Please use the countryside responsibly- so fed up

[jacks11]

On a rare day off from my day job, I have once again spent the day dealing with a series of thoughtless and/or completely entitled idiots behaving totally irresponsibly on our land. I had thought the one (very small) silver lining of this awful situation would be that this lambing season would see us free from so many problems from people out for a walk etc. But still having issues.

Today I stopped no fewer than 7 families traipsing through either the yard, our garden (one family stopping to have a seat on the picnic table/bench in our garden) or the lambing sheds to have a look. One family also stopped off to admire the lambs in one of the fields then preceded to take there youngish children (under 10) into said fields to see them closer. Several gates left open, people climbing over gates etc. I caught someone feeding our old pony apples and a doughnut! We’ve had rubbish being dropped. Dogs off leads etc.

What I cannot understand is how so many are getting to us- they must be breaching the guidance to only exercise locally or walking at least 7 miles from the nearest village. Which I doubt with the ages of some of the children.

When DH politely approached the family in our garden they were really rude, citing their “right to roam”- not even slightly apologetic when pointed out they were in our garden so they had no right to be there. Ditto several other people- don’t seem to realise right to roam does not apply to private gardens or land used for commercial reasons- I.e. yards/lambing sheds and you must behave responsibly (e.g. close gates, don’t let dogs off leads near livestock, don’t leave rubbish, don’t worry livestock, don’t walk across crops etc).

When you add in the situation with Covid, you’d think people would be careful about touching gates etc unnecessarily- but no. Lots of people have vulnerable family members and this is just an added headache- having to constantly be aware that people may have touched the gates/railings/doors etc.

Please use the countryside responsibly- some of us live on the land you are using as a playground. You are putting our livestock at risk- please don’t feed livestock/horses for that reason- and sometimes yourself in danger. There is no excuse for leaving rubbish.

Rant over!!

@zenday
You live in the US. There is masses of land there compare to the population. The UK is a very small island with a very very dense population. If people are not allowed to walk across farms, their right to enjoy the country side would-be severely restricted . We don't have enough space to put aside vast parks for city and town dwellers to stick to like the us country parks.

As does it's owner, judging only by the posts here!

Utterly bereft of common sense!

@bumblingbovine49 we have several national parks which enjoy a right to roam. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of public access in this country - we are the only country in the world to enjoy public rights of access across private land. If your issue is that you cannot help yourself freely to other people's assets without challenge, that is a whole different argument.

I think it's clear from your most recent post that you have no idea about the amount of open access in this country - like you say, you don't like the countryside. It seems like you're just another with a bag of chips on your shoulder.

I'm generally with farmers when it comes to subsidies (to underpin farm incomes, to achieve environmental goals, to ensure as much food security as possible on a very crowded set of islands). But the wider population needs to be convinced as well. That's all I'm trying to say.

Currently, the Direct Payment is based on how much eligible land a farmer has, not on what he or she does with it. There is a strong argument that this is inequitable when paid to the farmers of larger holdings.

As you can see from the post of bumblingbovine49 above, a lot of town-dwellers dislike farmers and country people already. They're going to need to be convinced by subsidies, and the 'git orf mah land' attitudes of some landowners are not going to help with that.

Covid or no covid, think a bit before 'half-jokingly' suggesting shotguns.

this thread went a bit off course!
like some of the walkers we have had the last couple of days so we padlocked the field gate which isn't even close to the footpath and stile.
Most walkers just walked along to the stile and continued but a neighbour who has taken to having a wander - hence the padlock (and has already tried to close all the paths around her house citing possible corona virus) climbed over said gate. I am cross, as this is how they get damaged and difficult to open over time so will be having words with her if she does it again.
Apart from that we try to keep our footpath well marked.

I’m curious about this footpath law. It’s foreign for me.

It’s a dirt path worn into the ground. What would happen if a seldom used path were well seeded for a time? Would it cease to be a public right of way.

@ frillyfarmer.

Thanks for.the advice but I find once I have started down the green sign posted path, I often struggle to identify where the path goes after a while . I get lost too often even with a map because of my lousy sense of direction and then start to panic about angry landowners so I really don't like country walks . I'm a townie/ city dweller at heart but I know lots of people who do like countryside walking and I think they have a right to walk along foot paths ( if they can work out where they are )

As I've said, I'm a townie. I'd get rather pissed off if people could just pop across my yard. Particularly if they terrorised my cat, or let it out the gate. And my land isn't my income.

I don't quite understand why rural landowners are expected to be any happier about it?

I know lots of people who do like countryside walking and I think they have a right to walk along foot paths

They do. But they have a responsibility to do so sensibly, with due attention to stock etc. It's really not hard to do that.

@mbosnz because there is (incorrectly) a general assumption that we have all happened upon our farms or had them handed through inheritance and are not worthy of them, therefore they should be free for everyone to access, no matter that we're trying to earn a living from them. It's very frustrating but what can you do?

Oh and I really don't have a chip on my shoulder. I just know quite a few country dwellers ( not in this country) and know what they think of town and city dwellers.

As to the thousands of acres of .country parks in this country, it is clear that these are nowhere near enough for the 66 million.people who.live in those country to get reasonable countryside walks without many many others around them. You only have to.see how crowded some of these areas became when lots of people went there to walk at the beginning of the lockdown.

It’s a dirt path worn into the ground. What would happen if a seldom used path were well seeded for a time? Would it cease to be a public right of way.

No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
Whereas if a path which wasn't a right of way is used unchallenged for some period (I think 20 years) then a right of way may be established. This is why various paths which aren't rights of way which landowners are generally happy for the public to use are termed 'permissive paths' and are closed for one day a year so that the right isn't accidentally established.

The existence of 'permissive paths' gives lie to the evil selfish landowners who don't want people on their land, of course. Some of these paths are in lovely places and the landowners are under no obligation to allow access. For which, if anyone on this thread has one, maintains its stiles etc - thanks!

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a wonderful thing such a tradition exists - if it is used correctly and respectfully and is not adding to the landowners' burden. Which it sounds like some people are very big on 'rights', but really very dismissive of their 'responsibilities' when exercising the traditional right of way.

And when it comes to public liability, if something should happen to dear wee tarquin playing in the farmshed, or Fido when it turns out that Fido's owner let Fido off the lead in the bull paddock, is the landowner potentially liable? Because if so, that's ridiculous. Does the landowner have any right of redress against ramblers for damage done to property, crops or livestock?

@bumblingbovine49 I will explain the hostility from my POV as a farmer and also a city type -

I'm a farmers daughter and I'm now married to a farmer. I'm a chartered surveyor by trade and I spend a large amount of my working life in our company's London offices. I completely appreciate the need for people to access the countryside and I'm a massive supporter of public access.

But the countryside is not just a beautiful place. It is a living, working community. This corona virus has (oddly) brought people to the countryside who are not usually here and don't seem to know the countryside code. As a result we have people trampling arable crops, leaving gates open, letting stock out, having BBQs and causing wildfires. It is damaging to our own businesses but also to the wildlife and to a degree to the local community. It creates bad feeling between farmers and people using the access, even when 95% are using it with consideration.
Our farm is drilled with crops - walking on fields of crops kills the crops. That is our livelihood, that's how we get paid - can you see now that it's a stress? Climbing over walls and fences damages them, and then we have to spend time fixing them all - it's frustrating once, infuriating twice and imagine fixing the same wall ten times in a year - it's galling .

I have every sympathy with you OP - the people you mention are not following the guidelines.
However there are some bonkers suggestions on here:-
Put a bull in the field - erm only if you want to be prosecuted!
Spread muck on the field - well DH and I walked across a field today where they were doing just that! You do realise they don't spread it so thick that you'd be up to your ankles in it right? Padlock the gate - contravenes the rules on duties of a landowner with a public right of way on their land. I appreciate how annoying the behaviour of the few is but it doesn't give the landowner the right to break the law either.
I will add that i don't own a dog and deliberately did not walk on any footpaths that go through/near the landowner's garden/farmyard/driveway (of which there are a few in our village) nor did i go through any fields containing livestock.

Farmers have never liked public footpaths, and will use covid as an excuse to shut them off.

Farmers have never liked the public thinking they can wander around private land and will use covid as another reason to tell them where they can and can’t go

Fixed it for you there.

So if you acknowledge how hard it must be for them @Hester54, how can't you see how easily your actions cause them a financial loss? And that it's your responsibility to follow the rules.

It’s a dirt path worn into the ground. What would happen if a seldom used path were well seeded for a time? Would it cease to be a public right of way.

As I understand it if it’s a right of way marked on the ordinance survey map then it’s a right of way regardless of how over grown it gets.

we are the only country in the world to enjoy public rights of access across private land

Sorry but no.

Every sympathy with the farmers/rural landowners on this thread, but that is not correct.

Sweden has Allemansrätt which means anyone has access over any land, private or otherwise, not just via a designated footpath but anywhere, as long as they are not intruding into the garden surrounding a house or walking over crops. There is no such thing as a private woodland or a private island that other people can't access.

Obviously wouldn't be sustainable in a densely populated country where a large part of the population are not used to countryside etiquette, but works fine in northern Europe.

Purpleartichoke, a right of way (usually a footpath, sometimes a bridlepath allowing additional access to horses and bikes) is literally a right to pass from point A to point B over the land. As pps have said, they tend to be historic connecting places such as village to village. You often have situations where they lie along farm tracks and can often come near farm buildings, but care needs to be taken by the walker that they do not stray from the permitted route of access to the rest of private land.

The surface may be disturbed by activity such as ploughing and the farmer has a responsibility to restore the surface in a fairly short time frame. Generally it would be by a method compacting it with the tractor tyres. Rights of way often do go through the middle of fields as over time fields have been enlarged and boundaries such as hedgerows removed.

They are shown on ordnance survey maps (and the user should take care to notice the angles and sides of boundaries that they run along) and at ground level farmers also have a responsibility to maintain markings and crossing points such gates/ stiles. In England councils do check this. (Presumably in Wales too)

In 2004, the CROW act gave additional rights of access often dubbed "right to roam" into upland areas which again are shaded on maps and marked at access points. I don't know the details but Scotland also has a "right to roam".
There are "definitive map" recordings and although it is possible that rights of way might be underused and neglected to the point that they are not apparent at ground level, they still legally exist.

Both the walker and the farmer have responsibility in this arrangement. Unfortunately ignorant and irresponsible walkers leave far worse consequences for the farmer and their crop/ livestock.

Is it only me or have farmers become a lot more conscientious about maintaining footpaths than they were for a while?

When I first moved to this country and started walking with dh, it was not rare to find a footpath blocked off with barbed wire and completely overgrown. Must be a decade or more since I last saw that: usually they seem very well maintained and signposted these days.

But absolutely the responsibility of the walker to read the map and make sure they don't go wandering off the path.

Learning a whole hell of a lot about rights of way here, thank you so much.

Although I think I'd be scared to try and walk them - not that landowners might be aggressive, but I'd be worried I might inadvertently trespass off the ROW or cause harm or damage to crops or livestock.

But it's always fascinated me, right from reading about them in books like Enid Blyton.

Having had to deal with closing a path and opening a new one, I became quite the expert regarding footpaths!

The OS map is not always correct. Your Highway Authority, normally the County Council in rural areas, keeps a Definitive Map. This is the only map that matters. Paths can be on OS maps that are closed or diverted. However signage is usually up to date and signs of use give a big clue too.

The owner should keep the path free from obstruction. Farmers have to keep them traversable after planting and walkers should not find a footpath is a ploughed field either.

Land owners can get paths closed. One went through our garden around 2m from the house. We diverted it around the garden (after a public enquiry) and then eventually got it extinguished. We did provide a new path in a far nicer location which linked other paths and had terrific views. We paid for clearance and the County Council paid half towards the kissing gates. Best of all, I can no longer see it from the house but it’s a great local amenity. All most of us ask is that it’s respected.

I'm starting to understand how all the fatal cow tramplings happen. I did wonder.

This country is a very complicated dragon. . .