Hello all,
This is the first time I've jumped in on a conversation, but David
Bangs has made me quite cross. Well done Sarah for your stand.
With regard to the statement that there is far more vandalism on private
land 'kids, dogs, litter, and
travellers notwithstanding...' is silly because this is precisely the
problem with public land.
I am interested that David thinks that old meadow is a valuable habitat
because this form of grassland was created by farmers 'vandalising' the
original habitat which might have been ancient forest, heathland, or
shrub cover in the far distant past. Large tracts of old meadow were
lost because the government forced farmers to plough it up during the
second world war, and the rest of the vandalism was largely due to the
pressure of successive agricultural policies, which are really not the
farmer's fault. I could go on by pointing out that hedgerows are hardly
a natural feature and largely the result of the enclosures, but we'd be
here all day.
Farmers and landowners are stewards of the land under our current
sociopolitical system and that may not be to David's liking but it is
what we have to work with and realistically isn't going to change in the
near future. Accepting that isn't 'meek' it is pragmatic. There really
isn't any benefit in conservationists standing on one side of an
imaginary fence and throwing stones. That kind of behaviour impedes
progress and prevents cooperation.
I personally abhor all kinds of shootin', huntin' and fishin', and will
speak out against those who undertake these activities, but I'm quite
content to wander the many miles of public right of way across our green
and pleasant land, and do not agree with a general right to roam.
I also agree with Sarah that this subject is too big and not really
suitable for this forum.
- Re: [Adastra] vandalism and right to roam KAY fountain
-
