VinnieK Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Proof of FA. Could it be that those who are into hiking would rather spend their free time in the fresh air rather than staring geekily at a pc screen? Just a thought.... I know this is probably going to blow your mind, but the suggestion regarding proof I made was tongue-in-cheek - the point was not so much that the Forums are definitively representative, but rather that Frances' example didn't contradict the hypothesis that they were more or less representative. In short: a poor effort, even by your standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I know this is probably going to blow your mind, but the suggestion regarding proof I made was tongue-in-cheek Really! Well I never.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 What i want to know is why is the Isle of Man the only place in the British Isles that doesnt have right to roam laws. I would think that it's simply because the Countryside, and places " to Roam " are only about 15 mins away for anyone on the Island. We also try to apply common sense when it comes to who owns the land and also understand that in most cases, these paths, what were once used for travel, have been disused for that purpose for many years. We also understand that it is usually with the landowners help that these paths are kept open and also understand that whilst a few think it's a " Right " most think it as a privlidge. We, the Isle of Man, have so many open places with free access, we don't need to dragged into the 21st century regarding the Right to Roam Law. The same Law which, after being sought after by a small bunch of whinging gits, now sees many places in the UK being destroyed by these same people and costing the Local Councils and Nature Trusts, thousands of pounds to put right. Yet they see no monies coming from the people who want this access and Right. But then maybe if there were Right to Roam laws in the IOM, the farmers could charge people for cleaning up fields and repairing hedges after the TT and MGP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 In all the thousands of miles I have walked in the UK I have found that the mess and rubbish scattered about is exclusively agricultural. For some reason folks harbour this myth that somehow farmers and landowners "look after" their land and care for it and it's total bollocks. In my experience they don't want you on their land purely because they don't want you on their land. People who enjoy the countryside want it to stay the way it is. They don't let dogs roam free, leave gates open, scatter litter etc etc but they get accused of it time and again. I'm pleased with the legislation. I've enjoyed that right in Scotland for years and it's well worth having. Also Local Councils etc should ALWAYS have maintained their rights of way but haven't hence farmers deliberately plough up footpaths, destroy footbridges etc etc Now the councils are being told to do what they should have been doing all along. It's not exactly news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I think you're rambling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 In all the thousands of miles I have walked in the UK I have found that the mess and rubbish scattered about is exclusively agricultural. For some reason folks harbour this myth that somehow farmers and landowners "look after" their land and care for it and it's total bollocks. In my experience they don't want you on their land purely because they don't want you on their land. People who enjoy the countryside want it to stay the way it is. They don't let dogs roam free, leave gates open, scatter litter etc etc but they get accused of it time and again. I'm pleased with the legislation. I've enjoyed that right in Scotland for years and it's well worth having. Also Local Councils etc should ALWAYS have maintained their rights of way but haven't hence farmers deliberately plough up footpaths, destroy footbridges etc etc Now the councils are being told to do what they should have been doing all along. It's not exactly news. 100% agree. The isle of man has a pathetic percent of land available to the public. Its a national disgrace. As you say PK people who enjoy the countryside stick the the countryside code. Unlike what u think celt. People dont go flying thru hedges and trampling crops (under right to roam your not allowed in crop fields or fields with animals for that matter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 look at the density of public footpaths in the south of the Island vs that in the North - mostly due to the working of the 1970's act that required notification of a path for it to be included in a definitive rights of way list. Few landowners volunteered paths across their property and thus the list required others to send in the data - the south apparently had a more knowledgeable + hardworking walker who did his homework without which there would be few 'joined up' paths. There are still sections of the coastal path which coulkd be improved if certain landowners would allow access to a narrow peripheral strip of their land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Yet which is the dog that most people get nervy about? The big black dork! My mind is often boggled that dog owners cannot 'read' other dogs, looking disapprovingly at the Lab just doing his thing and steering their dogs away from him whilst looking at the terrier all misty eyed and letting their dog go up to her while I am trying to fend them off for fear of a yelp when she plants a Farmhill kiss on their nose! Why should they have to 'read' your dog? I gave a lab a really good kicking for wanting to "play" with my 3 year old. To little people dogs are enormous and frightening. Of course the owners are to blame, typically the "one word from the owner and the dog does what it likes" scenario. It's very simple, if you can't control them you shouldn't keep them and there are an awful lot around who not only can't control their mutts but also don't seem bothered about the distress they cause others. I was referring to dog owners not the general public, which my fella ignores. Being able to read a dog is a necessary part of being a good dog owner IMO. Please understand the context before spouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 What a load of piffle. Yes sheep at times are fairly stupid animals and at times it appears there life ambition is to die but they are not lemmings. They do not hurl themselves off cliffs or into the sea for no reason However the rest of what you posted below as fact is complete piffle as I expect the law in the IoM is probably the same as in the UK. It is not illegal for a dog to be off a lead where there are sheep or that you can kill a dog if it is "loose" where sheep are grazing. By loose I presume you mean not on a lead. This is covered in Section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 which makes it an offence for a dog to be at large. At large means that the dog is not on a lead or otherwise under close control, in a field or enclosure containing sheep. Therefore it is perfectly legal for a dog not to be on a lead provided the owner or anyone else whose control the dog is under has the dog under control. It is also an offence for dogs to attack or chase livestock, or attempt to attack or chase, and farmers are permitted to shoot dogs that are worrying, or are about to worry, farm animals. This is outlined in section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, The definition of 'livestock' includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry The dog must have been attacking or chasing livestock in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution of their produce A dog possibly may therefore be regarded as 'worrying' livestock merely by being off a lead or not under close control in a field or enclosure where there are sheep but I do not think merely because it is loose i.e. not on a lead per your apparent definition it gives a farmer the right to shoot it. It definately has to be out of the owners control. I also think any such right also applies only to the farmer/owner of the livestock or employees etc. not to anybody walking past with a spare rifle I can't understand what beef (sorry) you two have. Sheep do both. I've seen the stupid shauns trap themselves on vertical faces and I've also seen the results of dog attacks, particularly nasty when there's two of them and they take an end each and yes sheep commonly abort when attacked. Which is why in the UK it is illegal for a dog to be off the lead where there are sheep. If you come across a dog loose where sheep are grazing then kill it. It doesn't even have to be "worrying" them. The fact it has the opportunity is more than enough grounds. Perfectly legal to do so. As a Marksman First Class I'll happily lend my services to the Clarksons for pest control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Utter rubbish, there are good and bad people on both sides. Farmers invariably want to keep their land clean and tidy as potentially it is bad for livestock and cultivation if it is not. Yours seemed a vey one eyed view in that it is all the farmers fault and never the ramblers. I am a walker and I am not bothered about the legislation either way as it has never made a bit of difference to me. I have always been happy with the paths etc available and I like to think I am concious of the feeling of landowners. In fact it probably it has done more harm than good as the right to roam only applies to uncultivated land in designated areas. I am sure many ramblers are aware of that but many seem to believe that it gives them carte blanche to wander wherever they want to go in the country side. Those people are as big a nuisance as the farmers who up footpaths. The latter is rare in my view as most footpaths stick to field boundaries and it is fairly difficult to plough up to a field boundary without making a very specific effort. Yes they might go over the odd bit but as a user of the coutry side I happily accept this as I appreciate that this is more lilkely in error than deliberate. It is wasteful to prepare and sow land which will not grow or you can not reep and more importantly the farmer themselves want to use the boundaries to get around ratherthan trample over crops. The Prowl people come across like this. i.e. they demand their "rights" as they see them and have no time for anyother view or wish to be helpful or accomodating In all the thousands of miles I have walked in the UK I have found that the mess and rubbish scattered about is exclusively agricultural. For some reason folks harbour this myth that somehow farmers and landowners "look after" their land and care for it and it's total bollocks. In my experience they don't want you on their land purely because they don't want you on their land. People who enjoy the countryside want it to stay the way it is. They don't let dogs roam free, leave gates open, scatter litter etc etc but they get accused of it time and again. I'm pleased with the legislation. I've enjoyed that right in Scotland for years and it's well worth having. Also Local Councils etc should ALWAYS have maintained their rights of way but haven't hence farmers deliberately plough up footpaths, destroy footbridges etc etc Now the councils are being told to do what they should have been doing all along. It's not exactly news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 What a load of piffle. Yes sheep at times are fairly stupid animals and at times it appears there life ambition is to die but they are not lemmings. They do not hurl themselves off cliffs or into the sea for no reason However the rest of what you posted below as fact is complete piffle as I expect the law in the IoM is probably the same as in the UK. It is not illegal for a dog to be off a lead where there are sheep or that you can kill a dog if it is "loose" where sheep are grazing. By loose I presume you mean not on a lead. This is covered in Section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 which makes it an offence for a dog to be at large. At large means that the dog is not on a lead or otherwise under close control, in a field or enclosure containing sheep. Therefore it is perfectly legal for a dog not to be on a lead provided the owner or anyone else whose control the dog is under has the dog under control. It is also an offence for dogs to attack or chase livestock, or attempt to attack or chase, and farmers are permitted to shoot dogs that are worrying, or are about to worry, farm animals. This is outlined in section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, The definition of 'livestock' includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry The dog must have been attacking or chasing livestock in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution of their produce A dog possibly may therefore be regarded as 'worrying' livestock merely by being off a lead or not under close control in a field or enclosure where there are sheep but I do not think merely because it is loose i.e. not on a lead per your apparent definition it gives a farmer the right to shoot it. It definately has to be out of the owners control. I also think any such right also applies only to the farmer/owner of the livestock or employees etc. not to anybody walking past with a spare rifle Spare me the legalese bollocks. I've seen sheep get into trouble on cliffs, get trapped by the tide and one nearly took a mate of mine off Pavey Ark! No, they don't deliberately lemming-like go over cliffs but they do do it to themselves, don't they? [sigh] It's not illegal to kill a dog. You can kill anyone's dog you like. You have to do it humanely (subjective, I mean, who's going to ask the ex-dog?) and the owner can then take Civil Proceedings against you for destruction of their property. If the dog is "out of control" (subjective, I mean, who's going to ask the ex-dog?) then you have a defence if it is off the lead in the proximity of sheep and could therefore be construed as about to cause trouble. It really is that simple. You can quote what constitutes livestock, game, out of control etc etc for as long as you like and it won't make any difference. That's the thing that really used to annoy me about foxhunting. When the hounds are 2 - 3 years old they just kill them. Utter rubbish, there are good and bad people on both sides. Farmers invariably want to keep their land clean and tidy as potentially it is bad for livestock and cultivation if it is not. Yours seemed a vey one eyed view in that it is all the farmers fault and never the ramblers. I stated that in my experience the crap I have seen is exclusively agricultural. What, are you saying I must have seen something else? Were you there at the same time or something? Having said that I avoid the "tourist honeypot" areas where I know there are litter problems from thoughtless jerks who care so little about the mess they make I wonder what their houses look like. I'm thinking here of Scafell, Kinder Downfall, The Ben and so on. Sure there's no agriculture there and they're owned by Trusts but even so there is no excuse for scattering your crap far and wide. How's Clarkson by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The thing I don't understand here is... He bought the land from whoever sold it. Obvisouly there were no restrictions about public footpaths and rights of way when he bought it, if there had this would have been sorted legally at the beginging and he would have bought the land knowing this. So.. if it's his land, his property.. he decides when he cuts his grass.. how can anyone presume they have the right to walk across it?! I just don't understand thats all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 The status of the path had not really been decided - there had been earlier agreements and the Gov even built a car park so people could use it but the path was left in the list as permissive which whilst the Northern Commisioners of lights owned the land was ok by all, especially as there was a high wall around the seaward side of their property (btw the kitchen widows are set back considerably further from this wall than I suspect most have our windows from a public footpath) - Clarkson bought the property after it had been converted to holiday homes (I understand that part is still rated as holiday home so possibly they only occupy it for less than the 6weeks to avoid rates) and reduced the height of the surrounding wall on the seaward side then decided that he had bought an uninterrupted view and unilaterally altered the status-quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 No idea as I do not know him, never spoken to him, never met him and the only time I have ever seen him is on the TV. Why? Are you trying to imply I am some friend and mouth piece for Clarkson? If you have read some other posts you might have worked out that is not he case How's Clarkson by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floyd Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 I understand what your saying until the last bit. Just cause the lane next to my house is on the boundary of my garden doesnt mean I can lay claim to that lane as it is a public footpath... I can't beleive that this is what has happened here. Surely when he bought the poperty his legal peeps had a map of what he was buying... isn't that the case with all house/land purchases? So in all fairness he probably beleives according to the maps that he has bought thisbit of land... if he hadn't he would be breaking the law. I reckon this is the reason why so few land owners allow the public any kind of access to their land whether its for flying kites, kicking a ball or walking through..... It really does come across as just because they have always been allowed to walk the path they beleive it is now their god given right. I would be very upset if I purchased something and then be told that I have no control over it... wouldn't you?!?!?! Seems pretty reasonable. You don't buy a car and then allow the garage to pimp it out for test drives to new buyers when they like do you?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.