Farmers blaming walkers (again)
N R Whitelegg
foot and mouth. Why don't these farmers' representatives and Tory MPs
lay off walkers, and remember that if paths had been closed all summer
(as they would doubtless dearly like) the tourist industry would just about
go belly-up.
It's clear to me that walkers have nothing to do with spreading foot and
mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have everything
to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months. Ditto
Snowdon.
Nick
Michael Saunby
"N R Whitelegg" <bss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:GIs1ow.K0...@bath.ac.uk...
> Just heard some bigot on the Radio 2 news blaming walkers (again) for
> foot and mouth.
Which I guess shows the person calling in was clueless as were those at the
BBC for allowing it through, they generally try to stop folks who are
talking complete rubbish - but it seems they don't always figure out what is
true and what isn't.
> Why don't these farmers' representatives and Tory MPs
> lay off walkers, and remember that if paths had been closed all summer
> (as they would doubtless dearly like) the tourist industry would just
about
> go belly-up.
Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland? So why is it so important
to the UK economy that these be kept open? In truth it isn't, you should
consider yourself fortunate to have such access, it isn't available in many
other countries. Why create a "them and us" situation between farmers and
walkers just because the govt miss-managed an outbreak of foot and mouth?
>
> It's clear to me that walkers have nothing to do with spreading foot and
> mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have
everything
> to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
> be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months.
Ditto
> Snowdon.
>
It's also clear from your post that some walkers have rightly earned the
"arrogant little shits" title that a few farmers might use. Very, very, sad
and I hope you are able to reflect on the terrible situation that many rural
residents and visitors have been faced with and find a more constructive way
to channel your energy.
Michael Saunby
Stuart
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:999004979.18518.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "N R Whitelegg" <bss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:GIs1ow.K0...@bath.ac.uk...
> > Just heard some bigot on the Radio 2 news blaming walkers (again) for
> > foot and mouth.
>
> Which I guess shows the person calling in was clueless as were those at
the
> BBC for allowing it through, they generally try to stop folks who are
> talking complete rubbish - but it seems they don't always figure out what
is
> true and what isn't.
>
> > Why don't these farmers' representatives and Tory MPs
> > lay off walkers, and remember that if paths had been closed all summer
> > (as they would doubtless dearly like) the tourist industry would just
> about
> > go belly-up.
>
> Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
> could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
> way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism
business
> is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
In the likes of the Scottish Highlands the proportion will be very high. and
the worth of this type of tourism to these areas is far far more important
than the few farms that only exist because of the hugh subsidies pumped into
them.
>So why is it so important
> to the UK economy that these be kept open? In truth it isn't,
How important is the livestock industry to our economy ? It most certainly
is not worth the money we have spent trying to save it. In fact in your
clear cut way of thinking it should have been wrote off.
>you should
> consider yourself fortunate to have such access, it isn't available in
many
> other countries.
May be we are a little bit more civillised. Personally I don't think we have
enough free access to OUR countryside
>Why create a "them and us" situation between farmers and
> walkers just because the govt miss-managed an outbreak of foot and mouth?
It really annoys me when I hear farmers complaining about government policy
regarding foot and mouth, the government has bent over backwards to support
farming, they have spent billions trying to save this industry, where as
they have done virtually nothing to help other sectors, which in many cases
have been far worse off than farmers. Take the resent disision to buy up the
light lambs, this is direct compensation for consequential loss, this would
be the same as the government buying up vacent hotel rooms, or buying unsold
goods off shop shelves. In all honesty I don't think that the farming
comunity could thank Mr Blair enough.
Dave Roberts
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
>is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
is that the countryside is closed. Just think back to what happened
earlier in the year.
>So why is it so important
>to the UK economy that these be kept open?
Because the tourism industry generates billions of pounds and provides
employment for large numbers of people. The farming industry on the
other hand generates just over 500 million, most of which is heavily
subsidised by public money and employs very few workers.
>In truth it isn't
How wrong and out of step you are...........
Regards
Dave
--
'There's no one left to vote for only fools to vote against.'
Roy Harper 2000
Michael Saunby
"Stuart" <stu...@stuart.stu> wrote in message
news:9mga7o$sq4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
>
> How important is the livestock industry to our economy ? It most certainly
> is not worth the money we have spent trying to save it. In fact in your
> clear cut way of thinking it should have been wrote off.
>
Perhaps live stock farming isn't important, but as far as large scale land
use is concerned, and in much of Scotland, Wales, and west of England, we're
talking very large scale with hundreds of square miles of land, can you
honestly think of a cheaper use for the land other than forestry with the
exception being zero management, which would mean scrub and all the strange
thing that might happen then with folks deciding to just set up home on it,
or set fire to it, or plough it up....
It's not as though the parts that don't already belong to the likes of the
Dutchy of Cornwall, or MOD, or whatever are particularly expensive to buy,
it's just that other than sheep ranchers no one has bothered. Every few
decades the market for whatever these lands produce collapses to nothing,
the cycle has repeated for centuries. To date no one has come up with a
long term sensible system. Even large scales "commons" have been tried, as
has smallholding/crofting, so you can't blame the situation just on wealthy
private or state ownership. If you've really got a good idea or two then
you should get ready to act, because any day now, the need to plan how these
lands will be used for the next few decades will occur.
I'm not so sure about tourism as it seems to be a capital poor industry that
often depends on exploiting low paid workers. Farms at present deliver a
return of a few tens of thousand of pounds on capital of perhaps close to a
million, the same is true for much traditional industry. Today however
folks expect to start a business with pocket money and live like a lord on
it - hardly sustainable even when you've got a dot com after your business
name.
For all its wealth generating capacity could the tourism industry afford to
manage the UK's highlands/moors/etc even if the land was gifted to them?And
would they have the prudence to set aside money for the lean years when
global recession keeps the wealthy Americans at home? Or would they just
walk away and leave someone else to clear up?
Michael Saunby
Michael Saunby
"Dave Roberts" <da...@studio-33.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XIN4vEBm...@smartproof.fsnet.co.uk...
>
> >So why is it so important
> >to the UK economy that these be kept open?
> Because the tourism industry generates billions of pounds and provides
> employment for large numbers of people.
Half of it in London, which hardly needs it. Of the remainder the port duty
frees, and Stratford seem to get a remarkable share.
The farming industry on the
> other hand generates just over 500 million, most of which is heavily
> subsidised by public money and employs very few workers.
>
And forms the backbone of the rural (i.e. not London) economy.
> >In truth it isn't
> How wrong and out of step you are...........
>
No, just a very long way from London.
Michael Saunby
Adrian Tupper
> mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have
everything
> to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
> be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months.
Ditto
> Snowdon.
Ditto the Scottish Highlands. I really can't think of anything new to say
on this subject except that clearly trolls exist in rural Britain and not
just on usenet :-(
--
Adrian
www.highscotland.co.uk
Simon
<msa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
>could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
>way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
>is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland? So why is it so important
>to the UK economy that these be kept open? In truth it isn't, you should
It is a proven fact that more Japanese tourists visit the Lake
Disctrict each year than visit London.
And yet, the 11 national parks get less government funding put
together than the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden !
So why don't we close down London and divert some of that tax payers
money to the National Parks that do a superb job in attracting tourism
and preserving nature.
Adrian Tupper
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:999004979.18518.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> news:GIs1ow.K0...@bath.ac.uk...
> > Just heard some bigot on the Radio 2 news blaming walkers (again) for
> > foot and mouth.
>
> Which I guess shows the person calling in was clueless as were those at
the
> BBC for allowing it through, they generally try to stop folks who are
> talking complete rubbish - but it seems they don't always figure out what
is
> true and what isn't.
>
Or are they just trying to get a well-exhausted debate going again in the
absence of anything else to talk about?
> > Why don't these farmers' representatives and Tory MPs
> > lay off walkers, and remember that if paths had been closed all summer
> > (as they would doubtless dearly like) the tourist industry would just
> about
> > go belly-up.
>
> Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
> could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
> way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism
business
> is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
In this newsgroup (urw) quite a lot and that is where the discussion
(partly) is taking place. But its not just the footpath network. We're
also talking about the "tourist" paths to places like Malham Cove and the
various lake and riverside walks which are the raison d'etre for many inns
and cafes.
> So why is it so important
> to the UK economy that these be kept open? In truth it isn't, you should
> consider yourself fortunate to have such access, it isn't available in
many
> other countries. Why create a "them and us" situation between farmers and
> walkers just because the govt miss-managed an outbreak of foot and mouth?
Nothing to do with the govt. Or are you suggesting that they should never
have closed the footpaths in which case I concur!
> It's also clear from your post that some walkers have rightly earned the
> "arrogant little shits" title that a few farmers might use. Very, very,
sad
> and I hope you are able to reflect on the terrible situation that many
rural
> residents and visitors have been faced with and find a more constructive
way
> to channel your energy.
There have been stand-offs between walkers and farmers long before
Foot+Mouth. I don't think all of this has made any difference other than
that the two sides have had an opportunity to express themselves publicly
about it. Such as in threads like this...
--
Adrian
Pat Gardiner
Easy Nick
It is certainly not walkers. Neither is it farmworkers. Most of the people
making allegations against others are working their own agenda.
Pat Gardiner
http://www.users.waitrose.com/~patgardiner/
Richard Webb
>>
>> It's clear to me that walkers have nothing to do with spreading foot and
>> mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have
>everything
>> to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
>> be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months.
>Ditto
>> Snowdon.
>>
>
>It's also clear from your post that some walkers have rightly earned the
>"arrogant little shits" title that a few farmers might use. Very, very, sad
>and I hope you are able to reflect on the terrible situation that many rural
>residents and visitors have been faced with and find a more constructive way
>to channel your energy.
>
>Michael Saunby
But we are still being measured up as the fall guys...
So all that restraint(remember staying off the hills in Scotland was
Voluntary!) in the spring was for nothing.
We stay off the hills, the lurgy keeps getting spread, and we still
end up in the frame.
The medieval ' keep all the goodies to ourselves' brigade have been
quick to kill two birds with one stone. Find a patsy, an enemy
without and blame someone else for the disaster that they have visited
upon us.
Richard Webb
http://www.sub3000.com
Richard Webb
>
>For all its wealth generating capacity could the tourism industry afford to
>manage the UK's highlands/moors/etc
They have been managed?
Is that not a typo for mangled?
Richard Webb
http://www.sub3000.com
Stuart
>
> "Stuart" <stu...@stuart.stu> wrote in message
> news:9mga7o$sq4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
>
> >
> > How important is the livestock industry to our economy ? It most
certainly
> > is not worth the money we have spent trying to save it. In fact in your
> > clear cut way of thinking it should have been wrote off.
> >
>
> Perhaps live stock farming isn't important, but as far as large scale land
> use is concerned, and in much of Scotland, Wales, and west of England,
we're
> talking very large scale with hundreds of square miles of land, can you
> honestly think of a cheaper use for the land other than forestry
I would like to see the continued support for our upland farmers. The point
I was making is the disproportionate help aid and protection that is being
given to agriculture, it appears to me that our government will save farming
whatever the cost where as tourism just doesn't matter.
> I'm not so sure about tourism as it seems to be a capital poor industry
that
> often depends on exploiting low paid workers. Farms at present deliver a
> return of a few tens of thousand of pounds on capital of perhaps close to
a
> million, the same is true for much traditional industry. Today however
> folks expect to start a business with pocket money and live like a lord on
> it - hardly sustainable even when you've got a dot com after your business
> name.
If someone sets up in business and is making a good living, and a crisis
occurs such as foot and mouth, and that business is damaged, then they
deserve the same level of support that is being given to the capital rich
farming industry. You wrote in your last post about arrogant walkers, tell
me, what is more arrogant than someone in a large capital rich industry
being so condescending and so uncaring towards, so called, little people in
little businesses. I genuinely wish the farming community well however I get
the opinion from the likes of yourself that others in other businesses would
just be classed as some sort of acceptable collateral damage.
>
> Michael Saunby
>
>
Graham Seed
"Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote
<snip>
.....Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
> is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland? So why is it so important
> to the UK economy that these be kept open? In truth it isn't, you should
> consider yourself fortunate to have such access, it isn't available in
many
> other countries.
<snip>
Is access really so poor in European countries? I was in Germany walking in
the Pfaltzerwald (sp) area near Neustadt. I asked my German friend if it
would be possible just to walk down an arable track if I fancied going that
way....she said yes, no problem. I said...are you sure? In England we can't
do this. She emphasised that there was no problem.
Are you really sure that it is us that are so fortunate?
Graham
FCS
"N R Whitelegg" <bss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:GIs1ow.K0...@bath.ac.uk...
> Just heard some bigot on the Radio 2 news blaming walkers (again) for
> foot and mouth. Why don't these farmers' representatives and Tory MPs
> lay off walkers, and remember that if paths had been closed all summer
> (as they would doubtless dearly like) the tourist industry would just
about
> go belly-up.
There's nothing wrong with that. Businesses close all the time through
bankruptcy, it's natural.
Except for the previous owners, all the staff get a nice compensation
package from the Government called redundancy money plus unemployment
benefit.
Afterwards, new money comes in, buys up the old businesses on the cheap, and
the tourism industry survives because there's a market for it. Some of the
previous employees are even given work in the new businesses.
That's just the way things are.
So, what does it matter if a few capitalist, imperialist bastards go
bankrupt?
> It's clear to me that walkers have nothing to do with spreading foot and
> mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have
everything
> to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
> be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months.
Ditto
> Snowdon.
Plenty of other places in the World where you can walk. Just as cheap, if
not cheaper, to get there too.
John
> Nick
FCS
news:9mga7o$sq4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
(snip)
> How important is the livestock industry to our economy ? It most certainly
> is not worth the money we have spent trying to save it. In fact in your
> clear cut way of thinking it should have been wrote off.
People remember the threat of being sent to bed without any dinner.
When a nasty animal disease comes along, Joe Public gets frightened. The
money's not important to them, only the food in their belly.
So you do something that doesn't threaten the availability of food for them
but actually ensures future availability of that food.
As long as they see food on the supermarket shelves they stop being
frightened.
Livestock has ecological implications as well.
But, if you follow the consequences of a foot and mouth outbreak, and their
various strategies to their logical conclusions, the current policy is the
cheapest one.
Basically, don't do as the Government is telling you to do, use some common
sense instead. Follow the guidelines.
Rights of way, footpaths, etc., are very big issues but attempting to
address them during a foot and mouth outbreak lacks wisdom.
John
The Reids
>Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
>could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
>way over farmland.
you have lost me there completly, London tourism dependant on
footpaths?
That aside, the blame walkers attitude is alive and well amoung the
type of farmers who have the "get off my land" mindset. I dont suppose
they are the majority but from trying to reason with one a couple of
days ago I suspect the only language they will ever understand is
"subsidies=walkers, or else".
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale at "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/page01.htm"
Antony
> "Michael Saunby" <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:999004979.18518.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "N R Whitelegg" <bss...@bath.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:GIs1ow.K0...@bath.ac.uk...
> > > Just heard some bigot on the Radio 2 news blaming walkers (again) for
> > > foot and mouth.
> >
> > Which I guess shows the person calling in was clueless as were those at
> the
> > BBC for allowing it through, they generally try to stop folks who are
> > talking complete rubbish - but it seems they don't always figure out what
> is
> > true and what isn't.
> >
>
> Or are they just trying to get a well-exhausted debate going again in the
> absence of anything else to talk about?
The 'news' reason for the coverage was the outbreak in Northumberland.
At least one of the 'bigots' interviewed by BBC radio was the editor
of Farmers Weekly, Stephen Howe, whose first statement regarding
likely causes was to cite possible infection by walkers who'd been to
the lake district. He was clearly playing to the gallery, ie his
perceptions of the prejudices of his readers. The interviewer asked
him for evidence that walkers had ever spread F+M and he had none to
cite.
As for the whole affair, IMHO, it stinks. Why the double standards re
compensation exhibited towards the farming and rural tourism
industries during the whole F+M affair? Why no clear accounting for
the causes of its spread? Why are farmers allowed to shut down the
countryside a) with no scientific proof that walking visitors spread
F+M, while b) they get away with moving vehicles full of diseased
animals around the countryside
It is not clear to me what benefit farmers bring to this country. I've
heard plausible suggestions that we as a nation would be better of
scrapping farming as an occupation and investing the subsidies, grants
etc in re-training farmers to work in tourism.
The most plausible self-interest theory I've heard for the cause for
the recent outbreak is that some farmers were peeved they had missed
out on compensation and thought they'd get themselves some
Antony
Dave Roberts
<gilla...@mcmail.com> writes
>That aside, the blame walkers attitude is alive and well amoung the
>type of farmers who have the "get off my land" mindset. I dont suppose
>they are the majority but from trying to reason with one a couple of
>days ago I suspect the only language they will ever understand is
>"subsidies=walkers, or else".
will be linked more to environmental targets which is long overdue.
The Reids
>So, what does it matter if a few capitalist, imperialist bastards go
>bankrupt?
Imperialist? Surely the main "capitalist bastards" to use your words
would be the farmers.
N R Whitelegg
>> go belly-up.
>
>Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
>could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
>way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
>is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
It wasn't just that, for a start all country footpaths were shut for a
while, but further than that, earlier in the year a lot of attractions e.g.
country
houses or (non-hooved) wildlife sanctuaries were shut down. I appreciate
the need to do that *at the time*, what I was saying is that if Mr Blue Rinse
on yesterday's news had had his way, such places would still be closed today.
And that would be a disaster.
>
>It's also clear from your post that some walkers have rightly earned the
>"arrogant little shits" title that a few farmers might use. Very, very, sad
>and I hope you are able to reflect on the terrible situation that many rural
>residents and visitors have been faced with and find a more constructive way
>to channel your energy.
Don't call me a "shit", please. As a walker I felt extremely offended by the
way that that Countryside Alliance "don't give a monkeys about rural bus
services, as long as we can keep foxhunting" idiot was blaming us for foot
and mouth. Almost all stories I've heard have been due to trucks and milk
tanks not following proper disinfection procedures, or wind. if he wants to
let off steam why doesn't he stand on a hill and F and blind at the next
Atlantic low that comes his way.
Nick
N R Whitelegg
>
>Plenty of other places in the World where you can walk. Just as cheap, if
>not cheaper, to get there too.
>
I didn't post because I can't walk where I want to. I can, an I appreciated
the need to close *rural* paths back in March and April. I posted because
I'm sick of people blaming walkers all the time.
Nick
N R Whitelegg
>
>
>Easy Nick
>
>It is certainly not walkers. Neither is it farmworkers. Most of the people
>making allegations against others are working their own agenda.
>
>Pat Gardiner
But what about the new outbreaks in Cheshire a couple of months ago, which
were traced to a milk tanker which had not been through proper disinfection
procedures?
Nick
Katherine Rotherham
Michael Saunby wrote:
>
>
> Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
> could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
> way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
> is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
As a tourist, the two trips I took to Britain were walking tours, one in
the Cotswolds and the other in the Borders region. I spent 2 1/2 days
in London the first time and 2 1/2 days in Edinburgh the second. When I
visit, I want to see the countryside and not the tourist centers.
Katherine
Paul Rooney
>
>
>Michael Saunby wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Makes you feel sorry for London, and so many other parts of the world that
>> could have a thriving tourism industry if only they invested in rights of
>> way over farmland. Come, on, be honest what proportion of tourism business
>> is generated by footpaths over grazed farmland?
>
country was grazed farmland - in which case, the answer is 'lots of
it'.
Paul
Katherine Rotherham
FCS wrote:
>
> What's this doing here? This newsgroup should be dead by now!
ukrw is alive and well, thank you
Katherine
Trevor Dennis
>Because the tourism industry generates billions of pounds and provides
>employment for large numbers of people. The farming industry on the
>other hand generates just over 500 million, most of which is heavily
>subsidised by public money and employs very few workers.
The media today reported an estimated cost of
F&M to the tax payer this year of £3billion!
--
Trevor Dennis
FCS
Some people blame walkers.
Some people blame farmers.
Some people blame the wind.
etc.
Largely the animals are to blame, hence the legislation to stop them being
dangerous.
Since we need to eat them, getting rid of them all isn't going to acheive
much.
The only one's not being blamed for the spread of the disease, despite some
evidence, are the Government . Those that are doing so are being dismissed
as conspiracy theorists.
Truly the system does work.
John
> Nick
James Gregory
"FCS" <joh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:9mjhv4$vpa$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Some people blame walkers.
> Some people blame farmers.
> Some people blame the wind.
> etc.
>
> Largely the animals are to blame, hence the legislation to stop them being
> dangerous.
>
> Since we need to eat them, getting rid of them all isn't going to acheive
> much.
>
> The only one's not being blamed for the spread of the disease, despite
some
> evidence, are the Government . Those that are doing so are being dismissed
> as conspiracy theorists.
>
> Truly the system does work.
>
Agree up to the point where you say that the Government is not being blamed.
Everyone is blaming the Government - farmers blame the Government for not
stopping walkers, walkers blame the Government for shutting paths and giving
money to farmers.
The Government just does what it can to please both two polaratically (great
word) opposed parties, and inevitably fails.
James
FCS
news:9mji6b$2n4g3$1...@ID-34718.news.dfncis.de...
(snip)
> Agree up to the point where you say that the Government is not being
blamed.
> Everyone is blaming the Government - farmers blame the Government for not
> stopping walkers, walkers blame the Government for shutting paths and
giving
> money to farmers.
Basically both sides in this argument want a swift end to this disease.
The sooner this disease goes away, the sooner you can get back to situation
normal.
Work together towards that goal or see the disease spread, footpaths closed
for longer and so on.
Do it right first time.
> The Government just does what it can to please both two polaratically
(great
> word) opposed parties, and inevitably fails.
They've got General Elections to win. Smile, wave, say what you want to
hear, and mutter f*ck off under their breath.
John
>
> James
>
>
The Reids
The Reids
Perhaps in an ideal world we would have space for wilderness
exclusivly used for recreation and farmland exclusivly for farming,
unfortunatly as we live on a small island we have to share.
If this thread represented farming and walking accuratly, which it
obviously does not, we would be throwing rocks at one another by now!
Hopefully my Gloucester farmer and the NFU spokesman are dinosaurs,
time will tell.
In the meantime I will keep going to the farmers markets and buying
direct from the nice farmers hoping good relations will filter
through.
--
Mike Reid
"Before you criticise someone, walk a mile in their shoes,
then you will be a mile away and have the shoes"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk"
W.D.Grey
<bss...@bath.ac.uk> writes
>It's clear to me that walkers have nothing to do with spreading foot and
>mouth. It seems to me that laxness on the part of farm workers have everything
>to do with it. If walkers were to bnlame, the New Forest for example would
>be a F+M wipeout by now, that's been open to walkers for three months. Ditto
>Snowdon.
It's pretty obvious walkers are not responsible - more likely careless
or unscrupulous farmers. Consider the outbreak in Libanus near Brecon.
The day the hills were opened the F&M was discovered, and the hills then
closed again. The walkers hadn't been anywhere near the farm in
question. Even without F & M, the farm was not a place walkers would
visit anyway.
Any reference to walkers *must* be political made by someone with a
gripe!
I wonder if there is any bad feeling between the local farmers and the
National Park people. Any closure of the hills in Brecon would hit the
NP especially at the Mountain Visitor Centre (closed practically all
year so far) near Libanus.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk