themselves in the reflection, but she didn't think that was funny.


----------



## Judgemental (26 January 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			The balance is always toppled when someone rides on grass margins they shouldn't
		
Click to expand...

I thought this subject would 'kick' off here and there.

Grass Margins....... GRASS MARGINS frankly I could not care less! No it is no good arguing about this - grass margins are subsidised by the tax payer.

Farmers only get upset about folk riding on them because, the men from DEFRA etc allegedly can see hoof prints with their satellite.

As far as I am concerned, we are all entitled to ride on grass margins, because we pay for them and he who pays the piper calls the tune. That goes for the vast array of farm gate subsidies generally.

I guarantee that will upset somebody.


----------



## RunToEarth (26 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I thought this subject would 'kick' off here and there.

Grass Margins....... GRASS MARGINS frankly I could not care less! No it is no good arguing about this - grass margins are subsidised by the tax payer.

Farmers only get upset about folk riding on them because, the men from DEFRA etc allegedly can see hoof prints with their satellite.

As far as I am concerned, we are all entitled to ride on grass margins, because we pay for them and he who pays the piper calls the tune. That goes for the vast array of farm gate subsidies generally.

I guarantee that will upset somebody.
		
Click to expand...

Well, I genuinely disagree, and ELS factors such as grass margins are inspected in person, who generally can hoof prints. 
To be honest, I'd guarentee what gets most farmers' backs up is your attitude. 
It isn't particularly difficult to realise that the vast amount of profit generated by the british food industry is pocketed by the likes of 7 or so national supermarket chains, evidently the government are in agreement other ELS payments would not exist. It also isn't particularly difficult to respect the land on which you ride- JM, are not always the one who is rodgering on about etiquette and manners, yet you wouldn't mind hooning on someone else's grass margin? 
I'm not particularly upset or angry by your comments, if you hunted with us and rode on someone's grass margins, which the field master had told you to keep off of, I would honestly think you were a massive idiot, and not particularly well informed or well mannered. 
After all, once every farmer has had their ELS payments stopped for the hunt riding across grass margins, and farmers are out of pocket as a result, where will you be hunting then, roads, tracks and some dear old love's back garden?
There are a lot of things subsidised by the tax payer I do not agree with at all, but screwing over your own hunt country as a result of it is surely not a sensible thing to do?


----------



## Orangehorse (26 January 2011)

Well if someone from the hunt went where they were not supposed to and the farmer got into trouble with DEFRA then the hunt would be banned.  Whether or not the culprit thought they had the right to be there or not.

DEFRA officials come out to inspect farms and they take measurements and make sure that the information they have on the form tallies with what they see on the ground.  If the rule is that margins must not be ridden on, and there is evidence that they have been damaged, that is a breach of the rules and has financial consequences.

It is also very impolite to go where you have been asked not to and remember that you are there by invitation and not by right.  

So there you are, an annoyed farmer!  Well done.


----------



## Judgemental (26 January 2011)

Run to Earth and Orange Horse. For clarities sake when I started this thread it was not access for the hunt that I had in mind.

It was individuals probably for the most part out on exercise and/or hacking.

I fully accept that when hunting, one goes where the master or field master directs. There is no argument about that.

However out on private exercise is another matter. Because the farmers I know are obsessive about the subject and try and claim for grass margins alongside actual bona fide trackways that are bridleways. Where there is a genuine trackway i.e of historical provenance and marked on the map. I guarantee they will claim at least two metres eitherside. They are mindfull to keep the hedges cut back and actually mow the grass.

Then moan when somebody so much as puts on hoof print on the grass. 

Don't even think of having a canter on it, a whole two miles of inviting mown grass alongside trackways. It not grass margin it's part of the bridleway. That is why I could not care less. 

Why do I have a feeling this one is going to run - may be because it involves, MONEY and the opportunity to abuse the system!


----------



## tootsietoo (26 January 2011)

can't add anything on grass margins unfortunately as I don't know how the payments work.

on access - we are on an estate where all the leases oblige the tenant farmers to permit access to the hunt, and I know a lot of them feel that the hunt takes advantage of this.  a bit more diplomacy is called for probably.  I do worry sometimes, when I am enjoying my day's hunting, about what the farmer of the field I am churning up thinks about us hooning over it.  I know our immediate neighbour is pretty philosophical and says he's fine about it if everyone spreads out, and he also lets me canter on his grass in the winter.  I know others can't bear it, but have no choice.


----------



## Judgemental (26 January 2011)

tootsietoo said:



			can't add anything on grass margins unfortunately as I don't know how the payments work.

on access - we are on an estate where all the leases oblige the tenant farmers to permit access to the hunt, and I know a lot of them feel that the hunt takes advantage of this.  a bit more diplomacy is called for probably.  I do worry sometimes, when I am enjoying my day's hunting, about what the farmer of the field I am churning up thinks about us hooning over it.  I know our immediate neighbour is pretty philosophical and says he's fine about it if everyone spreads out, and he also lets me canter on his grass in the winter.  I know others can't bear it, but have no choice.
		
Click to expand...

The farmer took the tenancy of the farm in the full knowledge that there was a covenant allowing hounds access day or night. In all probability his tenancy reads, "at any time of the day or night with a specified minimum width of....."

He or she took the farm with their eyes open and probably an army of lawyers advising him or her, so "one makes one bed one lies in it".

However it is preferable simply (as the farmer) to relax and let everybody get on with it.

I am sure everybody it very polite and if you meet farmer in the pub etc, you buy him a drink. Our farmers are lavishly entertained at every opportunity.


----------



## tootsietoo (27 January 2011)

well, most of them are on their second or third succession, so inherited the farm and the lease rather than agreeing the contracts themselves with lawyers.  and the obligation is not about margins, it just allows general access to the hunt, I believe.

I think most of them do relax and let the hunt get on with it.  I'm not sure they are lavishly entertained though!  However, I appreciate that the masters must have big job getting round all the farmers, especially as they all have day jobs to do, so it's understandable that they may not have time to do as much buttering up as would be ideal!

I was out hacking with a friend the other day and we passed an open gate into a very inviting huge grass field.  she suggested that we went and cantered round it!  I would never ever put a hoof near someone's land if they hadn't said I could, but I think quite a few people wouldn't give it a second thought!


----------



## Paddydou (27 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Farmers only get upset about folk riding on them because, the men from DEFRA etc allegedly can see hoof prints with their satellite..
		
Click to expand...

Jm dear chap. DEFRA don't need satallites to veiw hoof prints. I am unsure if these numbers are still current and very much hope not but DEFRA employed 2 people to measure farmer hedges for every farm worker in the UK. You work the numbers. they have no need of spy security systems when they have people already driving round in tax payer funded cars with a stick and tape to measure hedges...


----------



## combat_claire (27 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



			I thought this subject would 'kick' off here and there.

Grass Margins....... GRASS MARGINS frankly I could not care less! No it is no good arguing about this - grass margins are subsidised by the tax payer.

Farmers only get upset about folk riding on them because, the men from DEFRA etc allegedly can see hoof prints with their satellite.

As far as I am concerned, we are all entitled to ride on grass margins, because we pay for them and he who pays the piper calls the tune. That goes for the vast array of farm gate subsidies generally.

I guarantee that will upset somebody.
		
Click to expand...

As a Chartered Surveyor I am astounded by the arrogance and ignorance of some of the comments on here.

Grass margins generally form part of the Entry Level Scheme, which is designed to protect wildlife, landscapes, historic features and natural resources. Payment for those entering into voluntary management agreements is set at a flat rate of £30 per hectare. 

If a farmer is found to be in breach of his Entry Level Scheme agreement then he will be subject to a penalty. This can be a stoppage of part or all of future payments, forced to repay all or part of payments already received and can be banned from entering any other agri-environment scheme for 2 years. 

The guidance in the ELS hand book for 2010 clearly states that there should be no tracks, compacted area or poaching. It is a fact of life that horses hooves cause damage to land. 

In addition to these there are cross-compliance requirements for the single farm payment which state that there must be an uncultivated margin 2m from a hedge or watercourse on the farm. The farmer must take all reasonable steps to maintain a green cover on land within 2 metres of the centre of a hedgerow, watercourse or field ditch;

If a farmer is found in breach of cross-compliance then the penalties can be severe and up to 5% of the total payment due, if the cross-compliance is breached again then the penalty will rise to a maximum of 15% of payment due. A further breach will be viewed as intentional on behalf of the farmer and the reduction can be 20% or as high as 100% of the entire single farm payment. 

To you it might just be an enjoyable canter on a jolly little hack across a small strip of land; to my farming clients it can represent a massive loss of income over all the land entered into a stewardship agreement or receiving single farm payment, which in turn can affect the viability of the whole farming business.


----------



## RunToEarth (27 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Run to Earth and Orange Horse. For clarities sake when I started this thread it was not access for the hunt that I had in mind.

It was individuals probably for the most part out on exercise and/or hacking.

I fully accept that when hunting, one goes where the master or field master directs. There is no argument about that.

However out on private exercise is another matter. Because the farmers I know are obsessive about the subject and try and claim for grass margins alongside actual bona fide trackways that are bridleways. Where there is a genuine trackway i.e of historical provenance and marked on the map. I guarantee they will claim at least two metres eitherside. They are mindfull to keep the hedges cut back and actually mow the grass.

Then moan when somebody so much as puts on hoof print on the grass. 

Don't even think of having a canter on it, a whole two miles of inviting mown grass alongside trackways. It not grass margin it's part of the bridleway. That is why I could not care less. 

Why do I have a feeling this one is going to run - may be because it involves, MONEY and the opportunity to abuse the system!
		
Click to expand...

I constantly fail to see why people who do not own, rent, farm or have any interest in the land in any way feel they have some right to ride across it at the price of a farmer's ELS payment, why are horsey people so damned ignorant? 
You just sound like an idiot who has absolutely no idea what you are on about- stick to the bridleways JM.


----------



## Starbucks (27 January 2011)

Off topic a bit but:

1) Rosie your sig is looking very posh!!
2) We dont have any regular bridleways around us (non on OS map) but there is a system of bridleways that is something to do with some sort of DEFRA scheme??  Farmer has left grass round the edge off a load of fields  its great!!  Does anyone know about this?  Would the farmer be getting paid or something?  Dont know what Im talking about.. just out of interest!


----------



## Orangehorse (27 January 2011)

Thanks Combat Claire - I couldn't have put it better myself.  I can just see the poor farmer with the DEFRA man looking at the hoofprints on the grass margins saying "I tell the b....gers to keep off, but they take no notice."

The permitted bridlepath schemes are great if they have been put in the right place.  They are part of the Higher Level Scheme and are a 10 year agreement.  We have one close to me and it has made a huge improvement to my hacking.  Still, I know of others that no one would ever ride on, and have been a waste of money from the taxpayers point of view, although I don't blame the farmer for taking advantage of the scheme if offered.

Unfortunately the new Government is not going to carry on with these payment for access schemes, so when the agreement comes to an end in 10 years the option will no longer be available (unless Labour get re-elected and reinstate that scheme.)  Cue writing to your MP?

It is quite lucrative.  Made even my mother-in-law pause when I told her how much our neighbour must be making out of his bridlepath!  I  love it.  I just worry what will happen when it comes to an end.  Maybe offer to make it a TROT scheme so we pay to use it.  Might be worth it.


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

combat_claire said:



			As a Chartered Surveyor I am astounded by the arrogance and ignorance of some of the comments on here. Of course you are, farmers pay your professional fees. Grass margins generally form part of the Entry Level Scheme, which is designed to protect wildlife, landscapes, historic features and natural resources. Payment for those entering into voluntary management agreements is set at a flat rate of £30 per hectare. Another comfortable way of saying farmers in receipt of such money are on Benefits, rather like Housing Benefit or Job Seekers Allowance. Removes the stigma does it not? 

If a farmer is found to be in breach of his Entry Level Scheme agreement then he will be subject to a penalty. This can be a stoppage of part or all of future payments, forced to repay all or part of payments already received and can be banned from entering any other agri-environment scheme for 2 years. Just the same with Benefits

The guidance in the ELS hand book for 2010 clearly states that there should be no tracks, compacted area or poaching. It is a fact of life that horses hooves cause damage to land. 

In addition to these there are cross-compliance requirements for the single farm payment which state that there must be an uncultivated margin 2m from a hedge or watercourse on the farm. The farmer must take all reasonable steps to maintain a green cover on land within 2 metres of the centre of a hedgerow, watercourse or field ditch;

If a farmer is found in breach of cross-compliance then the penalties can be severe and up to 5% of the total payment due, if the cross-compliance is breached again then the penalty will rise to a maximum of 15% of payment due. A further breach will be viewed as intentional on behalf of the farmer and the reduction can be 20% or as high as 100% of the entire single farm payment. 

To you it might just be an enjoyable canter on a jolly little hack across a small strip of land; to my farming clients it can represent a massive loss of income over all the land entered into a stewardship agreement or receiving single farm payment, which in turn can affect the viability of the whole farming business.
		
Click to expand...

On a 650 hectare farm that is £19,500.00 - not bad for doing nothing.


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			I constantly fail to see why people who do not own, rent, farm or have any interest in the land in any way feel they have some right to ride across it at the price of a farmer's ELS payment, why are horsey people so damned ignorant? Because it is a State benefit and 'horsey' people generally do not enjoy similar benefits. 
You just sound like an idiot who has absolutely no idea what you are on about- stick to the bridleways JM.
		
Click to expand...

.....


----------



## combat_claire (27 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



On a 650 hectare farm that is £19,500.00 - not bad for doing nothing.

Click to expand...

Whether farmers pay my fees for filling in their application forms or selling land for them isn't at all relevant. We all have to earn a wage and that happens to be my chosen profession. 

The Entry Level Scheme is not 'doing nothing' - it costs money to put in certain options such as wild flower seed mixes, beetle banks, skylark plots, it also costs money to leave areas uncultivated. These have recognisable benefits to wildlife, which is what the payment is in lieu of. A points target is worked out on the hectarage of your farm, so your fictional farm of 600 hectares would need to take up a lot of options to add up to 18,000 points if the whole farm was to qualify. In reality most landowners only put part of the farm into Entry Level Scheme agreement. Higher Level Scheme is the crème de le crème. These are longer length agreements, which cover more specialist options and correspondingly pay more than the basic £30 per hectare of ELS. 

It isn't the same as benefits because unlike unemployment benefits the public gain tangible benefits. Also a fraudulent benefit claimant is penalised because of a conscious decision to breach the rules. Your jolly little canter can damage the financial payments across the whole farm, even when damage has taken place on a small area of the farm because of a decision made by yourself and that isn't fair. 

I would also add that if consumers were willing to pay a fair price for domestically produced meat, crops and milk then the single farm payment subsidy would not be required. 

Interestingly horse owners with are also allowed to qualify for the Single Farm Payment, but they have to meet a minimum acreage or claim size in monetary terms and then become subject to the same rules of cross-compliance. These are quite onerous and many equestrian owners have decided they simply can't deal with the paperwork. This shows how ridiculous your claim of 'farmers doing nothing' really is.

I for one appreciate the work that farmers put in our local area. You can make as many snipes about my fees, but it doesn't change the fact that they work bloody hard, put up with heaps of red tape and some unforgiving hours for their minimal earnings. Only to be whinged at by the general public who have no concept of modern agriculture.


----------



## tootsietoo (27 January 2011)

I think JM is like the friend I had years ago who I used to argue with just because it was more fun than sitting getting pissed talking about who had pulled who the night before!  He just likes an argument!

The system of agricultural subsidies does seem wrong to me, in principle, but it is how industry has worked for, what, about 70 years?  Farmers are just working within the system.

Anyway, why aren't they supposed to let people have access to grass margins?  Is it because of the environmental impact on the hedge or waterway?  Or because they might be charging for the riding so making double?


----------



## rosie fronfelen (27 January 2011)

thank you Clare for writing all that, i just hope certain people take heed! We are in Tir Goval here which is very worthwhile as itdoes benefit the farm, and if it wasn't for the SFP we would be on our uppers, never mind the fact that hubby works from dawn to dusk in all weathers- the public dont want to know that!!!!


----------



## Orangehorse (27 January 2011)

I wondered if this "doing nothing" old chestnut would appear!  Farming has been supported so that there is food for people to eat, it is a subsidy for consumers not farmers, it enables them to stay in business. For the past 10/12 years actual farming has not made a profit.  Accountants look at the figures and scratch their heads and wonder why we do it.  Income from farm subsidies are more than the profit, in other words it has been a lot of work during the year for a loss.  It is only thanks to the farm support that the farms are still there.  I really wonder how smaller tenant farmers have kept going - in fact a lot of them haven't of course.

Of course another reason that farms are still there is that they have opened livery yards, fishing lakes, shooting schools, sold barns and land and sent the wife out to work.


----------



## PerdixPerdix (27 January 2011)

As the partner of a keeper this thread has certainly wound me up.

My OH worked 23 hours a day every day from march until july rearing his poults, he did not miss his son growing up this year for some ignorant horserider who thinks they own the world to go cantering through his gamecrops terrifying 5000 newly released poults and causing him to spend 4 extra hours having to walk them back into pens. You wouldnt gallop your horse through a field of pregnant ewes, so dont do it to someone elses livlihood!

Its not a single rider, or the hunts god given right to ride where they like.

And to address another point, a dog loose in a release pen can kill thousands upon thousands of pounds woth of birds, these birds are a keepers livlihood, so if you are that stupid to let your dog run uncontrolled then dont complain when its got a bullet in its brain. A keeper has every right and is completely within the law to shoot a dog that is damaging his pheasants.

Im a dog lover and owner myself and when you have warned someone 20 times to keep to footpaths/bridlepaths and not wander where they like, then you have to accept the consequences.

My uncle is one of those farmers who does not let the hunt on his land, but you would probably do the same if some idiot left your gate open and let 100 head of young cattle out onto the road!!!


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

tootsietoo said:



			I think JM is like the friend I had years ago who I used to argue with just because it was more fun than sitting getting pissed talking about who had pulled who the night before!  He just likes an argument! No that is not the case it is very relevant when there is massive cost cutting by the government - are these grass margins essential - not really, it's just an alternative to Set Aside and the was something the last Labour Government aka Hilary Benn did not like. Paying farmers not to farm their farm. Clearly this is a very touchy subject. I freely admit I know just how touchy and it is good to debate the issue 

The system of agricultural subsidies does seem wrong to me, in principle, but it is how industry has worked for, what, about 70 years?  Farmers are just working within the system. Since WWII - yes they are acting perfectly legally but it is still tax payers money and a benefit.Anyway, why aren't they supposed to let people have access to grass margins?  Is it because of the environmental impact on the hedge or waterway?  Or because they might be charging for the riding so making double?
		
Click to expand...

.....


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

rosiefronfelen said:



			thank you Clare for writing all that, i just hope certain people take heed! We are in Tir Goval I am not familiar with Tir Goval, perhaps you can explain - there you see why it is good to debate these issues because it throws up elements from which folk can learn   here which is very worthwhile as itdoes benefit the farm, and if it wasn't for the SFP we would be on our uppers, never mind the fact that hubby works from dawn to dusk in all weathers- the public dont want to know that!!!!
		
Click to expand...

....


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

ORANGEHORSE said:



			I wondered if this "doing nothing" old chestnut would appear!  Farming has been supported so that there is food for people to eat, it is a subsidy for consumers not farmers,  it enables them to stay in business. For the past 10/12 years actual farming has not made a profit.  Accountants look at the figures and scratch their heads and wonder why we do it.  Income from farm subsidies are more than the profit, in other words it has been a lot of work during the year for a loss.  It is only thanks to the farm support that the farms are still there. Land will always 'be there' it does not need benefits to keep it there I really wonder how smaller tenant farmers have kept going - in fact a lot of them haven't of course.

Of course another reason that farms are still there is that they have opened livery yards, so there are more folk riding and need places to ride etc fishing lakes, shooting schools, sold barns and land and sent the wife out to work.
		
Click to expand...

.....


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

combat_claire said:



			Whether farmers pay my fees for filling in their application forms or selling land for them isn't at all relevant. We all have to earn a wage and that happens to be my chosen profession. 

The Entry Level Scheme is not 'doing nothing' - it costs money to put in certain options such as wild flower seed mixes, beetle banks, skylark plots, it also costs money to leave areas uncultivated. These have recognisable benefits to wildlife, which is what the payment is in lieu of. A points target is worked out on the hectarage of your farm, so your fictional farm of 600 hectares would need to take up a lot of options to add up to 18,000 points if the whole farm was to qualify. In reality most landowners only put part of the farm into Entry Level Scheme agreement. Higher Level Scheme is the crème de le crème. These are longer length agreements, which cover more specialist options and correspondingly pay more than the basic £30 per hectare of ELS. 

It isn't the same as benefits because unlike unemployment benefits the public gain tangible benefits. Also a fraudulent benefit claimant is penalised because of a conscious decision to breach the rules. Your jolly little canter can damage the financial payments across the whole farm, even when damage has taken place on a small area of the farm because of a decision made by yourself and that isn't fair. 

I would also add that if consumers were willing to pay a fair price for domestically produced meat, crops and milk then the single farm payment subsidy would not be required. 

Interestingly horse owners with are also allowed to qualify for the Single Farm Payment, but they have to meet a minimum acreage or claim size in monetary terms and then become subject to the same rules of cross-compliance. These are quite onerous and many equestrian owners have decided they simply can't deal with the paperwork. This shows how ridiculous your claim of 'farmers doing nothing' really is.

I for one appreciate the work that farmers put in our local area. You can make as many snipes about my fees, but it doesn't change the fact that they work bloody hard, put up with heaps of red tape and some unforgiving hours for their minimal earnings. Only to be whinged at by the general public who have no concept of modern agriculture.
		
Click to expand...

Claire, lets be perfectly frank on this point of Agricultural Estate Agents. They are fundmentally prejudiced, you could hardly go around saying you do not approve of tax payers money being paid to farmers as a benefit. Lets be brutally frank, if you were to tell the public exactly why farmers receive these benefits and where, you would lose all your clients overnight.


----------



## EAST KENT (27 January 2011)

I reckon JM that YOU should empty your pink piggy money box and buy your own farm;then accepting all subsidies offered,  see how you feel about your opinion that was. Possibly you think that because you,a tax payer,stumps up for  the subsidies that ,in fact then you part own all those lovely margins?
  Inflated opinions of one`s self importance are never a good thing,and you know it is one of the many things the public percieve and hate about hunting folk.


----------



## PerdixPerdix (27 January 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			I reckon JM that YOU should empty your pink piggy money box and buy your own farm;then accepting all subsidies offered,  see how you feel about your opinion that was. Possibly you think that because you,a tax payer,stumps up for  the subsidies that ,in fact then you part own all those lovely margins?
  Inflated opinions of one`s self importance are never a good thing,and you know it is one of the many things the public percieve and hate about hunting folk.
		
Click to expand...

HEAR HEAR!!!

judgemental you wouldnt happen to be the member of the hunt who on his first meeting of my friend who had just taken up a headkeepers position told him under no uncertain terms 
''Well so you are aware, WE hunt on this estate so you wont be able to do any fox control around the months when we hunt and that you cannot padlock any of the gates''

^^ mate handed a letter to the hunt master the very next day explaining that if the hunt stepped foot on any part of the estate it would be at their own personal risk and that the estate owner would prosecute them for trespassing.

The hunt shot themself in the foot as his father was a hunt master and hunting is something he loves.


----------



## RunToEarth (27 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



Claire, lets be perfectly frank on this point of Agricultural Estate Agents. They are fundmentally prejudiced, you could hardly go around saying you do not approve of tax payers money being paid to farmers as a benefit. Lets be brutally frank, if you were to tell the public exactly why farmers receive these benefits and where, you would lose all your clients overnight. 

Click to expand...

Or perhaps, chosen careers asides, this is her opinion based on her knowledge of the subject, which just so happens to contradict your own. 
I really do get fed up with people who think the world owes them something, as you seem to. 
If I cannot ride on our farm's grass margins, why should you? 
If I make a concious effort to only walk across field bridle ways when it is wet, why do you then canter across it, because you feel it is your right, therefore you deserve it. 
You sound as if you have absolutely no respect for anything.


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

EAST KENT said:



			I reckon JM that YOU should empty your pink piggy money box and buy your own farm; I don't need to because I already have one and take all the benefits the government pours into my bank account hthen accepting all subsidies offered,  see how you feel about your opinion that was. Possibly you think that because you,a tax payer,stumps up for  the subsidies that ,in fact then you part own all those lovely margins? I take the view that folk can roam as they please. As a result they never do, giving unfettered access makes one extremely popular and a nice person to do business with. The moment you tell somebody they cannot walk or ride somewhere, I gaurantee they will. Tell them go where they please and they never stray far from the footpath, bridleway or track. As for grass margins, we cannot be bothered, sooner farm it all well and make the best of things in the market place.   Inflated opinions of one`s self importance are never a good thing,and you know it is one of the many things the public percieve and hate about hunting folk.
		
Click to expand...

....


----------



## Judgemental (27 January 2011)

PerdixPerdix said:



			HEAR HEAR!!!

judgemental you wouldnt happen to be the member of the hunt who on his first meeting of my friend who had just taken up a headkeepers position told him under no uncertain terms 
''Well so you are aware, WE hunt on this estate so you wont be able to do any fox control around the months when we hunt and that you cannot padlock any of the gates''

^^ mate handed a letter to the hunt master the very next day explaining that if the hunt stepped foot on any part of the estate it would be at their own personal risk and that the estate owner would prosecute them for trespassing.

The hunt shot themself in the foot as his father was a hunt master and hunting is something he loves.
		
Click to expand...

No - our hounds can go exactly where they please and when they please. Assuming we are told about a broken gate, fence or hole in a hedge, we make the repair. 

Not interested in shooting


----------



## EAST KENT (27 January 2011)

MMMmmmm..do we all appear so stupid?


----------



## houndsplease (27 January 2011)

RunToEarth said:



			If you asked any farmer in the UK about horses hammering their crops, they would say the same, it doesn't mean they don't allow hunts on, does it? 
My parents have hunted and allowed the hunt for many years, my OH whips in and whinges about how much mess he has made on his own fields. The balance is always toppled when someone rides on grass margins they shouldn't, goes crop side when they shouldn't, crosses tram lines when they shouldn't, or can't stand their horse still- which is largely why I think field mastering is such a thankless task- how many people can honestly say they can remember every single grass margin to keep on/off of and recieve very little thanks for it week in, week out? 
Largely (IMO) farmers are a lot more accepting of hunting than they are of hacking, but farmers will always need something to moan about. [/QU

They allow hunts on because many hunts pick thousands of pounds worth of dead stock off them a year there are very few who let you on without this service, and yes RTE i no your parents hunted for many years aswell as farmed country to which the rockwood hunted years ago and then from what i hear not so long ago
		
Click to expand...


----------



## RunToEarth (27 January 2011)

houndsplease said:



			They allow hunts on because many hunts pick thousands of pounds worth of dead stock off them a year there are very few who let you on without this service, and yes RTE i no your parents hunted for many years aswell as farmed country to which the rockwood hunted years ago and then from what i hear not so long ago
		
Click to expand...

RH did go through a phase of charging for fallen stock, although I am not sure what they do now, I haven't been home much recently so couldn't say. Whilst they were charging, I don't recall them losing much land, as JM says, most farmers are OK so long as gates/walls are rebuilt etc, and generally as long as people stick in the right places I would say most are OK.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



....... Lets be brutally frank, if you were to tell the public exactly why farmers receive these benefits and where, you would lose all your clients overnight. 

Click to expand...

J_M,

I'm assuming that by the tone of this,  and other quotable passages of yours,  that you feel that as Single Farm Payments come from the public purse,  this gives the horse owning public,  the right,  as tax payers,  to go where they choose.  Further,  it seems to me that you don't entirely approve of the Government assistance which is given to those who produce the food which we eat.

Let me point out a simple truth to you.  Without the grant aided system,  we would have no food industry.  We cannot compete in a world wide market and if the system were to be abandoned,  then the catastrophic result would be that the rest of the food producers,  in our world,  would hold us to ransom.  

It further seems to me,  that you feel that as a tax payer,  and as through your taxes,  you support an industry which provides you with a relatively cheap supply of food,  that also gives you the right to make further demands.  The tax paying public have no such rights.

Alec.


----------



## Alec Swan (28 January 2011)

[/QUOTE].......They allow hunts on because many hunts pick thousands of pounds worth of dead stock off them a year there are very few who let you on without this service.......[/QUOTE]

That may have been the case,  but a few years ago.  Since we now have to dispose of the residue from carcasses in a legal fashion,  because there is now a perceived risk attached to burial,  very few packs can justify the costs of incinerators.

I would be surprised that many but the largest packs could provide such a service.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (28 January 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			J_M,

I'm assuming that by the tone of this,  and other quotable passages of yours,  that you feel that as Single Farm Payments come from the public purse,  this gives the horse owning public,  the right,  as tax payers,  to go where they choose.  Further,  it seems to me that you don't entirely approve of the Government assistance which is given to those who produce the food which we eat.

Let me point out a simple truth to you.  Without the grant aided system,  we would have no food industry.  We cannot compete in a world wide market and if the system were to be abandoned,  then the catastrophic result would be that the rest of the food producers,  in our world,  would hold us to ransom.  

It further seems to me,  that you feel that as a tax payer,  and as through your taxes,  you support an industry which provides you with a relatively cheap supply of food,  that also gives you the right to make further demands.  The tax paying public have no such rights.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...

Alec, little do you know that is like putting an old hound onto the scent of a ripe old travelling dog fox &#8211; music to ears.

Lets just set the scene.

We have to go back to WWII (when our food supplies where being cut off primarily by the sinking of merchant shipping) to uncover the truths behind &#8211; SUBSIDIES.

It all started with the War Ag &#8211; for those of you who don&#8217;t know what that was. Fundamentally the country was sectioned off and committees were set up in each area. They were empowered to tell farmers and others how to farm their farms to the greatest effect to produce as much food as possible during the war. In essence they told just about everybody to plough every inch of ploughable land etc.

In order to do so all and sundry could obtain vouchers for fuel, seed, borrowed machinery etc.

Then after the war there was the Farm Deficiency System &#8211; won&#8217;t go into that but it was a subsidy to help farmers produce as much food as possible.

Then there were a variety of additional measures prior to Intervention when we joined the EEC, which put a bottom in the price of most raw materials such as grain.

This was followed by Set Aside and now followed by such as Grass Margins.

So all in all since and as a result of WWII farmers have enjoyed subsidies of one sort of another to a greater and lesser extent.

The result is a decreasing number of bona fida farmers. I believe the figure is roughly 235,000 &#8211; feel free to correct me somebody.

Along with less than 15,000 individuals and companies owning 80% of the farmable land out of a population of 70 million.

Therefore the fewer farmers and landowners so the power as to freedom of access and roam/ride is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

As to the merits of the system providing cheap food for the masses, which was the intention primarily after WWII, that argument is now wholly flawed.

Largely because the number of producers is insufficient to have any significant clout with the supermarkets who price as they fancy.

Finally, if it is all so successful why do we have a dearth of dairy/livestock farmers and relatively high number of arable farmers, all sitting around being paid vast subsidies/benefits.

So far as going where one pleases, it is all down to espirt de corps. If the farmer is compliant where horses are concerned, he is respected.  

In the final analysis, horses are still on the statute as the superior means of transport and have primacy in times of war and civil insurrection. Should it be necessary in such a situation and for example fuel ran dry etc, there is still an act that allows the local military commander in each area to seize any horse for the benefit and movement of goods and foodstuffs.

At the time of posting I am not aware of any threat of war that will cut off our food supplies. Of course it has suited farmers and sucessive governments alike, to play the same tune one way or another since WWII.


----------



## rosie fronfelen (28 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



			....
		
Click to expand...

JM, i am surprised you know nothing of Tir Gofal being as you google everything. I am not explaining it for the simple reason your arrogance on these matters have put me in a rage and i am surprised at your attitude, so go googling then you can only fall out with yourself instead of creating more arguements!!!


----------



## mon (28 January 2011)

Can I have a list of every household which are goverment funded, because of no work , illness, young parents, seperated families etc then i can walk in there home and do as i like! i have just paid my tax bill so part funded them.


----------



## combat_claire (28 January 2011)

"No that is not the case it is very relevant when there is massive cost cutting by the government - are these grass margins essential - not really, it's just an alternative to Set Aside and the was something the last Labour Government aka Hilary Benn did not like. Paying farmers not to farm their farm. Clearly this is a very touchy subject. I freely admit I know just how touchy and it is good to debate the issue"

*Grass margins are not an alternative to set-aside, they are designed to protect water courses and hedges from spray drift, pesticide run-off and soil erosion run-off. As a result they become better habitates for the varied forms of wildlife they support. If you run vehicles or ride over said grass margin, you compact and poach the soil and undo all the good work that putting in grass margins achieved.*


"Since WWII - yes they are acting perfectly legally but it is still tax payers money and a benefit"

* The trouble with this debate is like the hunting dress arguments you fail to recognise that things have changed. The period of bloated subsidy cheques, wine lakes and grain mountains has long gone. CAP was reformed once in 2005, which gave us the Single Farm Payment. We are now due another reform in 2012 where more money will be directed at tangible environmental goods and less money used in the Pillar One direct subsidies. Farming isn't just about your vision of undeserving barley barons; it is also about those smaller farms who struggle to make a living in less favoured areas of the UK, dairy farms who make a loss on every pint of milk they sell because consumers are more concerned about the price tag in Tescos than whether it is a fair price. If you really want to debate this issue then I would suggest that you try to get hold of some of the papers by Dr. James Jones an agricultural economist and rural policy expert

http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2011/...icymakers-discuss-Brussels39-views-on-CAP.htm*


----------



## EAST KENT (28 January 2011)

You know JM ,you claim to be a farmer,grabbing every subsidie due..and on the other hand appear to believe your taxes give you the right to ride roughshod over grass margins;does`nt quite add up to me somehow. We really all must meet up ,so we can definitely identify you ,to me and Rosie ,I think,it does`nt all quite equate..back to Wikkii and sloe gin for you.


----------



## combat_claire (28 January 2011)

Judgemental said:



Claire, lets be perfectly frank on this point of Agricultural Estate Agents. They are fundmentally prejudiced, you could hardly go around saying you do not approve of tax payers money being paid to farmers as a benefit. Lets be brutally frank, if you were to tell the public exactly why farmers receive these benefits and where, you would lose all your clients overnight. 

Click to expand...

Firstly I am a qualified Chartered Surveyor working in the Rural Faculty, kindly do not denigrate my profession by referring to me as an Estate Agent. 

You obviously have as much understanding of land agency as you do of modern agriculture. 

My clients are farmers and landowners, they know very well that they are being paid to a, keep the price of food affordable for the general public and b, to provide public goods in the form of biodiversity and wildlife conservation, therefore telling them what they already know is not ground breaking news and I'm not sure why you ascertain it would lose me clients. 

My job is to advise them on how to make the most of the land in their ownership and to meet the targets set out within the Campaign for the Farmed Environment (this is a national scheme to encourage farmers who already complete environmental works on farm, but are not keen to enter into prescriptive agreements with Natural England to register them and the resulting public goods on their farm records). My clients vary from equestrian purchasers buying their first property up to massive institutional Landlords and everything else in between. In addition I advise on planning, valuations for matrimonial, tax, probate and other purposes, agency, landlord and tenant issues and estate management. Calling me an estate agent is a little like calling your professional huntsman the second boot boy. Totally inaccurate and rather offensive.


----------



## combat_claire (28 January 2011)

mon said:



			Can I have a list of every household which are goverment funded, because of no work , illness, young parents, seperated families etc then i can walk in there home and do as i like! i have just paid my tax bill so part funded them.
		
Click to expand...

Out of interest I can recommend an excellent hacking route that takes in the shiny new District hospital, two primary schools an old folks' home and a Secondary school all taxpayer funded of course!


----------



## tootsietoo (28 January 2011)

Someone has to flog 'ouses, shops and sheds Claire!  I came over to the dark side.  We're not all bad!

This is such a peculiar discussion again - like the Hitler thread, all a bit pointless.  Some of us may think the system of subsidies is a good thing, some may think it's a bad thing.  But even if you are sure you are right, you can't expect not to be told "get orf moi land" if you are trampling on a farmer's income!


----------



## Paddydou (30 January 2011)

I have actually found this entire thread to be very reassuring. 

Why? Because for a long time the farmers of the UK have had to produce our food to an exceptionally high standard in very political and restricive ways and the show of support for them has been tremendous. 

I for one am sticking to the bridleways and stubble fields when I have permission. 

I have no problems in having what equates to a small proportion of my taxes going to helping our enviroment and to protect our most basic needs. £19k is a pittance when you are running a business that requires the amout of expendature that land does. 

Its about time that we all started looking after and protecting our countryside, be it farmed, a right of way or public access. Keep it up everyone.


----------



## Judgemental (1 February 2011)

tootsietoo said:



			Someone has to flog 'ouses, shops and sheds Claire!  I came over to the dark side.  We're not all bad!

This is such a peculiar discussion again - like the Hitler thread, all a bit pointless.  Some of us may think the system of subsidies is a good thing, some may think it's a bad thing.  But even if you are sure you are right, you can't expect not to be told "get orf moi land" if you are trampling on a farmer's income!
		
Click to expand...

Tootsietoo - the point of this discussion in part, is the fact that very large tracts of Forestry Commission land are going to be sold off to private owners.

No doubt there will be covenants as to continued access.

However Forestry Commission ownership is one thing, private ownership at substantial cost is quite another and shall we say, the pressure or sentiment from new owners to feel, "it's mine, I paid for it and he who pays the piper calls the tune".


----------



## tootsietoo (1 February 2011)

Oh yes, I heard that on the radio yesterday too.  It's not what we've been talking about on this thread up til now though is it?


----------



## combat_claire (2 February 2011)

There is this assumption that public ownership = good and private ownership = bad. In fact land ownership is rarely that black and white. 

I have seen Forestry Commission owned woodlands where they are nothing but a mono-culture that supports little or no biodiversity and many private woodlands often managed as a result of sporting interests that are thriving habitats for many birds and mammals. 

The rights of access which are lodged on definitive maps on county levels will show up on searches completed by purchasing solicitors and by law are protected and must be kept open from obstruction. I assume there will also be restrictive covenants placed on the land worded to ensure that access is maintained; that certain types of development are restricted or in areas where development is more a case of when rather than if there should be an uplift clause so that the vendor (in this case the government) benefits from a percentage of any increase in the value of the land for a period of up to 50 years. 

The Forestry Commission has been struggling to turn a profit for years, long before the current spending crisis and my personal feelings are that selling off their land holdings subject to certain covenants can seriously be a better step for a failing organisation.


----------



## Orangehorse (2 February 2011)

The trouble with access to Forestry Commission land that most riding/driving is by permision, whether or not there is a charge for a permit.  So there will be no "rights" to be maintained in any legal way.  When there is talk of Access Rights that will apply to walkers, not riders, apart from bridlepaths and some Commons Rights.


----------



## Spudlet (2 February 2011)

The other issue is that current access rights are only guaranteed to be preserved in two of the four categories of woodland that DEFRA have identified in their consultation. This means that if your local wood is one of the many small woodlands that don't pull in the tourists but which are used by local people, you might end up unable to use them. This concerns me greatly.

Also, how are community groups meant to raise the funds to take over local woods in just three months in this economic climate?

Interestingly, it seems that the sale might go through at a net loss to the Treasury, and even if not one of the options now being considered is for some heritage woodlands to be managed by a new charity, set up and funded by the government... errm, remind me again how this is saving money...


----------



## combat_claire (2 February 2011)

ORANGEHORSE said:



			The trouble with access to Forestry Commission land that most riding/driving is by permision, whether or not there is a charge for a permit.  So there will be no "rights" to be maintained in any legal way.  When there is talk of Access Rights that will apply to walkers, not riders, apart from bridlepaths and some Commons Rights.
		
Click to expand...

A restrictive covenant is binding in law and can include pretty much anything the vendor likes. I came across one the other day that stated the property could not be converted into a residential property whilst the commercial property next door and owned by the vendors still operated as a factory. 

As long as the vendors in this instance reserve the rights of access and indeed the sporting rights to let to Tenants as they see fit then there will be no trouble at all. 

There is also the chance that a right of way can be created by accident where the path or track has been used openly and without force for a number of years, so long as the user can prove that they have been doing this then the right of way will be created by the courts.


----------



## Judgemental (2 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			A restrictive covenant is binding in law and can include pretty much anything the vendor likes. I came across one the other day that stated the property could not be converted into a residential property whilst the commercial property next door and owned by the vendors still operated as a factory. 

As long as the vendors in this instance reserve the rights of access and indeed the sporting rights to let to Tenants as they see fit then there will be no trouble at all. 

There is also the chance that a right of way can be created by accident where the path or track has been used openly and without force for a number of years, so long as the user can prove that they have been doing this then the right of way will be created by the courts.
		
Click to expand...

Claire can you remind the forum how long one has to have used a track and to have created a right of way?


----------



## combat_claire (3 February 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Claire can you remind the forum how long one has to have used a track and to have created a right of way?
		
Click to expand...

For an uninterrupted period of usually around 20 years


----------



## Judgemental (4 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			For an uninterrupted period of usually around 20 years
		
Click to expand...

Claire that may prove to be one of the most helpful pieces of information yet posted on this forum, many thanks.

I say that especially in the light of the piece in today's Horse and Hound about folk possibly losing the right of access over Forestry Commission land. The editor urging users and riders to speak up for their rights.

Land that could become intensly keepered! Whilst riding on the bridle ways covered in any covenant would continue, you can guarantee that 'Itinerant Keepers' will stop dogs trotting along with one out on exercise.

In fact the gravatum of the whole subject, has to yet to impact on the majority.

If is my belief that if the government do not achieve the sales envisaged, they will curtail subsidies, with action being brought forward to coincide with the 2012 Budget. This will allow DEFRA to balance their financial books in the cost cutting that they are obliged to impliment.


----------



## combat_claire (4 February 2011)

Judgemental said:



			Claire that may prove to be one of the most helpful pieces of information yet posted on this forum, many thanks.

I say that especially in the light of the piece in today's Horse and Hound about folk possibly losing the right of access over Forestry Commission land. The editor urging users and riders to speak up for their rights.

Land that could become intensly keepered! Whilst riding on the bridle ways covered in any covenant would continue, you can guarantee that 'Itinerant Keepers' will stop dogs trotting along with one out on exercise.

In fact the gravatum of the whole subject, has to yet to impact on the majority.

If is my belief that if the government do not achieve the sales envisaged, they will curtail subsidies, with action being brought forward to coincide with the 2012 Budget. This will allow DEFRA to balance their financial books in the cost cutting that they are obliged to impliment.
		
Click to expand...

I might be able to top that yet! Have a read of this one. We covered it at our latest land agency seminar. 

http://www.burges-salmon.com/Sector...ty/Publications/New_Village_Green_Warning.pdf

Cutting subsidies will have little impact on the DEFRA budget as the money is re-claimed from European Agricultural Guarantee and Guidance Fund. What we are seeing is restrictions on those farmers being able to enter the Higher Level Scheme, which is the bigger brother of the Entry Level Scheme with even bigger environmental goods. 

I heard a rumour that before Christmas Natural England were unable to make site visits as the fuel budget had run out! I also suspect there may well be staffing cuts to the Rural Payments Agency, which could really do with employing some people that have some basic farming knowledge rather than having to ask my farmers what sugar beet is or to explain the concept of overwinter fallow (does exactly what it says on the tin!)


----------



## Judgemental (17 February 2011)

Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance.


----------



## combat_claire (17 February 2011)

Judgemental said:



			nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance.
		
Click to expand...

This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land. 

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds. 

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.


----------



## Judgemental (17 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land. 

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds. 

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.
		
Click to expand...

Claire for the most part we tend to agree, however you do have a habit of taking parts of what I say and not quoting the entirety.

I said,_ Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance.   _

Therefore I was not saying there should be a right to roam, nor do I agree with the fool, who goes where plainly it is ill-advised and then encounters a hazard upon which he or she sustains injury and takes a suit against the landowner.

What I said was and I will try and put it in terms of the laity. 

The government bowed to the pressure from the multitude over access on FC land. Because amongst other things there would be a mass protest on the land when it was sold to Private Land Owners. Thus there would have been an automatic blighting or diminution in value.  Therefore where a PLO to find themselves with a large number of people wishing to go where they please, there is nothing they could do about the matter. Not that any great mass of people propose to invade any estate, so far as I am aware.  

Therefore the point I was making was that landowners have to remember, that the way in which ownership of the majority of land is in the hands of so few. They the few cannot do anything about the many who could just gather together and invade. 

Thus landowners should take heed of the climb down by the government and treat the public (the masses) with very great care and consideration.

That includes individuals who might not ride in quite the right place or path etc. But they the rider or walker, does have the power to bring the masses 'upon a visit to the estate' if they put their mind to the project. Indeed the power of the Internet publicising a mass invasion of an estate could be easily facilitated.

So the moral of this, if you are a landowner. From now on, be very nice to those who traverse your estate, on foot or horse. Don't come the high and mighty, master of all I survey, I'll set my keepers etc on you...

Do you now understand what I was saying?

The government has said we respect and bow to the wishes of the majority when it comes to access to land and so should PLOs.


----------



## Judgemental (17 February 2011)

combat_claire said:



			This is something land agents have been aware of for many moons. There have been many well documented cases where a trespasser has injured themselves and been awarded damages against the landowner despite them having no business being on the land. 

I am in favour of public access as far as bridleways and designated routes are concerned, but right to roam concerns me as it can have wide-ranging impacts on conservation and other commercial activities within the countryside. For example the recent Red Stag Review note the increasing numbers of ramblers and bikers who will not be guided by estate staff and as a result have seriously disrupted the deer herds. 

A balance must be struck between effective conservation, the rights of private ownership and public access.
		
Click to expand...



Claire for the most part we tend to agree, however you do have a habit of taking parts of what I say and not quoting the entirety.

I said,_ Having started this thread, I feel it incumbent upon me to say, on the very day that HM Government completely dropped the notion of privatisation of Forestry Commission land, in the emergency statement made by the Minister, The Rt Hon Caroline Spelman. That she was right.

The Minister was right for two reasons, privatisation of Forestry Commission land is fraught with so many difficulties, legally and practically it is not worth the effort.

But more importantly she sent a very clear message to every landowner, "you don't have such primacy of ownership, as to disbar walkers and riders, no matter how much they may appear to be trespassing".

By that I mean the fundamental thrust of the argument against the proposed privatisation was common access.

Whilst the few (only 15,000 people out of 70 million) who own the majority of land in this country, may not like to be told, &#8220;you may own the land, nevertheless when push comes to shove in practical terms, the masses can go where and when they please, without let or hindrance&#8221;.   _

Therefore I was not saying there should be a right to roam, nor do I agree with the fool, who goes where plainly it is ill-advised and then encounters a hazard upon which he or she sustains injury and takes a suit against the landowner.

What I said was and I will try and put it in terms of the laity. 

The government bowed to the pressure from the multitude over access on FC land. Because amongst other things there would be a mass protest on the land when it was sold to Private Land Owners. Thus there would have been an automatic blighting or diminution in value.  Therefore where a PLO to find themselves with a large number of people wishing to go where they please, there is nothing they could do about the matter. Not that any great mass of people propose to invade any estate, so far as I am aware.  

Therefore the point I was making was that landowners have to remember, that the way in which ownership of the majority of land is in the hands of so few. They the few cannot do anything about the many who could just gather together and invade. 

Thus landowners should take heed of the climb down by the government and treat the public (the masses) with very great care and consideration.

That includes individuals who might not ride in quite the right place or path etc. But they the rider or walker, does have the power to bring the masses 'upon a visit to the estate' if they put their mind to the project. Indeed the power of the Internet publicising a mass invasion of an estate could be easily facilitated.

So the moral of this, if you are a landowner. From now on, be very nice to those who traverse your estate, on foot or horse. Don't come the high and mighty, master of all I survey, I'll set my keepers etc on you&#8230;&#8230;...

Do you now understand what I was saying?

The government has said we respect and bow to the wishes of the majority when it comes to access to land and so should PLO&#8217;s.

*The Minister's exact words at the Dispatch Box in the H of C today were, "I want to move forward in step with the public". No mention of Land Owners there.

Can't help wondering where that leaves any hope of a repeal of The Hunting Act either.*


----------



## tootsietoo (17 February 2011)

I cannot make head nor tail of that last post JM!  It sounds as if it could be interesting, but I can't work it out.  How can the government back tracking on privatisation of the FC influence the way landowners behave towards trespassers?


----------



## Judgemental (17 February 2011)

tootsietoo said:



			I cannot make head nor tail of that last post JM!  It sounds as if it could be interesting, but I can't work it out.  How can the government back tracking on privatisation of the FC influence the way landowners behave towards trespassers?
		
Click to expand...

It's very simple. Over 1,000,000 (one million) people signed a petition in 21 (twenty one) days telling the government they objected to the proposal to sell off FC land. Their objection was largely on the grounds that adverse access was anticipated once in private ownership.

If a Landowner - from now on gets uppty, develops an inflated sence of their own importance, by for example, ordering walkers off land which is not a footpath and similarly with riders and non-bridleways etc. Or the favorite thing is to fence, block paths, tracks etc.   

Those walkers and riders having been upset, now know that they only have to protest and threaten a mass invasion of the land, to make their point. This government clearly has no mood or stomach to support landowners in the face of the masses. Otherwise they would have pressed ahead with the sale of FC and not taken any notice of the petition. 

What you don't seem to realise there are only 15,000 land owners for 80% of the open land on these islands, with a population of 70 (seventy) million.

Ask yourself, who holds the power over the land.


----------



## Judgemental (17 February 2011)

Judgemental said:



			It's very simple. Over 1,000,000 (one million) people signed a petition in 21 (twenty one) days telling the government they objected to the proposal to sell off FC land. Their objection was largely on the grounds that adverse access was anticipated once in private ownership.

If a Landowner - from now on gets uppty, develops an inflated sence of their own importance, by for example, ordering walkers off land which is not a footpath and similarly with riders and non-bridleways etc. Or the favorite thing is to fence, block paths, tracks etc.   

Those walkers and riders having been upset, now know that they only have to protest and threaten a mass invasion of the land, to make their point. This government clearly has no mood or stomach to support landowners in the face of the masses. Otherwise they would have pressed ahead with the sale of FC and not taken any notice of the petition. 

What you don't seem to realise there are only 15,000 land owners for 80% of the open land on these islands, with a population of 70 (seventy) million.

Ask yourself, who holds the power over the land.
		
Click to expand...

The masses have found, probably for the first time, that a mass protest works where land is concerned! Frankly if I were a land agent on one of the large estates, I would be very concerned.

Whilst I am commenting, there is the directive for DEFRA to make massive cuts in expenditure - selling FC land was a major plank in those cuts. 

My guess is that the Minister will recognise the power of the masses and simply say, money for grass margins and environmentally friendly hedges and verges. Tough, farmers and landowners are not the majority, I have to make cuts, so your subsidies are going to be stopped - somewhat sooner than anticipated.

This little episode over FC land, particularly with a Coalition Government is really very interesting.

If I owned over 1000 acres of farm land, I would put anything over that figure immediately up for sale, tenanted or in hand. The government has to make cuts and land is a massive asset to be tapped into by the Chancellor. 

But I hear you say, these landowners are the friends of the government. You mean the Conservatives. The Conservatives are not the government it is a Coalition and Coalitions are full of surprises. Mr Clegg and his friends have very little time, in fact none atall for large scale farming or landowners.   

By the way Claire, I am professionally grounded, trained and experienced to comment on such matters.


----------



## Alec Swan (18 February 2011)

I'm wondering if I'm the only one to think that the sale of forestry land,  owned by the State,  would have been a good thing.

Much of the land administered to by the FC,  is already in private ownership,  and has been since the inception of the initial planting.  The bulk of such land has always been open to public access.

Attempts have been made,  by many,  to make forestry operations,  a profitable business.  It never has been,  and it never will be.  

Those land owners,  who would view forestry land,  as a shooting asset,  very soon learn that they are waisting their time.  The large and established shoots find that "the forestry" aspect of their holdings,  are more of a liability.  There are those who attempt to hold shoots within planted areas,  but as all the winged game,  which we shoot,  lives a natural existence,  but on a varied landscape,  provided by woods and fields,  then dense forestry,  is not too their liking.

Those vast blocks of forestry, on the Scottish Borders, and in private ownership,  are invariably owned by those who have purchased such land,  in a move to avoid paying tax.  Not all,  I accept,  but the bulk of such tracts have always been open to public access.

The Forestry Commission has always been a huge and unwieldily liability to the tax payer,  and if we are to make savings,  then I for one,  would have happily seen them sold on.  The only benefits to society,  in my view,  being the ethical aspect of established woodlands,  and the access,  so often enjoyed.  I fail to see how it makes one jot of difference,  who actually owns the land.

Being sold,  with a right to public access,  would have been a relatively simple condition to have established,  and would have saved the tax payer,  a great deal of money.

Alec.


----------



## Judgemental (18 February 2011)

Alec Swan said:



			I'm wondering if I'm the only one to think that the sale of forestry land,  owned by the State,  would have been a good thing.

Much of the land administered to by the FC,  is already in private ownership,  and has been since the inception of the initial planting.  The bulk of such land has always been open to public access.

Attempts have been made,  by many,  to make forestry operations,  a profitable business.  It never has been,  and it never will be.  

Those land owners,  who would view forestry land,  as a shooting asset,  very soon learn that they are waisting their time.  The large and established shoots find that "the forestry" aspect of their holdings,  are more of a liability.  There are those who attempt to hold shoots within planted areas,  but as all the winged game,  which we shoot,  lives a natural existence,  but on a varied landscape,  provided by woods and fields,  then dense forestry,  is not too their liking.

Those vast blocks of forestry, on the Scottish Borders, and in private ownership,  are invariably owned by those who have purchased such land,  in a move to avoid paying tax.  Not all,  I accept,  but the bulk of such tracts have always been open to public access.

The Forestry Commission has always been a huge and unwieldily liability to the tax payer,  and if we are to make savings,  then I for one,  would have happily seen them sold on.  The only benefits to society,  in my view,  being the ethical aspect of established woodlands,  and the access,  so often enjoyed.  I fail to see how it makes one jot of difference,  who actually owns the land.

Being sold,  with a right to public access,  would have been a relatively simple condition to have established,  and would have saved the tax payer,  a great deal of money.

Alec.
		
Click to expand...


Alec - a voice that I had hoped would be heard.

I agree with you. However "with right of access". The problem is and a perceived worry by many that the 'Public Acesss' would have been eroded.

You also mention the shooting, do I recollect in previous posts you have an interest there?

Shooting in large forestry is undoubtly difficult. The old 19th century Belts are far better to drive with rides cut at intervals and having guns standing either side. To create that in prime forestry that would have been sold, would undoubtly been opposed.

It is a very interesting subject and from a political point of view we have a) seen the masses taste their 'first blood' and b) we have seen the colour of this government - at the first sign of contention and protest they roll over, c) I might be wrong but this government or it's type might be in power for a very long time, because they make proposeals that are unpopular and then either give up or dramatically water them down, with mass pressure.  

Where does that leave Repeal - frankly I don't think there is a cat's chance in hell of it ever happening.

If this caste of government had been in power when the marches in London took place there, never would have been a ban. 

As I have said earlier, large landowners are going to be in for some unpleasant surprises with this Coalition, because they are so few and the masses will now be looking to see, where they can score over the great estates. Notwithstanding the Chancellor looking over the hedge and wondering how all those acres could yield funds for his coffers.

Of course this in many ways is left wing Labour dogma, but you never quite know in which direction Libdems are going to fly - they are rather like Snipe!


----------

