Walking Forum

Main Boards => News and Articles => Topic started by: pleb on 23:05:39, 12/12/20

Title: Plans
Post by: pleb on 23:05:39, 12/12/20
https://www.ramblers.org.uk/news/latest-news/2020/october/proposals-to-divert-paths.aspx
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: shortwalker on 08:17:50, 13/12/20
If the government does adopt this stance it does seem the best way forward.


Certainly leaving it to individual farmers is a recipe for disaster.


Farmer A diverts a route that moves walkers away from his cattle, Farmer B does the same and you end up with a footpath that doesn't go anywhere.
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: richardh1905 on 10:45:32, 13/12/20
A bit of common sense from the Government. Thanks for posting, pleb.
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: pdstsp on 12:10:54, 13/12/20
Yes, ta Pleb - looks like this one might get nipped in the bud.
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: barewirewalker on 12:40:05, 13/12/20
I think I drew attention to this following an article in the British Farmer last March.
Quote
Learning from pilot schemes for farmers to provide permissive paths as an alternative – with the legal right of way still available – when livestock are being grazed on the land.
An obvious strategy that should have been a voluntary safety measure at least 20 years ago. But it should be linked to an understanding that the Access Network is an important social and economic structure/national asset, not to be tampered with by a socially biased minority with an agenda to restrict access. Since the 2000 CRoW Act the CLA has pursued a policy that additional access should be paid for and when the public funding for permissive ways ceased, it has resulted in an anti-access attitude, which they have made no attempt to redress.
Certainly leaving it to individual farmers is a recipe for disaster.
Do not make a mistake of identity.
If you add to this the publicity given to safeguarding against rights of way by Sarah Slade for the CLA, the government are having to pick up the pieces of a mess that CLA and NFU have created for themselves. Primarily because the CLA realized they needed a grass routes membership and the NFU did not develop a separate strategy on access for fear of losing membership subscriptions.

Temporary detours should not be the subject of RoW laws, but obvious H&S strategies, more alternative routes to aid livestock management that improve the countryside access should be a natural 'Quid Pro Quo' and seen as development of the access network, which benefits the farmer in public relations development and good product advertising, which producers in any other field pay dearly for.
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: shortwalker on 12:55:18, 13/12/20
.Do not make a mistake of identity.
If you add to this the publicity given to safeguarding against rights of way by Sarah Slade for the CLA, the government are having to pick up the pieces of a mess that CLA and NFU have created for themselves. Primarily because the CLA realized they needed a grass routes membership and the NFU did not develop a separate strategy on access for fear of losing membership subscriptions.



What on earth are you talking about?
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: barewirewalker on 13:05:29, 13/12/20
The farmer and the Landowner have different agendas, this should be obvious from the fact that they have totally separate Lobby Groups. The CLA founded in 1912 and the NFU founded in 1922.

Separate those identities and you will start to understand the motives that drive either one.
Title: Re: Plans
Post by: shortwalker on 13:22:29, 13/12/20
The farmer and the Landowner have different agendas, this should be obvious from the fact that they have totally separate Lobby Groups. (As do the ramblers and the open space society etc. Your point being?)  The CLA founded in 1912 and the NFU founded in 1922.

Separate those identities and you will start to understand the motives that drive either one.


But there are landowners who are farmers an farmers who are landowners. Not all farmers belong to the MFU nor do all landowners belong to the CLA.


Is there any chance you could respond to a post without mentioning the CLA or the NFU etc. We all


Title: Re: Plans
Post by: Andies on 14:31:53, 13/12/20
If the government does adopt this stance it does seem the best way forward.


Certainly leaving it to individual farmers is a recipe for disaster.


Farmer A diverts a route that moves walkers away from his cattle, Farmer B does the same and you end up with a footpath that doesn't go anywhere.
I thought you had seen the light there shortwalker, and I found us completely in agreement O0

But there are landowners who are farmers an farmers who are landowners. Not all farmers belong to the MFU nor do all landowners belong to the CLA.


Is there any chance you could respond to a post without mentioning the CLA or the NFU etc. We all
With all due respect the original post in this case was directly concerned with what the CLA and NFU had proposed, so I think in this case reference thereto by BWW is entirely reasonable?