CAP Payments to the South Dorset Hunt from the European Union

[Orangehorse]

No way to find out. You can look up all the details, but every landlord/tenant would have their own arrangement. We own land and we tenant land, and sometimes the landlord has the payment and sometimes we, as the farmer, gets the payment.
Obviously the rent is adjusted.

As for who farms the hunt's land - again there is no way to find out. Probably pay a contractor. There is a slight possibility that a farmer might just incorporate it into his work, but he would still have to receive some money for fuel, fertiliser, sprays, etc.

 

[Judgemental]

some just havent got the brain they like to make out they have.

The silence of the clamour to do away with SFP_is deafening lol. Judgemental you are relying on old figures on a site that is not even an official one. There is another more up to date site(im sure you can find it with googles help) that is official that is run by government. Your figures are pre the last renegotiation of the CAP so well out of line with current practice. It would also be nice to hear when we may receive last years payment as it may make a small dent in our .5million overdraft so we can feed the ungrateful hoards
However indeed there is none so blind as those who do not wish to see. Trans World Airways Too comes to mind.

Popdosh what a splendid person you are pointing out the above, herewith the latest.

2014 2015

South Dorset £7,805 £6,482.52
Belvoir £5,660 £5,031.86
Burton £1,593 £1,324.85
Cheshire £1,173 £ 984.84
East Devon £1,699 £1,403.67
East Essex £1,143 ?
East Kent £1,776 £1,498.76
Fernie £7,435 £8,691.63
Grafton £1,106 ?
Ledbury£5,024 £4,436.86
South and West Wilts £1,059 ?
Dartmoor £3,083 £1,894.67
Melton £12,523 £11,457.36
Puckeridge £1,215 ?
Quorn £4,764 £10,713.11
Braes of Derwent £1,120 ?
Eggesford £1,692 £1,426.46
Cotswold £11,761 £10,713.11
Warwickshire £1,232 £1,033.69
West Norfolk £2,530 £1,113.75
Woodland and Pytchley £1,052 ?
Suffolk ? £1,172.43

TOTAL £68,012.00 £60,562.86

 

[popsdosh]

Popdosh what a splendid person you are pointing out the above, herewith the latest.

2014 2015

South Dorset £7,805 £6,482.52
Belvoir £5,660 £5,031.86
Burton £1,593 £1,324.85
Cheshire £1,173 £ 984.84
East Devon £1,699 £1,403.67
East Essex £1,143 ?
East Kent £1,776 £1,498.76
Fernie £7,435 £8,691.63
Grafton £1,106 ?
Ledbury£5,024 £4,436.86
South and West Wilts £1,059 ?
Dartmoor £3,083 £1,894.67
Melton £12,523 £11,457.36
Puckeridge £1,215 ?
Quorn £4,764 £10,713.11
Braes of Derwent £1,120 ?
Eggesford £1,692 £1,426.46
Cotswold £11,761 £10,713.11
Warwickshire £1,232 £1,033.69
West Norfolk £2,530 £1,113.75
Woodland and Pytchley £1,052 ?
Suffolk ? £1,172.43

TOTAL £68,012.00 £60,562.86

For the balance to be fair why is the melton in there as its 20% of the Total that is not a hunt!

I really dont see what you are trying to prove in the overall scheme of things that is a minute percentage of the total budget most commercial farms are receiving well in excess of the total as an individual. We receive more than 3x that total and funnily enough our landlord receives none of it. We pay a commercial rent for the land we farm and the entitlements to payments belong to us and if we so wished we could sell them at any time leaving the land without them. This the major flaw in your argument in the huge majority of cases the entitlement to claim belongs to the person farming the land.

I think you have a totally distorted and perverse view of how the system works. I dont mind how you wish to pay for your food at the real cost of production but either we need to be in an open market or one where farming is subsidised but I for one will not be producing food without one or the other im not a registered charity. Perhaps you need to remember that every time you go to the supermarket you are no better than the poor people who have to rely on food banks as you are receiving government handouts in the form of cheap food,does it not hurt your pride!! funnily enough the Toffs receive that benefit as well! as you. Oh and us farmers so we get two lots of benefits! Get real.

 

[ester]

I don't understand why this is news? Surely anyone with land claims SFP etc? Why would hunts not??

 

[popsdosh]

I don't understand why this is news? Surely anyone with land claims SFP etc? Why would hunts not??

Exactly!! and I havent seen JMs prediction come to fruition yet as it will make no impact on the outcome

 

[Judgemental]

For the balance to be fair why is the melton in there as its 20% of the Total that is not a hunt!

I really dont see what you are trying to prove in the overall scheme of things that is a minute percentage of the total budget most commercial farms are receiving well in excess of the total as an individual. We receive more than 3x that total and funnily enough our landlord receives none of it. We pay a commercial rent for the land we farm and the entitlements to payments belong to us and if we so wished we could sell them at any time leaving the land without them. This the major flaw in your argument in the huge majority of cases the entitlement to claim belongs to the person farming the land.

I think you have a totally distorted and perverse view of how the system works. I dont mind how you wish to pay for your food at the real cost of production but either we need to be in an open market or one where farming is subsidised but I for one will not be producing food without one or the other im not a registered charity. Perhaps you need to remember that every time you go to the supermarket you are no better than the poor people who have to rely on food banks as you are receiving government handouts in the form of cheap food,does it not hurt your pride!! funnily enough the Toffs receive that benefit as well! as you. Oh and us farmers so we get two lots of benefits! Get real.

Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority) be propped up by the tax payer.

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling €594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system

 

[popsdosh]

Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority) be propped up by the tax payer.

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling €594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system

You obviously have no idea what the Melton hunt club is then its certainly not a hunt!

I think you meant you are subsidised on this scale!!!
I suppose to the other point it depends if you want to have food on the table or not . Its a bit more critical than some other industries. As I said before I know farming families that are on income support as well getting subsidies so their children dont get privately educated .

Funnily enough the majority of the general public understand what you clearly cannot get your head around so I think a backlash is highly unlikely.

 

[Maesfen]

You picked the right user name, Judgemental.

 

[Judgemental]

You obviously have no idea what the Melton hunt club is then its certainly not a hunt!

Well hold hard there. If the Melton Hunt Club is not a hunt, what and were is all this land that appears to be eligible and qualifies for the SFP or Benefit?

The website http://www.melton-hunt-club.org.uk/ seems fairly closely orientated to hunting.

Do please explain and I think you had better be clear about the land involved.

 

[ester]

I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?

 

[Judgemental]

I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?

The Benefits, they are not subsidies.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

The Benefits, they are not subsidies.

Well, take a look further at charitable organisations and other non farming land owners.

One owning land adjacent to my yard only last year obtained in excess of 70k, only a very small part of the land claimed for is grazing land, the rest is heathland and woodland. None of tge money obtained has been used for upkeep, they also get various grants too, totalling far more than the CAP figure......

 

[Alec Swan]

…….

Who actually owns the land?

…….. .

Presumably the person(s) who fill in the SFP scheme applications. Your previous claims that various Packs are making the claims for themselves seems curious, unless those Packs are actively involved in farming.

Are the areas of land under your inspection owned and farmed by individual Packs, or by those who are members?

Alec.

 

[ester]

The Benefits, they are not subsidies.

my question still stands whatever the terminology.

 

[Alec Swan]

I am confused whether your issue is with the concept of land subsidies in general or who the land is owned by?

The Benefits, they are not subsidies.

And it seems that your question remains unanswered.

Alec.

 

[ester]

And it seems that your question remains unanswered.

Alec.

Yet I love a correction with some thoroughly dodgy grammar included

 

[Goldenstar]

Actually it is listed as The Melton Hunt Club

What you fail to realise or perhaps you do, agriculture is the only business that is subsidied on this scale. The majority of businesses in the UK have to stand on their own two feet. Why should hunts (which at the best of times are an anathema to the majority) be propped up by the tax payer.

All this land hunts have, probably includes the Grass Yard! But what would some clerk in the Rural Payments Agency know about such detail.

George Eustace the DEFRA Minister said, EU benefits (I call them handouts) represented 55% of all farmers incomes give or take.

Frankly if one can't farm without that sort of subsidisation, then get out of the game or spend less time, hunting, shooting, racing, driving expensive 4 x 4s, living in properties that are too big and inefficiently heated, educating children at private non-state schools.
Sell off land for building to help young people on the property ladder. Go for dog and stick farming if it one's professional calling.

Oh yes, another point. Tate and Lyle collected EU subsidies totalling €594,270,084.00 between 2001 and 2013, no wonder we have too much sugar in diets, causing heart disease, dental decay, obesity and diabetes so that the government has had to implement a sugar tax, there is something staggeringly wrong with the whole system

I don't think anyone who lives in the countryside or vaguely near it could not know that agriculture is heavily supported .
In fact you would have to lived in a sealed cellar for the last fifty years not to know but I still don't understand what it's got to do with hunting .

 

[Judgemental]

I don't think anyone who lives in the countryside or vaguely near it could not know that agriculture is heavily supported .
In fact you would have to lived in a sealed cellar for the last fifty years not to know but I still don't understand what it's got to do with hunting .

You are making my point for me most succinctly.

The issue is that the majority of folk, i.e. urban dwellers have very little or no idea at all about the benefits and handouts to wealthy landowners and farmers for doing nothing, in most cases having inherited the land.

The whole population has the right to know and understand the issue, in order to make up their minds as to whether or not we remain in the EU.

Of course if we vote OUT it will be the most effective way of getting rid of Cameron.

As for Osborne's fatuous view house prices will fall. From what I have heard and read many will be delighted, because there are millions who cannot afford a house at current prices.

Those two players are merely inexperienced Public School boys, (Eton) who have never known where the next meal is coming from, with no experience of running a business, failing to do a job that either a mature man or woman, should be in the post of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

[Overread]

It's my understanding that CAP payments are not just "for doing thing" indeed there are strict protocols and terms and conditions in order to be eligible for such payments are made. In fact the paperwork side has even destroyed some schemes nearly - the new system that replaces the higher and lower level stewardship scheme payment has had a bad reception because of the complex application process. Thus farmers were either accepting a loss or turning land back into agricultural production (assuming HLS/ELS schemes were finished from the previous term).


Certainly there are ways to trick the system and many report that there isn't sufficient monitoring to ensure that farmers are doing what they say they are and that they are doing the correct form of management for their land. Of course if you are caught breaking the conditions you get fined and lose out on the further payments from that scheme - so there are penalties even if there isn't the support structure to ensure everyone is playing ball.



Personally I feel that, at least in so far as conservation payment schemes are concerned, there is every right to have them. Land owners (be they new purchases or inheritors) require land to make income for them; very few people can afford to let land go fallow. As such paying farmers and land owners (inc hunts ) to take land out of production and into habitat is a valuable element; at least if you want the countryside to retain viable populations of wildlife (barring rats).


Other payment and grant schemes are questionable as to their overall viability. I know many in conservation who are opposed to hillfarmers getting grants for sheep farming. Not because they dislike sheep farmers; but because sheep farming is highly destructive to habitats and the widespread use of the highlands means that vast swaths of forest are lost*. When matched against the fact that there is basically no money in sheepfarming without subsidies one has to wonder if its sensible in the long run.
Personally I'd rather see the money spent to have those same farmers abandon the sheep and focus on rewilding and other uses of the land that are not purely driven by the desire to produce**.



*a point raised in the floods late last year in that the lack of a forest canopy results a faster surface flow and thus rivers get more rainwater entering them all at once resulting in more flooding.

**post WWII we have a series of generations of farmer who were encouraged and pushed and driven to produce more and more produce. To both ensure the country was less reliant upon imports and also to help produce export to pay off war debts.

 

[ycbm]

It's my understanding that CAP payments are not just "for doing nothing"

Overread I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She gives the use of it to a local farmer who grazes his sheep in return for making the hay she feeds her horses, and she banks the CAP single payment herself. It's an astonishing amount of money for owning less than a hundred acres.

I have a neighbour who owns 150 acres of high ground, puts a few sheep up there for a few weeks a year but in substance really only farms his more productive lowland land, and is paid many thousands for the sheep farming of the higher land. Pretty much as close to money for nothing as you can get.

 

[Overread]

Overead I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She rents it to a local farmer who grazed his sheep, and she banks the CAP single payment herself.

Aye as I said there are ways to take advantage of the system and I only lightly know the conservation side of CAPs not the whole selection of payments on offer.
On the surface this sounds like an easy winner; however on the flipside I suspect there could be more to it than she has made you possibly aware? There might be some conditions of use which might even just be to graze sheep as opposed to using it for other profitable enterprise that could result in a higher turnover per year in financial terms.

There could also be conditions that the farmer is required to perform in his rental of the land in the way the sheep are managed; however the nature of who gets the payment might be debatable for certain.

 

[Alec Swan]

J_M, I'm struggling with the point that you're trying to make. Are you claiming, as it seems, that there are packs of hounds which are also 'Active' Farmers? To claim SFP it's vital that the claimant be 'ACTIVELY' farming.

If by a spurious route, you're pointing out that there are those who farm and are in receipt of SFP, AND they also Hunt, then you might just as well claim that anyone who farms and is a claimant and who has an interest out side of agriculture, is also having that interest or hobby supported.

£11,761 of benefit from SFP appears the figure which you tell us that the Cotswold are receiving in benefits. Are the Cotswold as a pack, actively farming? It also seems that you're unclear as to who actually owns the land which has the entitlements attached to it.

Currently old chap, your argument seems to be more of a rambling and one with nothing to support it.

Alec.

 

[ycbm]

Aye as I said there are ways to take advantage of the system and I only lightly know the conservation side of CAPs not the whole selection of payments on offer.
On the surface this sounds like an easy winner; however on the flipside I suspect there could be more to it than she has made you possibly aware? There might be some conditions of use which might even just be to graze sheep as opposed to using it for other profitable enterprise that could result in a higher turnover per year in financial terms.

There could also be conditions that the farmer is required to perform in his rental of the land in the way the sheep are managed; however the nature of who gets the payment might be debatable for certain.

Trust me, I know her life I great detail. This is money for absolutely nothing. True, she cannot cut the hay until the ground nesting birds are done, for example, but she doesn't cut until September anyway.

 

[Alec Swan]

Overread I have a friend who certainly gets paid £15,000 a year for doing nothing but own land. She gives the use of it to a local farmer who grazes his sheep in return for making the hay she feeds her horses, and she banks the CAP single payment herself. It's an astonishing amount of money for owning less than a hundred acres.

…….. .

The current rate for bare land is about £80 per acre, so to achieve £15k from less than 100 acres would have one think that it's in another scheme, HLS for instance, but as an HLS site cropping by haymaking would be outside the permitted usage. I'm wondering if your figures may have been massaged!

Alec.

 

[Overread]

Trust me, I know her life I great detail. This is money for absolutely nothing. True, she cannot cut the hay until the ground nesting birds are done, for example, but she doesn't cut until September anyway.

I can agree with you that sheep are not the most ideal of grazing from a conservation angle.
The problem is if you want people to not use land or to manage it for wildlife they basically have to invest in the land or take a loss from the land's potential income. So paying them enough becomes the concept - of course some land owners who own larger areas can thus turn this to advantage and have the land earn for "doing nothing" but that in itself is the concept of the conservation payments.

It is essentially paying people to do nothing (or rather to manage it in a manner that is not production driven) because otherwise they will do something.

Whilst we can argue that the execution has problems I think the overall idea is sound - especially in a country like the UK where we have very little land that isn't owned by someone.



You can consider it a form of madness - farmers were once paid to tear up hedgerows and build bigger fields; now they are being paid to put in hedges and beetle banks. But in the end its about changing behaviour and money is often the most easy way to achieve that end goal.

I think also with farmers there's also a resentment to taking land out of production with some. They feel and were raised that it is their duty to improve (agriculturally) the land they own for production of food. So to make some turn away to have less production is not just a financial but also a psychological change.

 

[ycbm]

I can agree with you that sheep are not the most ideal of grazing from a conservation angle.
The problem is if you want people to not use land or to manage it for wildlife they basically have to invest in the land or take a loss from the land's potential income. So paying them enough becomes the concept - of course some land owners who own larger areas can thus turn this to advantage and have the land earn for "doing nothing" but that in itself is the concept of the conservation payments.

It is essentially paying people to do nothing (or rather to manage it in a manner that is not production driven) because otherwise they will do something.

Whilst we can argue that the execution has problems I think the overall idea is sound - especially in a country like the UK where we have very little land that isn't owned by someone.



You can consider it a form of madness - farmers were once paid to tear up hedgerows and build bigger fields; now they are being paid to put in hedges and beetle banks. But in the end its about changing behaviour and money is often the most easy way to achieve that end goal.

I think also with farmers there's also a resentment to taking land out of production with some. They feel and were raised that it is their duty to improve (agriculturally) the land they own for production of food. So to make some turn away to have less production is not just a financial but also a psychological change.

I don't have any problem with incentivising behaviour. I agree with paying for setaside, for example, it has revitalised the bird population.

I'm just talking about one specific person who I know for an absolute fact does nothing whatsoever different with her land than she would do without the payment. I suspect, though, that there are many more like he!







Alec, like you I can't actually work out what judgmental's point actually is?

 

[Overread]

I
I'm just talking about one specific person who I know for an absolute fact does nothing whatsoever different with her land than she would do without the payment. I suspect, though, that there are many more like he!

Aye, but the payments remain otherwise the whole system can slip. Getting paid to do what you were doing to do anyway without the payment is nice. But it also helps to guarantee that she can't change her mind. A few years of bad finances could make people re-evaluate their view on land management and push for more productivity - its only natural - by having a payment system in place it tries to avoid that.

 

[ycbm]

True

 

[Judgemental]

Alec, like you I can't actually work out what judgmental's point actually is?

I do find it remarkable that folk on this forum of all forums cannot see what is happening.

When today's Daily Telegraph, yes the Telegraph that Conservative of Conservative of newspapers, says that we are being treated no better than a Banana Republic and that the Prime Minister is lying - the very word used. Don't you people realise or comprehend the bigger picture, that the majority of the population are being lied to over EU and agricultural benefits to farmers, is one of the many examples.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...aceful-dishonesty-over-the-eu-is-turning-bri/

 

[ycbm]

I argue that myself on other threads Judgemental, but what on earth has it got to do with hunts? They can't claim unless they farm land. If they farm land, what's the problem?