The dangers of walkers and dogs

I watched countryfile a few weeks ago, it was the last time I watched it. It featured a disabled woman in a wheelchair complaining that she couldn't use the footpath because it had stiles and kissing gates that her wheelchair couldn't get through, and the mud made it impossible for her to move - IMO that is accessability gone mad, and whilst she maintained she had the right to pass and repass, where is the line drawn.

PROWs never used to be a problem, there was just the sporadic Captain Cagoule with his OS map and vague aggression that caused any problems, for the most part people used the PROWs as they should do without causing anyone any grief. Before it was commonplace to sue the hell out of anyone for anything landowners were actually quite bendy - I remeber six or seven summers spent with our dinghy in the neighbour's weir with absolutely no problems.

This weekend as I was stood in the boys' paddock on the top of the hillside I looked down on the low fields. The network of small lanes leading to nowhere and clearly marked footpaths through fields is incredibly handy and well used by everyone in the village, myself included. OH doesn't mind spraying his full 42" strip through his fields because we can all see they are well used and much appriciated, by the most.

And then there are people with moto cross bikes hammering past the "no motorised vehicles" signs, terrorising the horse riders who are later seen cantering up the footpath, but I suppose you have to be grateful that they are at least on some form of PROW because apparently there are a whole gaggle of riders that seem to think any grass margin/stubble is fair game. There are the ever mounting number of Julia Bradburys yomping aimlessly across plough that they shouldn't be in but nevertheless why the hell would you want to walk through heavy plough anywhere. On those occasions when you do decide to point out that actually they might be lost you are more often than not presented with an OS/1880s map/GPS which is so far wrong you can't even imagine how it got there, and evidently these people have never read the small disclaimer on the bottom of an OS map which reads: "The representation on this map of any other road, track or path is no evidence of the existence of a right of way."

The rights of way small print is a throwback to the days when food production was a priority, and farmers could be more assertive about privacy. Nowadays, we all suffer from a sort of post-grain-mountain guilt that makes us uneasy about saying: "No, you can't walk here." Perhaps when food shortages become less than a little known secret and more of a national issue there may be a few more food producers who are willing to point out that actually, the primary source of this land is for food production and how unfunny would it be if you found traces of labrador poo in your loaf of Kingsmill?

Jools - I agree with Alec in that you probably feel that way because you don't know a great many farmers. On my parents farm there are 7.2 miles of "The Penine Way" through their farm, to have the luxury of being able to turn cows out without a PROW in the field would mean a great commute for everyone before and after milking.
 
I haven't read all of the posts in the thread, but have read quite a few of them and skimmed others.

I have to say I am shocked at the ignorance of some people.

A public right of way may be marked out but that does not necessarily mean they should always be used. The farm opposite my house has a huge network of footpaths through them, and I can look across the main one from my bedroom. It makes me so mad to see somebody clamber over the style and instantly let their dog off the lead, without realising there are cows with calves at foot round the corner of the field, and then fail to recall their dog as it runs riot through the herd.

First off, if you cannot control your dog when it is off the lead, don't let it off and train the damn thing to respond to you!

Second of all, have some common sense, if you cannot see a clear path between the two entry/exit points and you don't feel confident walking through the field, then don't do so.

It would save a lot of worry on the behalf of farmers and the public if people were to stop and think for a minute or two and make the safe decision.

A friend and I once went on a country walk round the field by my house. We'd done about 5 miles and came to the final field to cross where we could see the bull lying down by the exit. We could have walked through, and climbed the fence at the other side of the field. But instead of walking the 100m to the other side of the field, we backtracked the whole five miles. Somethings are just not worth risking, in particular that of a human life. Have people lost a sense of self preservation these days??
 
We recently had to replace a stile with a kissing gate "to improve access." Considering that there was a stile at either end of the footpath, I thought that was a bit strange. As it happens, one field is arable, so the large field gate is often left open, but right beside it is a stile.

Just remember that there is NO benefit for any farmer/landowner in having rights of way across their land, so many do tend to discourage their use, particularly when walkers or riders cause a nuisance or cause damage, or wander about not on the path.

But I would also say that many farmers, living and working in the countryside, do not appreciate how much people love to walk and ride in the open air and across fields and ancient tracks.

The key to everything is understanding both how the farmers are making a living from their land. Our local council used to run courses for the general public to give them advice on farming matters and use of the public rights of way and would lead some walks for beginners - but I expect they have been discontinued with the budget cuts.
 
Jools2345 said:
i dont think people are selfish and i dont think how many hrs farmers/farm workers put in has anything to do with where the cattle are or if i feel safe walking across a field.

livestock (including horses) that have access to PROW should be ones that have shown themselves to be steady and safe when people walk through with or without dogs.

i know of no farmers that HAVE to put cows with calves or bulls in fields with PROW, most are sensible and use alternative fields when cattle are thought to be more dangerous/spooky.

and if indeed they did, i think it reasonable to provide and alternative route or be polite when people seek an alternative route.

as for those saying an alternative route leaves them liable for accidents that happen when the route is used-so do the cattle when they have flattened someone the difference is YOU have to live with the death or serious injury on your conscience that happened just because you were making the point that the field is currently in your care and you can put what you want in it
Click to expand...

Theyre not 'making a point', writing that clearly illustrates the fact that you are coming at this with the viewpoint that farmers using cattle fields for cattle are just doing so to try to make life difficult for you!

Oddly, they are not! and their day doesn't actually revolve around your daily walk, they are using their own land to grow crops, to raise livestock, to feed people in the UK with good quality food which is well cared for and gets to be outside and eat grass.

Not being able to use any PROW fields for cows and calves or any bulls would make many farms have to give up livestock farming altogether (since they are only left with steers to turnout) or alternatively keep the cattle in 365 days a year.....

To me, neither are attractive options for this country. I like to see a countryside with animals in it that aren't solely dogs ******** on the crops.....
 
paddy555 said:
and precisely what test are you going to devise before horses and cattle pass their "human contact proficiency badge"??

Horses, many of which are handled daily from birth, can never be considered fully safe especially when spooked, cattle who have little handling even less so.

Many farmers have no choice but to use fields with ROWs, they often don't have sufficient alternative fields.
Click to expand...

being married into a farming family and raised in the countryside i have lived for 10yr on a beef and arable farm, one brother-in-law worked for many yrs with dairy cattle. 90% of the family i married into are either farmers or farm workers. all farmers know which of their livestock are calm and which are not, the difference is good farmers will cull these out as heifers as they are a pain in the neck for everyone, as they can set off the whole herd.

the farm i lived on ran 3 separate herds, one of which was a very docile herd and i would walk out there daily with the kids and the dogs with a bull, cows and calves out there, another was a a calm herd but i was never as happy walking through those so the kids never came out there, the third were a nightmare-spooky and reactive but this was a more transient herd so to be expected.

all of these herds were kept in by means of a single strand of electric wire as are the majority of the cattle i see, often there is a boundary fence and the cattle or kept off different bits by the wire-if you have a PROW just temporary fence it off or supply an alternative route whilst it is grazed.

there is a saying you NEVER own the land you are just a temporary guardian, the PROW are already there farmers just need to stop being so pig headed about its mine so i can
 
The answer, I've decided, is simple. Close down all Public Footpaths, and deny to those walkers the freedom which they are offered and (mostly) enjoy.

Why is it that there are those who have a "Right", and ignoring for a moment that they may be grateful for that freedom, they then decide upon their own agenda, which impinges on the equal "Rights" of the person who actually owns the land? Back to Par 1; If walkers can't be respectful of, and grateful for their freedom, then it should be removed. They'll whinge a bit, but who cares, they were doing that anyway.

Alec.
 
Alec, I fully understand why you would like things to be the way that you see them, but thankfully for most of us none-landowning commoners, they aren't. The law's on the side of the walkers and their safety, even that of the idiots. That is the answer, you just don't like it because it puts you out and costs you money. :D
 
Flame_ said:
Alec, I fully understand why you would like things to be the way that you see them, but thankfully for most of us none-landowning commoners, they aren't. The law's on the side of the walkers and their safety, even that of the idiots. That is the answer, you just don't like it because it puts you out and costs you money. :D
Click to expand...

What a close minded opinion to have.

Why should a hard working individual have to pay out for the stupidity of another.

The dangers of cows with youngsters and bulls is publicized enough each year, it should be clear that the sensible thing to do is STEER CLEAR. With most walking routes there are alternatives - use them.
 
RiderLizzie said:
Why should a hard working individual have to pay out for the stupidity of another.
.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is stupid to expect to be able to safely pass through a PROW. Whether a person is stupid or not is beside the point, the law grants them permission to do this (not the land owners to whom some think they should be grateful). It is not irresponsible or stupid to walk on a PROW, it is, however, irresponsible of a landowner to cause a PROW to be dangerous for users.
 
I do think that cattle that are dangerous should be culled, I used to work at a livery yard and they had a suckler herd and any cow that became a lunatic when she calved headed off for pies. The farmer himself had no wish to deal with them. I don't know how reasonable that would be on a real farm, he was a man who had made money in the city so could play farming. (He was a very nice person, mind!).

Having lived in Australia for years - no PROW - it would be an poorer country without them so hopefully both sides could use a bit of common sense? This debate is very polarised between farmers and people who think there should be no livestock out in fields. There must be some form of compromise that may even mean we need to think a little bit for ourselves? Those of you against animals in the countryside, do you have any suggstions other than 'ban them' or for fencing thousands of miles of footpaths? Ditto you livestock farmers.
 
RiderLizzie said:
What a close minded opinion to have.

Why should a hard working individual have to pay out for the stupidity of another.

The dangers of cows with youngsters and bulls is publicized enough each year, it should be clear that the sensible thing to do is STEER CLEAR. With most walking routes there are alternatives - use them.
Click to expand...

as others have said it would be easier to avoid the fields with livestock in if there was something at the PROW entrances to the field-most PROW dont have an alternative route in the areas i have walked in but as already suggested maybe the farmers could offer one when livestock are in a field that is a has a PROW through it.

give and take makes things work so much better
 
Flame_ said:
Alec, I fully understand why you would like things to be the way that you see them, but thankfully for most of us none-landowning commoners, they aren't. The law's on the side of the walkers and their safety, even that of the idiots. That is the answer, you just don't like it because it puts you out and costs you money. :D
Click to expand...

Actually, it isn't. I went to a HSE confrence earlier this year as part of my job and there were several political figures there highlighting some issues that will, I believe, come to the forefront in the not too distant future.

Firstly debated - The safety of the public during times when machinery is in the field. Not just harvest time, but during cultivations and spraying. Basically as part of most farmer's risk assessment they have opted to have a procedure of hi viz for workers/visitors on the ground whilst machinery is being operated, and those operating machinery are informed of people on the ground. This is not exclusive to the yards and farmstead but also to the wider farm, including fields. It undermines every farmer's health and safety risk assessment for there then to be members of the general public without having undertaken any risk assessment to be walking through a busy field with four or five big bits of machinery operating, without any hi viz, often during harvest time when it is (usually) dry and there is a large amount of dust kicking about just to further challenge visibility.

Secondly debated - The disease control measures available. It is not just good practice but these days more of a necessity for all boots to be dipped prior to entering someone's farm, you would never dream of arriving on someone's farm with dirty boots, it just facilitates the transfer of all kinds of bacteria and disease - you just have to look at F&M spreads. How is it that I (as part of my job and out of basic coutesy/common sense) have to spend time cleaning my boots to an acceptable level, when joe public can wander down a PROW through farm after farm with his dirt? How is that fair to the industry.

Lastly debated - The ever growing blame/claim culture and the cost of insuring a farm for PLI. People falling over their own feet can have a go at getting some compo, you daren't put a fence up with anything so much as a splinter risk on it because seemingly a percentage of the general public have stopped looking for their own health and safety risks in favour that if they do get hurt there is a claim for that.

there is a saying you NEVER own the land you are just a temporary guardian, the PROW are already there farmers just need to stop being so pig headed about its mine so i can
Click to expand...

What a lovely saying, completely incorrect as most farmers' title deeds will demonstrate, but don't let facts get in the way of a bitter rant.
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Theyre not 'making a point', writing that clearly illustrates the fact that you are coming at this with the viewpoint that farmers using cattle fields for cattle are just doing so to try to make life difficult for you!
Click to expand...

of course not i was referring to cattle that have a reputation (and some do) or at times they are known to be more reactive. cows with older calves are not generally a problem it is usually only when calves are v young that the cows are very protective (unless they are stressed).

i have a few friends with cattle on the sea wall and they fence of the footpath with single strand electric wire for a few weeks then move it away from the sea wall and indicate for users to walk round the fence line out into the field so the cattle can graze the footpath and up to the sea wall edge.

i just dont get why it is such a problem for the farmers who are expecting the walkers to be sensible and courteous to be the same in return. it can prevent such heartache for all concerned and maybe start to breakdown the 'its my land and i shall do what i like with it' and the 'i have a right of way' barriers and make life easier for everyone
 
Flame_ said:
I don't think it is stupid to expect to be able to safely pass through a PROW. Whether a person is stupid or not is beside the point, the law grants them permission to do this (not the land owners to whom some think they should be grateful). It is not irresponsible or stupid to walk on a PROW, it is, however, irresponsible of a landowner to cause a PROW to be dangerous for users.
Click to expand...

I may be wrong, but from what our farmer has said, the landowner has the option to no longer allow a PROW to go through their land. By them allowing them to stay open, yes it does say to people "Use the walk ways", but there must be some sort of respect shown to them.

Some people seem to lack the judgement of situations which may be unsafe. It could be down to a lack of education about agriculture and livestock in which case a national campaign about the do's and don't may be beneficial to everyone. But with some people it is sheer bloody-mindedness and ignorance to an animal's natural response when feeling threatened. I also don't think stupidity is beside the point at all, the inability to maintain a sense of personal preservation is dangerous in any situation.

Jools2345 said:
as others have said it would be easier to avoid the fields with livestock in if there was something at the PROW entrances to the field-most PROW dont have an alternative route in the areas i have walked in but as already suggested maybe the farmers could offer one when livestock are in a field that is a has a PROW through it.

give and take makes things work so much better
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what you mean by "something at the PROW entrances...". Do you mean a blockage caused by livestock, or signs warning people of the dangers?

It is very much a give and take situation, but from experiences of the farms by me, the public seems to be the ones doing all of the taking and rarely adhere to the requests made by the farmer. The requests are nothing unreasonable; leave gates as you find them (ie. shut), keep dogs on leads in fields with livestock, clear up your dog mess and avoid routes if a sign indicates so.

When foot and mouth was about, all the routes round here were closed, and the drive down to the farm and the end of our road had wheel and foot washes. There was one woman who continued to walk her dog in the fields, despite the signs, warnings, the farmer and us residents asking and then telling her not to. It took the involvement of the police to stop her!!
When they were reopened, the farmer remarked all of the paths out, trimmed hedges and revamped a lot of the entrances. For what?? He was shocked nobody said thank you when he announced the reopening of his fields and then had to go round a close a load of gates when some fool let the cows into another field!
Now I know this is just one farm and one example, but it is incidents like this where I think people need to understand the problems which farmers encounter, and why they tend to hold certain opinions about people coming on their land.

Following 'providing an alternative' and somebody suggested earlier fencing off a path for people to follow, who will fund this? The people who want to walk the path or the farmer. I personally think that if somebody is not willing to contribute (not even financially) to an area that they use, then they should not be using it at all.
 
It would be a sad day if we lost PROWs in this country. It would do nothing for anyone - either users of these paths, or farmers who would lose a massive amount of public goodwill. When farmers want us all to buy local and buy British then it would seem daft to alienate people with the sorts of opinions some have expressed on here - I'd be boycotting a few farm shops if I thought their owners despised me as much as some on here seem to. And then nobody wins, do they?

I for one would hate to be confined to the suburbanised, sterile, neatly pathed 'country parks' that give no sense of connection to the real life of the country.

ETA RiderLizzie I'd like to thank the farmers who keep their paths well around here because it is noticed - it's so unBritish though isn't it? I'd be too embarrassed to do it in person! So local farmers to me - thanks for the lovely paths :) We do appreciate them!
 
RiderLizzie said:
I may be wrong, but from what our farmer has said, the landowner has the option to no longer allow a PROW to go through their land. By them allowing them to stay open, yes it does say to people "Use the walk ways", but there must be some sort of respect shown to them.

if that was the case they would all have closed yrs ago, a land owner cannot close a public right of way, it is the law that dictates its existence, to have one re-routed permanently requires the land owner to jump through many hoops


I don't quite understand what you mean by "something at the PROW entrances...". Do you mean a blockage caused by livestock, or signs warning people of the dangers?

i meant something to say livestock are in the field

It is very much a give and take situation, but from experiences of the farms by me, the public seems to be the ones doing all of the taking and rarely adhere to the requests made by the farmer. The requests are nothing unreasonable; leave gates as you find them (ie. shut), keep dogs on leads in fields with livestock, clear up your dog mess and avoid routes if a sign indicates so.

When foot and mouth was about, all the routes round here were closed, and the drive down to the farm and the end of our road had wheel and foot washes. There was one woman who continued to walk her dog in the fields, despite the signs, warnings, the farmer and us residents asking and then telling her not to. It took the involvement of the police to stop her!!
When they were reopened, the farmer remarked all of the paths out, trimmed hedges and revamped a lot of the entrances. For what?? He was shocked nobody said thank you when he announced the reopening of his fields and then had to go round a close a load of gates when some fool let the cows into another field!

it would have been nice if people said thank you and i for onewould but i suppose many people see it as part of his job which by law as the owner o land with a PROW he is required to keep routes accesible

Now I know this is just one farm and one example, but it is incidents like this where I think people need to understand the problems which farmers encounter, and why they tend to hold certain opinions about people coming on their land.

Following 'providing an alternative' and somebody suggested earlier fencing off a path for people to follow, who will fund this? The people who want to walk the path or the farmer. I personally think that if somebody is not willing to contribute (not even financially) to an area that they use, then they should not be using it at all.
Click to expand...

pig tail stakes and electric wire are normally found on every farm so cost would notbe an issue
 
Jools2345 said:
pig tail stakes and electric wire are normally found on every farm so cost would notbe an issue
Click to expand...

Um no they aren't!! I don't know any cattle farmers who use that, they use permanent fencing. and to keep cattle in away from dogs you would need mains electric connection power not a leisure battery and energiser (both of which which would be nicked from beside footpaths anyway). You are talking 000s!
 
Jools2345 said:
pig tail stakes and electric wire are normally found on every farm so cost would notbe an issue
Click to expand...

I have never seen anyone successfully fencing cattle with electric fencing and stakes, it just does not work, cattle have a LOT higher pain threshold than horses and have no respect for such fencing.

I may be wrong, but from what our farmer has said, the landowner has the option to no longer allow a PROW to go through their land. By them allowing them to stay open, yes it does say to people "Use the walk ways", but there must be some sort of respect shown to them.

if that was the case they would all have closed yrs ago, a land owner cannot close a public right of way, it is the law that dictates its existence, to have one re-routed permanently requires the land owner to jump through many hoops
Click to expand...

Permissive PROWs and alterations can be ended/amended by the landowner. We have four premissive PROWs and 6 alterations, they make everyone's life easier and we would hate to close them.
The first permissive access was opened because people kept straying through a gap in the wall to walk along the bankings and admire the view. It is the most amazing view in the world, but it was incredibly annoying that people were pushing the wall down to get to it, so we added a permissive PROW that links up with the definitive PROW further up the track, and this view is too good not to share :D
2640_149077955437_2887306_n.jpg

Regardless of WHO dictates the access rights in this country, I don't think it is too much to ask to be grateful you are allowed access over other people's land, business, livelihood. The vast majority are, but the people who believe they have a divine right and don't have to be thankful to us just annoy me.
 
We have had stock mauled. We constantly see people in our field, using the footpath or rather using the field at liberty :confused: It's a footPATH not a free for all parcel of land!
 
lachlanandmarcus said:
Um no they aren't!! I don't know any cattle farmers who use that, they use permanent fencing. and to keep cattle in away from dogs you would need mains electric connection power not a leisure battery and energiser (both of which which would be nicked from beside footpaths anyway). You are talking 000s!
Click to expand...


then the cattle i have been involved with over the years have been very very unusual as that have mostly had permanent boundary fencing and then been strip grazed using a single strand of electric wire
 
ok just to clear some stuff up the following is from www.gov.uk website.

Public rights of way

Public rights of way are open to everyone. They can be roads, paths or tracks, and can run through towns, countryside or private property.

You have the right to walk along them. Some rights of way are also open to horse riders, cyclists or motorists:

footpaths - let you go by foot only
bridleways - let you go by foot, horse or bike
restricted byways - let you travel by any form of transport that doesn’t have a motor
byways open to all traffic - let you travel by any form of transport, including cars (though they’re mainly used by walkers and horse riders)

Rights of way in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

You can find rights of way:

on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps
in guide books
on local council websites
while walking – rights of way are often marked with coloured arrows

Problems in using a right of way

The people who own or maintain the land must keep public rights of way open and useable.

If you have a problem using a right of way - eg an obstruction, poor maintenance or a misleading sign – you should report it to:

the National Park Authority if it’s in a national park
the local highway authority – you can contact them through your local council
the Forestry Commission in woodland

Changing a public right of way

Local councils can:

make new routes - where they think there’s a need
get rid of a route - if it can be shown that there’s no longer a need for it, or to prevent crime (eg if it is allowing robbery or drug dealing to take place)
change the route temporarily or permanently - but only if the new route is just as convenient

Apply to your council if you think a public right of way should be changed or removed.

If you don’t agree with a decision, you can appeal to the Secretary of State.

Part 4: Landowner rights and responsibilities

If your land has a public right of way (PROW) on it, you must:

provide and maintain stiles and gates
cut back overhanging vegetation that may obstruct the PROW
ensure that field-edge paths are left free from cultivation for the legal minimum width of 1.5 metres for a public footpath and 3 metres for a public bridleway

You can disturb the surface of a footpath or bridleway across a field in order to plough the land. However, if you do this you must:

make good the surface of the path - within 14 days if you’re sowing a crop, or within 24 hours in all other circumstances
return the surface to at least the minimum width - a cross-field footpath must be at least 1 metre wide, a bridleway must be at least 2 metres wide
use signs to show the route

Obstructions

Obstructing a PROW is a criminal offence. Local councils can tell you to remove an obstruction. If you don’t do it, they can remove the obstruction and charge you for the work.
Pesticides

You should only use pesticides approved for use on PROWs, and follow the product instructions carefully.
Animals

No dairy bull over 10 months of age may be allowed to roam freely in a field crossed by a PROW.

Bulls of all other breeds must be accompanied by cows or heifers when in fields which have public access.

Horses may be kept loose in fields crossed by PROWs, as long as they are not known to be dangerous.

You can be prosecuted if you keep a potentially dangerous animal on land crossed by a PROW.
 
Jools2345 said:
ok just to clear some stuff up the following is from www.gov.uk website.

Public rights of way

Public rights of way are open to everyone. They can be roads, paths or tracks, and can run through towns, countryside or private property.

You have the right to walk along them. Some rights of way are also open to horse riders, cyclists or motorists:

footpaths - let you go by foot only
bridleways - let you go by foot, horse or bike
restricted byways - let you travel by any form of transport that doesn’t have a motor
byways open to all traffic - let you travel by any form of transport, including cars (though they’re mainly used by walkers and horse riders)

Rights of way in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

You can find rights of way:

on Ordnance Survey (OS) maps
in guide books
on local council websites
while walking – rights of way are often marked with coloured arrows

Problems in using a right of way

The people who own or maintain the land must keep public rights of way open and useable.

If you have a problem using a right of way - eg an obstruction, poor maintenance or a misleading sign – you should report it to:

the National Park Authority if it’s in a national park
the local highway authority – you can contact them through your local council
the Forestry Commission in woodland

Changing a public right of way

Local councils can:

make new routes - where they think there’s a need
get rid of a route - if it can be shown that there’s no longer a need for it, or to prevent crime (eg if it is allowing robbery or drug dealing to take place)
change the route temporarily or permanently - but only if the new route is just as convenient

Apply to your council if you think a public right of way should be changed or removed.

If you don’t agree with a decision, you can appeal to the Secretary of State.

Part 4: Landowner rights and responsibilities

If your land has a public right of way (PROW) on it, you must:

provide and maintain stiles and gates
cut back overhanging vegetation that may obstruct the PROW
ensure that field-edge paths are left free from cultivation for the legal minimum width of 1.5 metres for a public footpath and 3 metres for a public bridleway

You can disturb the surface of a footpath or bridleway across a field in order to plough the land. However, if you do this you must:

make good the surface of the path - within 14 days if you’re sowing a crop, or within 24 hours in all other circumstances
return the surface to at least the minimum width - a cross-field footpath must be at least 1 metre wide, a bridleway must be at least 2 metres wide
use signs to show the route

Obstructions

Obstructing a PROW is a criminal offence. Local councils can tell you to remove an obstruction. If you don’t do it, they can remove the obstruction and charge you for the work.
Pesticides

You should only use pesticides approved for use on PROWs, and follow the product instructions carefully.
Animals

No dairy bull over 10 months of age may be allowed to roam freely in a field crossed by a PROW.

Bulls of all other breeds must be accompanied by cows or heifers when in fields which have public access.

Horses may be kept loose in fields crossed by PROWs, as long as they are not known to be dangerous.

You can be prosecuted if you keep a potentially dangerous animal on land crossed by a PROW.
Click to expand...

Quite, which is why the exclusions that are not permitted to be kept are specified, and those not specified are NOT regarded as inherently dangerous and are perfectly legally kept in PROW fields.

Not dangerous provided one isn't arrogant enough and daft enough to take a dog through between cows and calves etc.....but that is an avoidable risk. You will notice that taking a dog with you is not positively specified as a right, it is something that those with a right make a decision to take with them and they need to exercise common sense about where and how they do this :-)
 
Jools2345 said:
.......

You can be prosecuted if you keep a potentially dangerous animal on land crossed by a PROW.
Click to expand...

Every single living animal which could be classed as farm livestock, has the potential to be dangerous. Every single one. Would you care to be a little more specific, from your quotations, or would you prefer that no grassland is grazed?

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
Every single living animal which could be classed as farm livestock, has the potential to be dangerous. Every single one. Would you care to be a little more specific, from your quotations, or would you prefer that no grassland is grazed?

Alec.
Click to expand...


it would not be a quote if i did that it would be a quote with my owns views added to it

the whole thing I posted is a direct quote-you have outlined one of my points really it is all down to interpretation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top