Author Topic: Plans  (Read 618 times)

pleb

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3754
GET ORRRFFF MY LAAAND

shortwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Plans
« Reply #1 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.
Let your soul and spirit fly Into the mystic.

Van Morrison

richardh1905

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6019
Re: Plans
« Reply #2 on: 10:45:32, 13/12/20 »
A bit of common sense from the Government. Thanks for posting, pleb.
WildAboutWalking - Join me on my walks through the wilder parts of Britain

pdstsp

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
Re: Plans
« Reply #3 on: 12:10:54, 13/12/20 »
Yes, ta Pleb - looks like this one might get nipped in the bud.

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3533
Re: Plans
« Reply #4 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.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

shortwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Plans
« Reply #5 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?
Let your soul and spirit fly Into the mystic.

Van Morrison

barewirewalker

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3533
Re: Plans
« Reply #6 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.
BWW
Their Land is in Our Country.

shortwalker

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 210
Re: Plans
« Reply #7 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


Let your soul and spirit fly Into the mystic.

Van Morrison

Andies

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Plans
« Reply #8 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?