Horseytalk.net/Hoofbeat EXCLUSIVE
RIDER RIGHTS
Says Adrienne Yentis
A friend of mine recently was riding on the heath
and she came across a group of cattle strung out across the bridlepath with no way through – the only way off was to turn round. Fortunately her horse
remained calm throughout. But you can imagine how a nervous horse might react ........... read more
Martin Down National Nature Reserve:
Management Consultation
Maureen Comber writes to Robert Lloyd, Natural England
- Why is it in the national interest that this land should be managed as a Nature Reserve?
- How long has it been designated as such? - Why is it that the public generally were not consulted in that regard?
Says Maureen Comber
Thank you for sending me notice of the management consultation for Martin Down common land.
The short history with its details of existing wildlife makes me think that the area has been 'managed' quite well before now, but it raises the following questions:
- Is the reason for the consultation really to seek to fence the area? You say the area has never been enclosed. This is because it is subject to rights of common. My second question is therefore:
- Have all the commoners been consulted separately and before this public consultation?
- Is there a local Commons Council as required under the Commons Act 2006 which would need to be in place if fencing was a consideration? The management consultation document says the site is owned by Hampshire County Council, Natural England and the Hants and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. I find that hard to believe and suspect that it really means the land is but 'vested' with them for its protection.
- Is that correct? All common land which was subject to common rights before 1926 came under sec 193 and 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This means they are open spaces for walking and horse riding. The consultation document states that Martin Down is a Nature Reserve which raises another question.
- "Nature Reserves are protected areas in which nature conservation is the primary consideration" Please explain why and how common land can be considered to be a Nature Reserve when it is subject to public access which can only sit alongside nature conservation rather than being subservient to it?
- Why is it in the national interest that this land should be managed as a Nature Reserve?
- How long has it been designated as such?
- Why is it that the public generally were not consulted in that regard?
As a farmer I sometimes let my grazing to sheep farmers. They are able to very quickly enclose them with modern portable fencing and move them when required. It appears to be a quick and easy process. It seems to me that cutting and burning with sheep grazing has provided a very sustainable environment until now and nothing more is required. Commons are self sustaining environments needing very little in the way of management other than the removal of gorse, bracken and bramble when required. Livestock other than sheep are likely to damage the sward for the orchids, gentians and worts etc.
Most importantly fencing totally destroys the open characteristic landscape value of the site and places restriction on public rights of access.
Comments Steve Yandall
The issue of access is a very sensitive one as my experience has been that public access has dropped when management has been perceived to be intimidating. It has also been my experience that anecdote has been used to refute such facts.
Says Steve Yandall
As an 'outsider' I am not equipped to supply anything other than an overview but;
- there is an assumption in the document that the starting point is the reader accepting"ownership". As Maureen knows,for to her credit she has challenged previous "ownership" claims,in many instances ownership is an assumed title. For any consultation to be fruitful the legal status of NE etc must be established to pinpoint whether authority is ;
- a.assumed.
- b.vested.
- c.real ownership.
- if the area is,as the document states "Common",the management could already be prescribed through commoners rights and fencing/husbanding the area could be unlawful..
- the biodiversity prescription is laudable but I can see three flaws; a.suspension denies the climax species reliant on succession and Owen Paterson's "offsetting" of ancient woodlands puts climax species at risk. b.NE are now chaired by a property developer(Andy Sells) thus casting doubt on the future security of conservation areas. c.there are no guarantees.
- the issue of access is a very sensitive one as my experience has been that public access has dropped when management has been perceived to be intimidating.It has also been my experience that anecdote has been used to refute such facts.
It might be worth asking the trust if they consider their efforts worthwhile if,in tandem,they do not challenge the cause?Over population creates need that' justifies' further natural degradation that could,possibly,see this area built on,broken in for industrial agriculture or left to succession because funding dries up?
We see,almost daily,decisions by ministers that deny sustainability but NGO's/LA's etc are notable by their absence from the debate BUT appear happy to be employed 'picking up the pieces'! The result is that succinct individuals that do speak out are demonised as anti,anti,anti by those that love nursing without tackling the disease.
Says Linda Wright
We moved to a Shropshire location a year ago having surveyed the local OS map and noted the significant number of bridleways around the property. Sadly the map appears a total fiction. Scarce any of the bridleways are usable ........... read more