Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#775: - Re: Re: Re:

Not saying that the horses would eat oak trees more their trampling effects would keep the young saplings from growing to full age, hence the advice to graze the common.

Please note oak is toxic not poisionous- "Leaves and acorns of oak contain tannins that are toxic in large enough doses"

If they are toxic to horses surely they should be removed for common users who ride horses?

#778: - Re: Re: Re: Re:

To cattle and horses oak leaves and acorns are poisonous. Much more so for cattle, horses have less of a tendancy to eat oak leaves and acorns but deaths are not unknown. The only grazing animal that can tolerate both is a pig.

I'm sorry, I thought grazing was to be the principle tool of management. It is cleary stated in natural englands bible on the subject "Grazing and its place in nature conservation"

Not trampling and its place in nature conservation. Trampling cattle are recidevists anyway, well worn routes, favourite areas, you seem to think the are bovine strimmers.

Horse riding anywhere is safe if you are in control of your mount. Ask a horse rider.

 

#781: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

To date this has been an intelligent exchange. To decend into insult does you no credit nor does deleting a mild repost. I argue that the pre 1960s situation was acceptable to those grazing the common and that they considered there to be no danger to their animals. If dangerous species to horses now exist they must have appeared post the 1960s either naturally or by the hand of man. The felled oaks grew in a pattern that showed evidence of the hand of man as they were in a rough line and evenly spaced. The toxic nature of oaks is irrelevant to the debate. The site is to be lightly grazed by cattle who are not suseptable to an oaks toxin. The public inquiry heard expert evidence on the issue of grazing. No one disagreed with the benfits of light grazing of the common. The Inspector considered all relevant matters and concluded that on balance the matter should proceed. Whilst I accept your right to hold a different view in order to convince others of the value of your arguement you should be able to demonstrate where the professional witnesses were in error by evidence that can be tested. I have seen no evidence that has been the subject of peer review that would lead me to support your opposition to the proposed grazing. I bear you no ill will. Your continued stance and acceptance of legal advice from a lay source will have far reaching personal consequences. Please give some time to reflect on the matter before you delete this reply. It matters not to me. I withdraw from the debate unbowed. I have a life.

#782: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

They showed the hand of man because thet were planted by man.

Have you read the inspectors report?

Do you know the nature of the "Public" enquiry?

Of course the oaks have all grown since the sixties

There were no opposition witnesses, only people who would benefit from the scheme going ahead.

Have you read this to see how disasterously wrong this procedure can be

http://www.horseytalk.net/ROW/SteveYandall_LonghornCattle.html    or

http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=560    and the list goes on and on and on.

I understand about far reaching consequences, that is why I am doing what I am doing.

I have consistentley deleted thinly veiled goading or downright contempt and have always tried to explain things.

You have refused to meet me on the common.

You have such faith in your conviction, you will not give your name

You have drawn the debate needlesley back over old ground in a pseudo attempt at  Intellectualism.

I'm glad you are withdrawing from the debate, at your level it's pointless

I'm glad you have another life, because you have not excelled in this debate.

 

We can have a chat, the next time we bump into each other.

 

 

#784: - Re: I always try to answer

How was I being rude?

#786: - Re: Re: Re: I always try to answer

Which was?

Irrelevant posts are ealways deleted. if you had noticed I delete my own also.
If people cannot sustain debate and suddenley swerve somewhere else or deliberatley start to be provocative, thats not on.

MPA Fishing Coalition ‘holding Natural England to account’ PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 31 August 2010 13:47
' ' src=' '> ' ' src=' '>

THE MPA Fishing Coalition has launched a broadside against the independent public body Natural England in a statement summarising what it says are its achievements in holding government and its statutory advisers to account.

The Coalition, of which the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) is a core member, claims its criticism of the way in which Natural England has defined its role – as “sometimes advisor to government, sometimes sounding and behaving like an environmental NGO, and often assuming to itself the mantle of management decisions” – has now established an important principle: that Natural England will play no role in the design, implementation or enforcement of the management measures that will apply within marine conservation zones or the European Special Areas of Conservation once they have been designated.

The statement, which can be seen here, said: “The MPA Fishing Coalition has continued its important role of holding government and its statutory advisors, Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), to account. At a recent meeting in London, the Coalition raised key issues relating to the process of establishing a network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in UK waters.

“The Coalition’s interventions have established one very important point of principle: at the meeting, Natural England announced that it will play no role in the design, implementation or enforcement of the management measures that will apply within marine conservation zones or the European Special Areas of Conservation once they have been designated. That will be left to the relevant authorities: Defra, Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs). Although the distinction between advisors to government and fisheries managers might seem obvious, Natural England’s public statements and attitudes during its expansionist phase, often gave the opposite impression; so this clarification is important.

“The Coalition has regularly criticised confusion in the way that Natural England has defined its role: sometimes advisor to government, sometimes sounding and behaving like an environmental NGO, and often assuming to itself the mantle of management decisions. Those criticisms are now shown to have been effective.

“The Coalition also raised the damage done to Natural England’s credibility as dispassionate, impartial and rigorous advisors to government by the revelations in the press, following a Freedom of Information request, by Terri Portman of Scott Trawlers.

“The information obtained under the FOI request suggested a less than transparent process at the time that the Lyme Bay closure was introduced. There is no doubting the seriousness of the charge, nor Natural England’s determination to repair the damage. Having committed itself to an open, evidence-based process in the establishment of marine conservation zones, the suggestion that Natural England suppressed crucial, but for them uncomfortable science regarding the scarcity of pink sea fans couldn’t be more embarrassing. Natural England hopes that a no-holds-barred interview with the editor of Fishing News will end the matter. Time will tell.

“From the outset, the Coalition has been critical about the artificial and unrealistic timetable set by ministers for the establishment of a network of MPAs, which is wholly inconsistent with gathering an adequate evidence base, or for a process in which stakeholders have a genuine influence. The Coalition was frankly scornful when both Natural England and Defra claimed that there was “no evidence that the timetable could not be met”. The quality of the evidence base and the degree to which the four regional projects are genuine stakeholder-led processes, or manipulative box-ticking exercises, are issues that have yet to be settled. All of this is intimately linked to the question of what is possible within an unrealistic timetable.

“The whole question of the quality of the ecological science and information on patterns of fishing is an area of major concern for the Coalition to which to date, Natural England’s assurances seem hollow. An exercise in gauging the sensitivity of different offshore activities to marine conservation zones has been abandoned as inadequate, after criticisms from participants, and whilst this recognition and response is to be welcomed, it does increase the sense of making it up as we go along in a hurry and of a forced process.

“Natural England confirmed that the changing science base is the main reason why it is re-consulting on a number of the European SACs previously notified, including Eddystone, Lune Deep, and Studland to Portland, and once complete this will complete the SACs in English inshore waters, amounting to 19% of the 0-12 zone. Domestic MCZs under the Marine and Coastal Access Act may overlap European SACs or may be additional to them.

“At present, Natural England is committed to making final recommendations on the designation of a network of marine conservation zones by June 2011.

“The main reason for the establishment of the Coalition was the potential for the marine conservation zones and special areas of conservation to displace fishermen from their customary fishing grounds. The Coalition has repeatedly made the point that inadequate attention was being given to the potentially disruptive consequences of displacement, not only for the vessels directly affected, but for adjacent or even distant areas into which fishing effort is displaced. Again the Coalition seems to have made progress in this area insofar as Defra have now agreed to set up a working group to study both the ecological implications of displacement and the consequences and options for the fishing vessels affected.

“The Coalition will continue to hold Natural England to account through direct meetings with senior officials; the next meeting will be in November after the publication of the second iteration by the regional projects. In the meantime, a meeting between the Coalition and the Minister, who will ultimately be responsible for all MPA decisions, will be held; and the Coalition will be meeting with Defra on the displacement issue.”

I left a question that you deleted are the cattle on the common going to have horns like the picture

#799: -

The pictures on WCC's literature show a longhorn. I was also told this by Martin Barnett in a telephone conversation that I have the transcript for, some time ago.