Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda
From: Oz (oz_at_farmeroz.port995.com)
Date: 12/13/04
- Next message: John Cartmell: "Re: Hunting is banned!"
- Previous message: Rooney: "Re: Hunting is banned!"
- In reply to: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Next in thread: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Reply: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 06:35:12 +0000
Robert Seago <rjseago@zetnet.co.uk> writes
>I came back to this as I didn't have time the other night.
>
>While I agree with most of your points below, I disagree to a large extent
>about your chief inference.
>
>> In the climate of the mid 80's to mid 90's, it was happening.
>I remember the 80's as the time when SSSI's had effectively no protection.
>A landowner was required to consult for some months, 3 I believe. After
>that unless English Nature bought them out, which I don't think they ever
>did, and they were not funded to do so, then a landowner could do
>anything.
I don't have an sssi, so I am not as familiar with the regs as I should
be. My neighbour had one, he was keen to maintain it - as he had for
many decades ('happy valley'). By the end he was utterly disillusioned.
>I personally witnessed the drainage and ploughing of the
>Halvergate Marshes in Norfolk. Examples were many. That was the time of
>incredible loss on a national scale of our best wild areas IMV. Much of
>that was for the reasons you give later.
IIRC there was some compensation to be paid, generally pretty modest,
where losses were established. There were also management agreements
where each side agreed to do things, not do things or pay for various
operations. English Nature (if that was the relevant organisation)
didn't keep its side of the bargain at all. This was a juniper chalk
bank, grazed by sheep in summer, many rare species. The sheep were
removed, trees (NOT juniper) planted, the deer ate the trees, the deer
got shot. Agreed payments for work were not paid.
>> In the current climate, though, everything is on long-term hold because
>> survival is clearly the number one thing to be concentrating on. Further
>> government regulations have ossified any attempt to remove land from
>> farming and move it to eco-areas.
>
>I accept that the present is one of unknown directions. I can understand
>you thinking this way.
So would you. In effect if you are good, expect penalties if not
effective confiscation.
>> The second was the realisation that any eco-area was likely to get a
>> preservation order slapped on it, which was effectively confiscation by
>> the government. This has been extended by regulations controlling
>> (essentially preventing) the removal of hedges and (lately) ploughing up
>> permanent grassland. Its also clear that this sort of legislation will
>> continue and become even more draconian.
>
>I think that would be a new precedent.
It already exists for trees, hedges and now moving into permanent
grassland. I can see it being extended regularly.
>I don't believe any new SSSI's are
>being declared, though possibly some of the new fens being created, like
>Lakenheath might well qualify in a few years. As it is the criteria for
>declaring SSSI's is very rigorous. We have a small hay meadow, which is
>one of the tiny remaining ones in the whole of Essex, but it is not a
>candidate for protection, because of the demanding conditions of EN. Last
>year it started to be used for car boot sales when its previous owner
>died.
Are the demanding conditions in the law, or part of en own internal
regulations?
>As for the draconian bit, that seems to have gone. EN used to nag about
>the law concerning SSSI's but had no money, no teeth.
Obviously it can be expensive managing sssi's.
As you know its expensive running any eco-area.
The choice lies with government, and their preferred route is to get it
for nothing. That means someone else pays for benefits (there are
benefits, right?) for society. That is unjust.
>Now they give rewards for land being in favourable condition, and don't do
>penalties, unless you know different.
There are a whole raft of regulations under nvz and cross-compliance
clearly aimed at producing more low intensity areas FOC, and keeping
them there. I rather doubt these will be weakened in the future.
>> One bright spark in the loss of my dairy unit because of planning
>> decisions is that I now have no grassland, its all ploughed up.
>> Ecologically, I am not happy about this, but its demanded by government
>> and is a direct consequence of their actions.
>
> The loss of livestock and mixed farming is a very significant problem,
Certainly. I expect a significant reduction in local wildlife as a
result. Fortunately its quite likely that we will win our remaining
appeal and go back into dairying in a few years.
>but economics drives that.
No. In my case a profitable dairy unit was removed due to nvz's and the
planners refusing slurry storage.
>There is virtually no livestock farming here.
>Dairy farmers sold up their quotas to the western part of the country ages
>ago. So we have few Swallows. The west have loads.
Indeed, but IMHO one of the main assets for swallows was the muddy areas
providing mud for nest building. One area at the front, wet because the
adjacent concrete was hosed daily, could collect VAST numbers in season
as the only local source of mud. This, too, will go.
-- Oz
- Next message: John Cartmell: "Re: Hunting is banned!"
- Previous message: Rooney: "Re: Hunting is banned!"
- In reply to: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Next in thread: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Reply: Robert Seago: "Re: PHEASANTS IN THE NEWS Shooting ban on the agenda"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
