Potential ban to wild camping on Dartmoor.

[Broch]

But, we answered your query on this ages ago

The ramblers wanted the deadline scrapped as it gives more time to register the paths.

The whole process is a bit of a farce really. Paths that are shown on 1864 maps between two farms are being submitted to be changed into public rights of way which are unlikely to get passed. The reason the deadline was scrapped is because of the shear number (tens of thousands if I remember correctly) of paths being submitted that have not been used for generations and that have only come to the notice of organisations like the RA because of the threat of the deadline

I have such a path passing through my woodland. It goes between two farms that probably shared labour or were even related hundreds of years ago. It hasn't been used in over a hundred years according to local knowledge and the two farmers don't even talk to each other. It never has been a public right of way and has no value in being turned into one so I doubt I'll have to fight very hard to get it refused (it hasn't been submitted BTW).

What the ramblers are now campaigning against is the change to the act that will give landowners the right to apply for diversions and the extinguishing of rights of way not used.

In reality, the act is only supposed to cover previous public rights of way that have been lost, abandoned, or forgotten, not 'paths' that were not used by the general public, so I suspect a lot that have been submitted will be refused if there is no evidence of historic public right of way.

 

[Laurence Milton]

MSN

 

[FerlasDave]

MSN

 

[Wildgoose]

One of the problems is that often, everyone thinks they are doing the right thing and having no impact.

Pooing in the woods? That’s natural right?

Feeding ponies polo mints? Done that for years

Burning farm waste? Best way to get rid of it

Leaving leftover food in a field? That’s feeding the birds right?

Not my views I might add, but views I’ve encountered many a time from those who “cause no harm” and genuinely mean not to

 

[nigelp]

Ban the release of all game birds in the UK…..

 

[Woody girl]

He has already put a release pen close to protected woodland which is one of only a few sites the rare blue beetle is found...pheasants eat this beetle. So he wants to protect his biodiversity eh?
Typical entitled rich londoner who thinks he knows better than the locals how to manage land properly. Hant got a clue...unless it lines his pocket!

 

[Broch]

Typical entitled rich londoner who thinks he knows better than the locals how to manage land properly. Hant got a clue...unless it lines his pocket!

You see, in an intelligent, fact based, discussion I see no reason for this kind of language.

I object to millions of non-indigenous species being released into the wild every year and damaging our natural ecosystem; no other industry would get away with it. But, if we are going to argue against it, let's at least have some solutions. Who is going to manage the land and at what price? What is going to happen to all those countryside jobs that the industry generates?

Around here it's not rich Londoners, it's farmers adding to their income, countryside estate owners, and the shooters vary in background from toffs to the common man.

 

[bobnewboy]

Stats from 2014 - so probbaly higher numbers in some areas, and lower in others:

Main findings In the UK today…​

• Shooters spend £2.5 billion each year on goods and services
• Shooting supports the equivalent of 74,000 full time jobs
• Shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy (GVA)
• Shooting is involved in the management of two-thirds of the rural land area
• There are 4 million (est) airgun owners – of which 1.6 m shoot live quarry
• 600,000 people in the UK shoot live quarry, clay pigeons or targets
• Shoot providers spend nearly £250 million a year on conservation
• Shooters spend 3.9 million work days on conservation – that’s the equivalent of 16,000 full-time jobs
• Two million hectares are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting

Full report at: The Economic and Environmental Impact of Sport Shooting

 

[Laurence Milton]

He has already put a release pen close to protected woodland which is one of only a few sites the rare blue beetle is found...pheasants eat this beetle. So he wants to protect his biodiversity eh?
Typical entitled rich londoner who thinks he knows better than the locals how to manage land properly. Hant got a clue...unless it lines his pocket!

At last, someone gets the reason for my posting: its not whether x million pheasants are an economic crop or whatever (I have managed farms/livestock for years) it's the hypocracy of an argument stopping an activity pertaining to damage an environment and then blatantly doing the same thing.

As an aside, interesting reading "The last Rainforests of Britain" by Guy Shrubsole

 

[Woody girl]

You see, in an intelligent, fact based, discussion I see no reason for this kind of language.

I object to millions of non-indigenous species being released into the wild every year and damaging our natural ecosystem; no other industry would get away with it. But, if we are going to argue against it, let's at least have some solutions. Who is going to manage the land and at what price? What is going to happen to all those countryside jobs that the industry generates?

Around here it's not rich Londoners, it's farmers adding to their income, countryside estate owners, and the shooters vary in background from toffs to the common man.

Did you read the first bit of what I said or just object to my disgust at the hypocracy?
Furthermore, I'd just like to remind you I live in an area of exmoor which has a lot of shoots locally.
I have a big problem with pheasants in garden destroying my crops, wearing bald patches in my grass, and generally making a horrible mess with their poop. I'm treading in it, every time I go out. Not nice! I can have four or more in the garden at any one time.
Also, they are yearly released near a main road, causing a hazard to me on my motorbike. I've had them fly up and hit my chest... even at a slow 15 mph, it can have you off, and it's a narrow bendy road, you have to drive slowly, for safety, and if you are doing that, while a car is travelling much faster, that presents you with a constant fear that you are going to be rear ended by a larger vehicle.
Nobody says a word, as money talks, and by the way, it's not the shoot staff that make the money. It's the already wealthy landowner, that leaves his estate in the hands of a manager while he spends the majority of the year elsewhere !
I live amongst the whole scene daily, so I do have a better knowledge about it than most that don't.

 

[Wander]

 

[Laurence Milton]

Did you read the first bit of what I said or just object to my disgust at the hypocracy?
Furthermore, I'd just like to remind you I live in an area of exmoor which has a lot of shoots locally.
I have a big problem with pheasants in garden destroying my crops, wearing bald patches in my grass, and generally making a horrible mess with their poop. I'm treading in it, every time I go out. Not nice! I can have four or more in the garden at any one time.
Also, they are yearly released near a main road, causing a hazard to me on my motorbike. I've had them fly up and hit my chest... even at a slow 15 mph, it can have you off, and it's a narrow bendy road, you have to drive slowly, for safety, and if you are doing that, while a car is travelling much faster, that presents you with a constant fear that you are going to be rear ended by a larger vehicle.
Nobody says a word, as money talks, and by the way, it's not the shoot staff that make the money. It's the already wealthy landowner, that leaves his estate in the hands of a manager while he spends the majority of the year elsewhere !
I live amongst the whole scene daily, so I do have a better knowledge about it than most that don't.

You are allowed to shoot them when on your property, On the motorbike they are a gamechanger.........but I'm going off topic, sorry......

 

[bearbait]

Some 57 million non-native game birds (mostly pheasant and red-legged partridge) are released in the UK each year. (https://www.theguardian.com/environ...over-unlawful-release-of-57m-game-birds-in-uk) "At their peak, these birds, mainly imported from France, Belgium, Spain and Poland, represent half of the UK’s total bird biomass."

That is an awful lot of focussed, and sudden, competition for natural resources against our 83 million pairs of native breeding birds in the UK. (https://www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/co...-conservation-science/state-of-the-uks-birds/)

I won't mention the likelihood of this mass release contributing to the spread of bird flu.

 

[British Red]

Ban the release of all game birds in the UK…..

So long as you don't mind enormous amounts of woodland being clear felled, ploughed and used to grow arable crops, sure. Why not?

 

[FerlasDave]

You see, in an intelligent, fact based, discussion I see no reason for this kind of language.

I object to millions of non-indigenous species being released into the wild every year and damaging our natural ecosystem; no other industry would get away with it.

Domestic cats being a huge culprit there!… Yet nobody seems to complain about those.

 

[bearbait]

So long as you don't mind enormous amounts of woodland being clear felled, ploughed and used to grow arable crops, sure. Why not?

Why would that be the automatic result of ceasing game shooting in the UK?

 

[slowworm]

Why would that be the automatic result of ceasing game shooting in the UK?

Because the woodland has very little value to the land owner other than game cover and as something to lift birds to be shot. It has far more value as a field that can be cropped. A ban on shooting will also result in far less field margins being planted with game cover that is excellent habitat and food for all sorts of wild life.

That's not a defence of shooting but more a comment that most people will not pay the extra for conservation.

 

[British Red]

Why would that be the automatic result of ceasing game shooting in the UK?

Because it costs money to own land - in rates, insurance and upkeep. If you remove the primary source of income landowners will seek the next available source of income. The current best returns on land are arable farming. So that's what they will do.

Presumably no-one expects landowners to maintain woodland at their own expense as a playground for others?

 

[Laurentius]

Stats from 2014 - so probbaly higher numbers in some areas, and lower in others:

Main findings In the UK today…​

• Shooters spend £2.5 billion each year on goods and services
• Shooting supports the equivalent of 74,000 full time jobs
• Shooting is worth £2 billion to the UK economy (GVA)
• Shooting is involved in the management of two-thirds of the rural land area
• There are 4 million (est) airgun owners – of which 1.6 m shoot live quarry
• 600,000 people in the UK shoot live quarry, clay pigeons or targets
• Shoot providers spend nearly £250 million a year on conservation
• Shooters spend 3.9 million work days on conservation – that’s the equivalent of 16,000 full-time jobs
• Two million hectares are actively managed for conservation as a result of shooting

Full report at: The Economic and Environmental Impact of Sport Shooting

Well whaling was a great support of the economy in its time but ultimately doomed when most of the whales were wiped out. There is a difference between wanting to keep the pigeons and the rabbits off your crops or stopping the deer from destroying your woodland and the maintenance of unnatural environments purely for sporting purposes and I include golf courses in that category

 

[Laurentius]

Presumably no-one expects landowners to maintain woodland at their own expense as a playground for others?

Isn't that exactly what they are doing with grouse moors?