Cows trample, man dies

[crosshair]

sitsinhedges, you seem obsessed with "your rights" to roam, good luck with the cows.

 

Do ramblers spread TB, could add them to the cull I suppose.

[Gimlet]

Your obsessive notion that anyone who wants to go for a walk in the countryside must be a landowner hating townie out for a freebie is irrelevant, not to mention so far off the mark.

 

Humans of any variety and from anywhere can walk on the footpaths on your land whenever they feel like it and you have a duty of care towards them regardless of how bitter you feel about them being there. If they get hurt as a consequence of your actions you will be held responsible and you will be liable for damages.

 

Blabbing on about 'cundry loife' makes no difference, they have a right to be there and you have a duty to allow them to pass safely. Everything else is hot air.

 

But you with your intransigent attitude are just as bad. You seem to epitomise the 'rights' culture that clamours to be endulged while shirking all responsibility. You hide behind the law like a child behind its mother's skirts. Rights of way confer the right to cross private land to get from one place to another. Landowners have an obligation not to impede, harrass or endanger lawful users, but thse users in turn bear an equal responsibility to respect the landowners property and the lawful use to which he has put his land. Or as folk use to say, use some common sense. If you plan to walk through a landscape where cattle are certain to be encountered at some point, have the basic intelligence to learn how to comport youself in their presence. Don't expect the rest of society to hold your hand and escort you to safety with legislative molly-coddling.

As for risk assessments and fenced paths, what planet are you on? You do know New Labour isn't in charge any more don't you? We have dispensed with our romper suits and rattles and gone back to being grown ups. Please keep up.

[crosshair]

But you with your intransigent attitude are just as bad. You seem to epitomise the 'rights' culture that clamours to be endulged while shirking all responsibility. You hide behind the law like a child behind its mother's skirts. Rights of way confer the right to cross private land to get from one place to another. Landowners have an obligation not to impede, harrass or endanger lawful users, but thse users in turn bear an equal responsibility to respect the landowners property and the lawful use to which he has put his land. Or as folk use to say, use some common sense. If you plan to walk through a landscape where cattle are certain to be encountered at some point, have the basic intelligence to learn how to comport youself in their presence. Don't expect the rest of society to hold your hand and escort you to safety with legislative molly-coddling.

As for risk assessments and fenced paths, what planet are you on? You do know New Labour isn't in charge any more don't you? We have dispensed with our romper suits and rattles and gone back to being grown ups. Please keep up.

 

 

 

Well said !!!!!!!

Edited May 16, 2013 by crosshair

[Gimlet]

sitsinhedges, you seem obsessed with "your rights" to roam, good luck with the cows.

 

Do ramblers spread TB, could add them to the cull I suppose.

 

I've long wondered whether dog owners whose animals roll on the faeces of infected badgers and then wander onto someone elses land spread TB.

[CharlieT]

I find this anti walkers/ramblers/townsfolk appalling.

Everyone and I mean everyone has the right to use a footpath safely and unhindered, be they from a town or village. Quite why some posters take the view that, because they have permission to shoot on someones farm, they can look down on others who enjoy and use the countryside for other recreational purposes is beyond me.

 

I live and work in a very rural area. We welcome and encourage visitors, the vast majority of whom come to walk, ramble and enjoy the countryside. They keep our hotels, B&B's, pubs, tea rooms, camp sites and restaurants in business. In fact many small farms offer B&B to supplement their meager farm incomes. Tourism in Exmoor National Park is valued at around £90m a year.

 

Unlike some other National Parks, much of Exmoor is not "right to roam" land but privately owned in bye land to which the only access for the public is by public footpaths. Much time and effort has been invested by the Park Authority and landowners to enhance the network of public footpaths with the establishment of permissive paths linking up the public footpaths to provide "walkers" with more even more access. All who live here benefit from this as it keeps tourism buoyant and thus benefits residents and businesses alike.

 

I am proud to say that I and every other farmer I know welcome people to come and walk our footpaths and enjoy the countryside, we all take the responsible view of not grazing cows with calves at foot in fields with footpaths.

 

However, jumped up bumptious shooters, who probably live in a town anyway, and think they own the countryside are not welcome.

[Gimlet]

I find this anti walkers/ramblers/townsfolk appalling.

Everyone and I mean everyone has the right to use a footpath safely and unhindered, be they from a town or village. Quite why some posters take the view that, because they have permission to shoot on someones farm, they can look down on others who enjoy and use the countryside for other recreational purposes is beyond me.

 

I can't see that there is any looking down on townsfolk. But there is considerable exasperation with those who are unaware or even resentful of the fact that the countryside is the most industrial landscape in Britain that requires a bit of common sense from visitors. At the end of the day the countryside isn't primarily a leisure facility, it is where our food is produced and it is where wild creatures live. Those who understand that and respect it and take the trouble to aquaint themselves with their responsibilities are welcome, those who resent it and expect normal activity to be suspended to accomodate them are not. Its perfectly simple.

And while you may be happy to encourage permissive paths that allow walkers to go more or less where they like, other private landowners are not. That is their prerogative and they should not be condemned for it.

[RED BEARD]

But you with your intransigent attitude are just as bad. You seem to epitomise the 'rights' culture that clamours to be endulged while shirking all responsibility. You hide behind the law like a child behind its mother's skirts. Rights of way confer the right to cross private land to get from one place to another. Landowners have an obligation not to impede, harrass or endanger lawful users, but thse users in turn bear an equal responsibility to respect the landowners property and the lawful use to which he has put his land. Or as folk use to say, use some common sense. If you plan to walk through a landscape where cattle are certain to be encountered at some point, have the basic intelligence to learn how to comport youself in their presence. Don't expect the rest of society to hold your hand and escort you to safety with legislative molly-coddling.

As for risk assessments and fenced paths, what planet are you on? You do know New Labour isn't in charge any more don't you? We have dispensed with our romper suits and rattles and gone back to being grown ups. Please keep up.

your spot on there duck

[hedge]

I wholeheartedly agree with you

 

Yes they do Alex. The stipulation being under close control.

 

Folkes, we must remember that a footpath is a public right of way, along which the public has a legal right to pass and repass at will. Landowners have certain obligations regarding footpaths which they are compelled to observe. That includes keeping them in good order, not growing a crop on them, maintaining stiles and gates and not stocking the field through which they pass with certain types of stock.

Dogs under close control are permitted, by law, to be on a footpath.

In my view it is completely irresponsible, under normal circumstances, to keep cows with young calves at foot in a field with a footpath particularly some of the continental breeds and their crosses.

 

I never graze cows with calves at foot or bullocks in fields with a footpath, they can never be trusted with the general public. To suggest or argue otherwise is irresponsible and foolish.

 

+1 for the most sensible comment so far. I wasn't going to comment but due to some of the slightly naïve response I thought I would pipe up.

 

A lot of you have very valid points regarding what is and isn't deemed acceptable. You must remember however that the Law is the Law (whether we like it or not) and many of your `like it or lump it approach` doesn't reflect well on the landowning community. sitsinhedges make very valid points, even if some of you do not like the style of delivery.

 

I fully appreciate that landowners do not like obnoxious `right to roam` ramblers but not everyone who uses a footpath fits that profile. They may not be ignorant townies and their dog may well be kept under close control. I am sure that most landowners do not want to be stereotyped as rude and arrogant `get off my land` or `you can always walk another way` either.

 

To suggest people can `go another way` if the PUBLIC footpath is not suitable due to unruly livestock; is very naïve. It's been discussed enough and if someone gets hurt and you fail the duty of care test then you will be liable. You won't like it, you will resist it and you will moan like hell about it. It won't change the fact that you will probably be liable and it will cost you a lot of money.

 

Personal attacks on other forum members aside it's nice to see people being passionate about what they believe in, but there should be enough room out there to satisfy everyone.

 

I work weekend contracts for the power company surveying power lines and poles. We follow the power lines wherever they may go and we come into contact with a lot of livestock. Last weekend I entered 3 fields which all had public footpaths running through them. All 3 fields had Friesians in them. One lot didn't bat an eyelid. One lot were very curious, surrounded me and licked me to death (in a nice non-threatening inquisitive way). The 3rd field had younger cows who were very jumpy and charged me a few times. I practically grew up on a dairy farm and I am very comfortable with livestock but they bothered me. I kept a close eye on them and ended up leaving the field walking backwards. I felt it was impractical to have those cows in that field. There was no footpath detour possible due to a stream running by the path and other hedges/fencing. You had to go through that field.

 

If animals are acting up enough to make me nervous then I would expect it to put the fear of god into most people and that is sadly how people get trampled. They may panic, fall over or try to protect family pet etc. No-one goes out looking for it and it's tragic when it happens.

 

Sadly, those of you with the `well it's not my problem` type of approach will be the ones in court arguing with a law that will not be on your side.

 

Let's keep everyone safe and use a common sense approach from both sides.

 

Not everyone who interacts with livestock is an idiot or do-gooder. I get paid to be there. Maybe I should pay to use the footpaths....

[RED BEARD]

+1 for the most sensible comment so far. I wasn't going to comment but due to some of the slightly naïve response I thought I would pipe up.

 

A lot of you have very valid points regarding what is and isn't deemed acceptable. You must remember however that the Law is the Law (whether we like it or not) and many of your `like it or lump it approach` doesn't reflect well on the landowning community. sitsinhedges make very valid points, even if some of you do not like the style of delivery.

 

I fully appreciate that landowners do not like obnoxious `right to roam` ramblers but not everyone who uses a footpath fits that profile. They may not be ignorant townies and their dog may well be kept under close control. I am sure that most landowners do not want to be stereotyped as rude and arrogant `get off my land` or `you can always walk another way` either.

 

To suggest people can `go another way` if the PUBLIC footpath is not suitable due to unruly livestock; is very naïve. It's been discussed enough and if someone gets hurt and you fail the duty of care test then you will be liable. You won't like it, you will resist it and you will moan like hell about it. It won't change the fact that you will probably be liable and it will cost you a lot of money.

 

Personal attacks on other forum members aside it's nice to see people being passionate about what they believe in, but there should be enough room out there to satisfy everyone.

 

I work weekend contracts for the power company surveying power lines and poles. We follow the power lines wherever they may go and we come into contact with a lot of livestock. Last weekend I entered 3 fields which all had public footpaths running through them. All 3 fields had Friesians in them. One lot didn't bat an eyelid. One lot were very curious, surrounded me and licked me to death (in a nice non-threatening inquisitive way). The 3rd field had younger cows who were very jumpy and charged me a few times. I practically grew up on a dairy farm and I am very comfortable with livestock but they bothered me. I kept a close eye on them and ended up leaving the field walking backwards. I felt it was impractical to have those cows in that field. There was no footpath detour possible due to a stream running by the path and other hedges/fencing. You had to go through that field.

 

If animals are acting up enough to make me nervous then I would expect it to put the fear of god into most people and that is sadly how people get trampled. They may panic, fall over or try to protect family pet etc. No-one goes out looking for it and it's tragic when it happens.

 

Sadly, those of you with the `well it's not my problem` type of approach will be the ones in court arguing with a law that will not be on your side.

 

Let's keep everyone safe and use a common sense approach from both sides.

 

Not everyone who interacts with livestock is an idiot or do-gooder. I get paid to be there. Maybe I should pay to use the footpaths....

so your saying if the only bit a dry land that the farmers has thats got a decent bit of growth on can't be used for grazing because the field has a footpath running through it??? if the answer is yes,you need to wake up and get into the real world.land and farms are the to make money,they're not there to look pretty.

[the enigma]

so your saying if the only bit a dry land that the farmers has thats got a decent bit of growth on can't be used for grazing because the field has a footpath running through it??? if the answer is yes,you need to wake up and get into the real world.land and farms are the to make money,they're not there to look pretty.

 

 

All I can say is, pity help anyone who has to farm land that the general public has a right to have access to. We don't have any public rights of way on our land,but we do have to walk our dairy cows about 50 yards along a road to get to some of our grazing ground, and there are times when the lack of common sense, and sometimes the sheer pigheadedness of people, is simply unbelievable.

[Asa Bear]

Taking this off on a slight tangent, my rugby club has a ROW across the 2nd team pitch. There used to be a lady that liked to exercise this right every Saturday afternoon. It was funny to watch her speed up if the "stampeding" forwards were headed her way!

[the enigma]

Taking this off on a slight tangent, my rugby club has a ROW across the 2nd team pitch. There used to be a lady that liked to exercise this right every Saturday afternoon. It was funny to watch her speed up if the "stampeding" forwards were headed her way!

 

Now that would be funny.

[Gimlet]

Those farmers and landowners who welcome public access must have a different kind of public from those that we get down here.

Couple of weeks ago I drove past a gateway and saw someone riding a motorbike in a field of rape. He didn't stay riding it for long but he was completely unable to understand 'what my problem' was and why he shoud not have been doing it. Cut wire is another favourite. If people decide they want to walk through a field that is fenced they simply cut the fence. Horse riders regularly use cultivated fields as gallops, racing each other across the crop because its nice and flat. You chase them down and turf them off, they laugh and say sorry in a breezy sort of way and a week later they're doing it again, tearing the plants out of the ground. In a field behind my house wnich has no ROW through it and signs saying so, I once saw a women killing a roe doe with a stone. Her dogs had savaged it and she was finishing it off. It was a hay field in late May, the grass was high and she let her dogs run free where they inevitably ran into a couched deer and tore it to bits. She left the field in a hurry, I saw her get into her car, got the number and reported her. She got a visit and presumably a talking to with the result that she now lets her dogs run on other people's fields where there are no rights of way instead. We have a bridleway that runs past the farm buildings. The dog fouling is attrocious. When I'm rabbit shooting I don't walk through there at night, its too much of a mine field. The Dog warden has been and put up 'clear up after your dog' signs which get removed or defaced. People walking through allow their dogs to run round the yards and buildings. We've even found fouling on a heap of grain in the grain dryer.

Last weekend I was driving to the gun shop when I got stuck behind some holdup. On the verge a couple had pulled over to let their border terrier out for a run in a field of sheep. It was chasing sheep around yapping its head off and they were pointing and laughing delightedly, presumably thinking it was playing with the sheep.

Public access has become such a holy cow that landowners are supposed to put up with this and pay for the damage. If they open their mouths to complain they're written off as backward looking 'get-off-my-land' caricatures.

One thing I have noticed is that townfolk and public access enthusiasts who move to the countryside to live the dream quickly rediscover the concept of property rights when they buy a scrap of ground themselves and find someone walking across it.

[crosshair]

What are farmers supposed to do if they have a public footpath accross their fields, are they supposed to leave the fields barren with no livestock to feed the public. The countryside is there to provide food for the public, making it a playground with no animals because of militant ramblers is not the answer, and neither is importing our food.

[WGD]

Common sense and respect don't seem to play any part in country life these days, everyone has to have their "rights" explained in monosyllabic terms and those rights have to be legislated for....

[sitsinhedges]

Those farmers and landowners who welcome public access must have a different kind of public from those that we get down here.

Couple of weeks ago I drove past a gateway and saw someone riding a motorbike in a field of rape. He didn't stay riding it for long but he was completely unable to understand 'what my problem' was and why he shoud not have been doing it. Cut wire is another favourite. If people decide they want to walk through a field that is fenced they simply cut the fence. Horse riders regularly use cultivated fields as gallops, racing each other across the crop because its nice and flat. You chase them down and turf them off, they laugh and say sorry in a breezy sort of way and a week later they're doing it again, tearing the plants out of the ground. In a field behind my house wnich has no ROW through it and signs saying so, I once saw a women killing a roe doe with a stone. Her dogs had savaged it and she was finishing it off. It was a hay field in late May, the grass was high and she let her dogs run free where they inevitably ran into a couched deer and tore it to bits. She left the field in a hurry, I saw her get into her car, got the number and reported her. She got a visit and presumably a talking to with the result that she now lets her dogs run on other people's fields where there are no rights of way instead. We have a bridleway that runs past the farm buildings. The dog fouling is attrocious. When I'm rabbit shooting I don't walk through there at night, its too much of a mine field. The Dog warden has been and put up 'clear up after your dog' signs which get removed or defaced. People walking through allow their dogs to run round the yards and buildings. We've even found fouling on a heap of grain in the grain dryer.

Last weekend I was driving to the gun shop when I got stuck behind some holdup. On the verge a couple had pulled over to let their border terrier out for a run in a field of sheep. It was chasing sheep around yapping its head off and they were pointing and laughing delightedly, presumably thinking it was playing with the sheep.

Public access has become such a holy cow that landowners are supposed to put up with this and pay for the damage. If they open their mouths to complain they're written off as backward looking 'get-off-my-land' caricatures.

One thing I have noticed is that townfolk and public access enthusiasts who move to the countryside to live the dream quickly rediscover the concept of property rights when they buy a scrap of ground themselves and find someone walking across it.

 

People misbehaving is a completely different subject. The great majority of people using public footpaths just want to go for a walk in the countryside and see a bit of nature.

 

Personally I wont go in to a field holding any type of cattle or horse unless I can skirt around the edges, several ton of beef thundering towards me isn't something I want to gamble with.

 

From a shooting perspective footpaths are a PITA, but all the farmers I know, and I know quite a few, accept them for what they are and act responsibly without any ill feeling to those who use them. It's more often than not people from the same village walking their dogs anyway.

[Dirty Harry]

We have 11 feilds and 6 have ROW through them. We farm beef and sheep don't have enough land to not use the feilds with paths for grazing. What do people on here think the solution should be.

It has been this way for the last few hundred years.

[darren m]

cows are people too

 

i used to be a herdsman milking 300 + holstiens , and i absoloultly loved em , very soft natured imo -- unless they were bulling , then you could get flattend by mistake.

 

i also worked with beef cattle , wow different or what , with calves at foot they dont mess about .

 

even been in paddocks with horses with foals at foot they can be very protective , especially when i ,ve had my dog with me .

 

 

The silly twits who get trampled or kicked etc probably half deserve it for not respecting the footpaths , the bounderies , the countryside code of conduct , but most of all the unpredictable animal thats grazing in there with them.

[Scully]

I think the Rambliing townie mindset etc can be based on a number of things,one of which is definitely ignorance of how the countryside works.Another is without doubt based on the 'landed gentry' stereotype,which genders more than a bit of jealousy or resentment,which brings us onto the other,which is that some ramblers,townies,just don't care about their actions and the consequences.I see this latter on an almost daily basis.

One amusing incident took place some years ago on one of our back country lanes.I drove around a corner to see two vehicles braking in front as there were obviously sheep on the road,being driven towards us(as it became apparent)by a single-handed farmer and his dog.Sheep are often moved from one pasture to another up here,which sometimes means a short meander along the road.

On these occassions I tend to just sit and watch the countryside for 5 minutes 'til they've passed,and wind my window down as it's never more than a couple of hundred yards or so,so doesn't take long.Whether the young lad in the car in front of me had seen the farmer or his dog I don't know,but he started to lean on his car horn,with predictable results......sheep all over the shop!

I could just make out the farmer in the distance waving his stick and could see he wasn't pleased but couldn't hear what he was saying,but the lad continued to play with his horn until he could obviously see the farmer shouting and cursing at him.

When the farmer had got his sheep passed the car it started to move forward but the farmer was still giving vent and as the car moved passed him brought his stick down so hard on the roof of the car that he broke it.His face was livid.The driver didn't stop.

The farmer looked at me as he walked by my open window and saw me looking at his stick.'That was my best bloody stick an'all,but bloody worth it!' Hilarious.

[hedge]

so your saying if the only bit a dry land that the farmers has thats got a decent bit of growth on can't be used for grazing because the field has a footpath running through it??? if the answer is yes,you need to wake up and get into the real world.land and farms are the to make money,they're not there to look pretty.

 

Red Beard - what I am saying is that whether you like it or not, if a ROW crosses your land, you have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect Joe Public.

 

I am actually on your side but not everyone who uses a footpath is abusing the privilege or looking for confrontation. What I am trying to say is that as a landowner yes it can be a pain in the ar$e, but you still have to try and accomodate it.

 

Of course farmland is for farming but in the lovely world we live in you have to be aware of litigation, compensation, H&S and risk assessments. Farming may have been around for hundreds of years but things do change.

 

Regarding to your reference to the `real world` - that is where I come from. Laws, rules and more laws. I don't like them but I have to operate within them. I'm not taking sides but trying to offer a perspective based around what could happen. Sadly, as we know, people do get hurt and as I was trying to say in my other post, lack of knowledge doesn't mean lack of common sense. If you don't have a problem with a small child (for example) being hurt by a frisky cow because the parents `should have known better` (than enter a field with young cows in it), then that's your opinion. Sadly, if that did happen and it ended up in court with the HSE and god knows who else involved then you may end up on the wrong side of the law. A pretty young cow/calf is attractive to young kids. They do not perceive the danger (and the adults may be no better).

 

With regard to how do you solve the problem - that's not an obvious answer but a single strand electric fence running 100m from entry to exit point (for example) should suffice (using an exapmple I came across - I accept that all situations are different and not so easy to solve.).

 

I am sorry that there is such a distorted view of ROW and those that use (or abuse) them, but you guys mention `it's always been like that` - I accept that but we now have TV, Internet and lots of tohher things that we `didn't have` a few decades ago. You can't leave farming in a time warp. I am sure that most of you use modern machinery etc. That's `progress`, although some of if (litigation) is less attractive.

 

I accept that some people do not show huge amounts of common sense but don't confuse that with knowledge. You will have generations of experience so your common sense is developed differently to others. You will be far more aware of livestock and their surroundings. If we took you out of your familiar surroundings, you might not be so familiar with the London Underground, whereas others may consider you `lacking common sense` if you don't know which colour line goes where etc. Apologies for the poor example.

 

I would hate to see more stories of unecessary injuries/deaths that could have been prevented.

 

I'm not having a go at you but asking you to see a different point of view, particularly from the litigation apsect. What you think is right and acceptable may well differ from the law. It is clear on this thread that most landowners see ROW as a real pain and I can sympathise, but as long as they exist then solutions or comprimises need to be found.

 

What does your risk assessment say about ROW and livestock?

[Gordon R]

The silly twits who get trampled or kicked etc probably half deserve it for not respecting the footpaths

 

Someone dies and they probably half deserved it??? Just how does that bit of drivel work? :no:

 

If farmers can't cope with Rights of Way, then they are probably in the wrong job. They are not going to go away and have to be dealt with.

[RED BEARD]

 

Red Beard - what I am saying is that whether you like it or not, if a ROW crosses your land, you have a duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect Joe Public.

 

I am actually on your side but not everyone who uses a footpath is abusing the privilege or looking for confrontation. What I am trying to say is that as a landowner yes it can be a pain in the ar$e, but you still have to try and accomodate it.

 

Of course farmland is for farming but in the lovely world we live in you have to be aware of litigation, compensation, H&S and risk assessments. Farming may have been around for hundreds of years but things do change.

 

Regarding to your reference to the `real world` - that is where I come from. Laws, rules and more laws. I don't like them but I have to operate within them. I'm not taking sides but trying to offer a perspective based around what could happen. Sadly, as we know, people do get hurt and as I was trying to say in my other post, lack of knowledge doesn't mean lack of common sense. If you don't have a problem with a small child (for example) being hurt by a frisky cow because the parents `should have known better` (than enter a field with young cows in it), then that's your opinion. Sadly, if that did happen and it ended up in court with the HSE and god knows who else involved then you may end up on the wrong side of the law. A pretty young cow/calf is attractive to young kids. They do not perceive the danger (and the adults may be no better).

 

With regard to how do you solve the problem - that's not an obvious answer but a single strand electric fence running 100m from entry to exit point (for example) should suffice (using an exapmple I came across - I accept that all situations are different and not so easy to solve.).

 

I am sorry that there is such a distorted view of ROW and those that use (or abuse) them, but you guys mention `it's always been like that` - I accept that but we now have TV, Internet and lots of tohher things that we `didn't have` a few decades ago. You can't leave farming in a time warp. I am sure that most of you use modern machinery etc. That's `progress`, although some of if (litigation) is less attractive.

 

I accept that some people do not show huge amounts of common sense but don't confuse that with knowledge. You will have generations of experience so your common sense is developed differently to others. You will be far more aware of livestock and their surroundings. If we took you out of your familiar surroundings, you might not be so familiar with the London Underground, whereas others may consider you `lacking common sense` if you don't know which colour line goes where etc. Apologies for the poor example.

 

I would hate to see more stories of unecessary injuries/deaths that could have been prevented.

 

I'm not having a go at you but asking you to see a different point of view, particularly from the litigation apsect. What you think is right and acceptable may well differ from the law. It is clear on this thread that most landowners see ROW as a real pain and I can sympathise, but as long as they exist then solutions or comprimises need to be found.

 

What does your risk assessment say about ROW and livestock?

the truth of it is,most farmers don't want footpaths going through their land.its also not practical to put up electric fencing unless strip grazing a field.most footpaths seem to cross through fields (are's included) where they would be better routed around the edges,that way they could be permanently fenced off from stock (and also stopping folk's dogs crapping in themowing grass!) ,but just try getting a ROW re-routed,its a proper ball ache and usually a total waste of time.are footpaths could easily be re-routed all around the egde of are fields,that way theres no danger to the public or damage to are crop! but any proposal would get turned down flat.

[Gordon R]

Red Beard - fair point about re-routing ROWs.

[Kes]

The ONLY reason to reroute a ROW is by providing "A more commodious route". Not a mor convenient route. Walkers who wish to retain the history and implied purpose of local and national ROW's have a policy of objecting to change and it costs the applicant on average some £500 irrespective of the length of the re-routing and it is more ,likely not to be approved.

The only solution is to educate those who use them and for both users and owners to act sensibly. There is no obligation to fence a ROW but there is not to block it polugh it or intimidate users (big dog close to route)> I still say we have had these routes for milennia but we should use them concious of the risks and, as landowners not put walkers at unnecessary risk.

Beware of the Bull and electric fencing is just not going to work but maybe it discharges the legal responsibility but if it doesnt work what is the point of the legislation ?

Common sense, education(experience) and the intelligence to use these, is the best proetction IMHO

[CharlieT]

 

Common sense, education(experience) and the intelligence to use these, is the best proetction IMHO

Coupled with a little common sense on the landowners part.