Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Second Foot And Mouth Case Confirmed

  1. #1
    Initiate
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    711


    On the Drive show on BBC Radio 5 this evening it had a report about "unoffical" path closures by landowners in Upper Teesdale. Apparently they had put up "Footpath Closed" notices and in some cases actual obstructions on the Right of Way including in one case at least barbed wire. To be fair to farmers in general the local NFU rep was interviewed and he condemned the action taken. The local Council was also quoted as saying that where they we aware of such action they had contacted the landowner and requested action be taken to restore the status quo. If this was not done they said they would take action to remove any obstructions.

    It seems some landowners/farmers see walkers and the like as a "risk" notwithstanding the Governments postion that the Countryside is "open for business". even if this is the case it appears that walkers are not welcome. If the outbreak of foot and mouth spreads this "unofficial" closure policy may become more widespread no matter what the Governments official Policy is.

  2. #2
    Ultra King Ddyrchafedig Gyrrwr (Beic Modur)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,138


    Baring in mind of course that if it is an "unofficial" closure, it is not illegal to ignore it and there is not a damn thing the landowners can do to prevent progress short of physical assault, which obviously puts them on the wrong side of the law.

    Personally, I thought this might give the "anti crow" landowners the excuse they need and I wonder how much of this "hysteria" is genuinely linked to concerns over the spread of the disease, and how much is seen by "some" landowners as an excuse to be "awkward" with walkers.

    I can understand the concerns in the already affected areas, but in places miles from the infection, it cannot yet be justified.

    It seems the Government cannot win, they attempt a different approach to the last outbreak in terms of "locking down" the countryside, with the effect that landowners take the law into their own hands. Maybe that is what they were trying to avoid last time?

    The only confusion of course thatmay arrise in the minds of walkers is telling the "officially" closed from the "illicitly" closed areas!

  3. #3
    Goon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    263


    Tony Your fears of an excuse to close paths by certain landowners is the same as mine. Responcible walkers and landowners will get on and will co-operate but sadly therewill bethose on both sides that will make full use of the present situation to cause mischief.

    Cush

  4. #4
    ‹bermensch Nearly Normal Polar Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,838
    Not sure how walkers could "make use of the present situation to cause mischief" Cush, even if any should want to! Depressingly predictable to hear of the "get orf my land" brigade jumping to exploit the situation - there are few things more obnoxious than an obnoxious landowner.

  5. #5
    Mini Goon
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    166
    as has already been mentioned, this is just the excuse some landowners want to keep people from the land. Back in '01, in my own little corner of the world (herts), we didn't have one case of F&M yet we were one of the last counties to lift footpath restrictions.On teh local news last night was a farmer not far from me, saying the footpaths should be shut. Think I'll have to dig out the OS map of his farm and plan a little walk

  6. #6
    Ultra King Ddyrchafedig Gyrrwr (Beic Modur)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,138


    there are few things more obnoxious than an obnoxious landowner.

    How about two obnoxious landowners !


  7. #7
    Goon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    263


    there are few things more obnoxious than an obnoxious landowner

    An obnoxious land owner and an obnoxious walker on the same lovely path.

    In the last out break there were several cases of walkers who used closed paths "toexercise their rights". Sorry to say one of those paths was across land owned by one of the most helpful land owners in the County. Luckly he seen them for what they were and did not tar all walkers with the same brush.

    Cush

  8. #8
    Super Moderator captain paranoia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    10,962


    > In the last out break there were several cases of walkers who used closed paths "toexercise their rights".

    Maybe, just maybe, they were following the guidelines from MAFF Risk Assessment No.4 at the time:

    http://web.archive.org/web/200106160...risk/risk4.aspiii. There is no veterinary justification for closing all footpaths and preventing all public access to land. A more measured response, which takes some account of both public perception and of the real risk, is required. The latter is the product of many factors, including the prevalence of infection in an area, the presence or absence of susceptible livestock, and the density of the livestock if present.

  9. #9
    Goon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    263


    From Carlisle right through to the Tyne Valley was an official no go area. As were vast swathes of Cumbria & Northumberland not to mention Dumfies and Galloway.I have been an RA foot Path sec as well as doing other jobs in walking community, so I think I know a little bit about R O W's(though I must admitt I am a bit rusty on the CROW act).

    Cush

  10. #10
    ‹bermensch Nearly Normal Polar Bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    3,838
    "Sorry to say one of those paths was across land owned by one of the most helpful land owners in the County."

    Sod's law that isn't it?

  11. #11
    Goon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    263


    Yes but the Sod's who could have suffered most if the Gentleman had not been a gentleman would have beenthe every day walkers in the area, the sort who take their dogs or dare I say it partners out for gentle stroll and their by keep opena lot of paths for the heavy brigade who might only use the path once. So let's have a lot of common sence with a good dash of tolerance.

    Having said that I also know of a land owner who hid way markers and put up a sign saying "walkers not welcome here"

    Cush

Similar Threads

  1. Foot 'n' Mouth
    By RaR in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-09-2007, 09:28 PM
  2. Foot and mouth
    By Arnoud in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 11:23 PM
  3. FOOT AND MOUTH OUTBREAK!!!
    By Diddi in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 05:31 PM
  4. Foot and Mouth Inquiry
    By Hedgehope Aztec in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 22-07-2002, 04:17 PM
  5. Foot and mouth
    By Andy Morris in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2001, 10:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •