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

[tootsietoo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

.....

 

[Judgemental]

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!!!!

....

 

[Judgemental]

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.

.....

 

[Judgemental]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

....

 

[Judgemental]

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.

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]

MMMmmmm..do we all appear so stupid?

 

[houndsplease]

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

 

[RunToEarth]

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

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]

....... 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.

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]

[/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]

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, little do you know that is like putting an old hound onto the scent of a ripe old travelling dog fox – 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 – SUBSIDIES.

It all started with the War Ag – for those of you who don’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 – won’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 – 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]

....

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.