Crossing farmland on foot

Greensleeves

Sorry, I didn't mean to wind anyone up. I just meant that if a county council for example drew up plans for some walking routes by identifying potential strips of land that they could buy outright from farmers (obviously only if the farmers want to sell) and made a generous enough offer then maybe enough farmers would sell and everyone would be happy. As a walker I hate badly marked trails or any sense that I am intruding on someone's privacy and upsetting them by my presence so I would prefer very obvious routes maintained by the council rather than feeling that I am unwanted.

randomperson12

always ask the farmer or if its a right of way you can use it without asking plus mass paths

gozunda

visatorro wrote: »

Sorry what do you mean by 'annexed'? There is an old railway beside us and they have planning in to turn it into a walking/cycling route.

In this case I believe it involved flattening, leveling and fencing for agricultural use - this happened well before the proposal by the development group. Irish Rail as far as I know eventually get it back.
With regard to the whole walking thing I think it is getting a bit hyped. I don't see any of the hordes or mobs described here. In this area it's local people as walking the roads is practically impossible. There has always been access allowed in the past - it's nothing to do with presure. I allow it and I really don't get the attitude that there is some crowd out to aggressively demand access and intefer with farming / demand compensation. Not sure why some are getting worked up about to be honest. The point about being smart about this is having some common sense and not publically declaring that roving mobs of yobs running amok trough the fields. Those Presure groups will feed off this and other screeming stereotypes.

Conmaicne Mara

gozunda wrote: »

In this case I believe it involved flattening, leveling and fencing for agricultural use - this happened well before the proposal by the development group. Irish Rail as far as I know eventually get it back.
With regard to the whole walking thing I think it is getting a bit hyped. I don't see any of the hordes or mobs described here. In this area it's local people as walking the roads is practically impossible. There has always been access allowed in the past. I really don't get the attitude that there is some crowd out to aggressively demand access and intefer with farming / demand compensation. Not sure what everyone is getting worked up about to be honest.

7 pages of it, I am figuring you don't want to believe it rather than it not happening.

gozunda

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

7 pages of it, I am figuring you don't want to believe it rather than it not happening.

I have given my experience of this and not a hyped envisioning of some mad bunch demanding access and creating mass havoc. As I said there is a need to be smarter than this. I think that is common sense.

Conmaicne Mara

gozunda wrote: »

I have given my experience of this and not a hyped envisioning of some mad bunch demanding access and creating mass havoc. As I said there is a need to be smarter than this. I think that is common sense.

Who exactly is hyping?

gozunda

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Who exactly is hyping?

Go back and read some of what has been posted. I'll take reality any day. Not going to doing a grudge match thanks.

bbam

Hype it not.
Anyone who wants to see how public access is treated just head out and look at a Coilte forest walk.
In my job I oversee the maintenance of public amenity spaces and the public have no respect. Constant littering, dog fouling, mindless vandalism, just pure careless because it's not their own back yard. Anyone looking for access to our land will be told to feck off.

freedominacup

bbam wrote: »

Hype it not.
Anyone who wants to see how public access is treated just head out and look at a Coilte forest walk.
In my job I oversee the maintenance of public amenity spaces and the public have no respect. Constant littering, dog fouling, mindless vandalism, just pure careless because it's not their own back yard. Anyone looking for access to our land will be told to feck off.

A mate of mine had a job with coillte for a while and a big part of it was cleaning up and disposing of all of the sh1te left by the harmless general public.

Conmaicne Mara

gozunda wrote: »

Go back and read some of what has been posted. I'll take reality any day. Not going to doing a grudge match thanks.

No. I asked you where the hyping was done, point it out, I didn't see it, I don't believe it's there.

bbam

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

No. I asked you where the hyping was done, point it out, I didn't see it, I don't believe it's there.

That's is Con, it's out there for anyone who wants to go out and look. Places where the general public have free access ate treated as dumping grounds. As well as casual littering of picnic type stuff people are dropping bags of household rubbish in public spaces.
I've seen commercial rubbish being dumped too.

For me the evidence speaks for itself, people just can't be given access or they will make a mess.

And as for asking for the council to help out with litter control. I asked to have litter wardens check specific areas but no, it couldn't be done. I finally got two prosecutions by sitting and photographing two cars dumping rubbish myself, even then it took months to have it done and I had to keep pushing and pushing for it to happen.

Conmaicne Mara

bbam wrote: »

That's is Con, it's out there for anyone who wants to go out and look. Places where the general public have free access ate treated as dumping grounds. As well as casual littering of picnic type stuff people are dropping bags of household rubbish in public spaces.
I've seen commercial rubbish being dumped too.

For me the evidence speaks for itself, people just can't be given access or they will make a mess.

And as for asking for the council to help out with litter control. I asked to have litter wardens check specific areas but no, it couldn't be done. I finally got two prosecutions by sitting and photographing two cars dumping rubbish myself, even then it took months to have it done and I had to keep pushing and pushing for it to happen.

Galway County Council had to remove ALL public litter bins from my local village. The reason, Irish people (in the majority) were renting houses, stuffing their week or fortnights worth of rubbish in carrier bags and filling the bins with it.

That is how some Irish people act in full public view, imagine what would be done outside of the public gaze.

reilig

gozunda wrote: »

There has always been access allowed in the past - it's nothing to do with presure. I allow it and I really don't get the attitude that there is some crowd out to aggressively demand access and intefer with farming / demand compensation.

Have you every considered the risk and liability on you for allowing someone to walk on your land? If someone falls and breaks a leg, or crosses barbed wire and gets a cut, or be attached by one of your animals or by a wild animal then you are liable as the landowner. You could be sued for damages and lose your farm to pay the compensation. If the case went to court you are even more liable because you allow them access - you have some ammunition in court if the person was trespassing (but not a lot).

All locals are lovely and won't claim compensation :D:D

Yea right!

gozunda

bbam wrote: »

Hype it not.
Anyone who wants to see how public access is treated just head out and look at a Coilte forest walk.
In my job I oversee the maintenance of public amenity spaces and the public have no respect. Constant littering, dog fouling, mindless vandalism, just pure careless because it's not their own back yard. Anyone looking for access to our land will be told to feck off.

Lovely sentiment there bbam nice to see the colourful use of language - a great addition to the 'amenity' sector indeed.
It would seem that all and sundry are being included in the above. I thought the thread was about simple request for information on walking thru fields. If people are dumping large amounts of rubbish all over the place then open another thread. In my experience those that do this drive in a vehicle with the rubbish not some walker out carrying 5 stone of household garbage 3 miles on their back. Jeez there is more rubbish here than which is been spouted over a very simple issue. Unlike you I do allow access but thankfully unlike you I havn't had 'Constant littering, dog fouling etc etc'
Perhaps you should look to banning vehicle access from such 'amenity areas'
But hey that's another thread. It would be better and smarter perhaps if posts could concentrate on the issue of those who and who do not allow access. You don't and are evidently violently against it - fair enough that's your view but that doesn't mean the rest of us are as virulent on the issue or have the same bias ok.

gozunda

reilig wrote: »

Have you every considered the risk and liability on you for allowing someone to walk on your land? If someone falls and breaks a leg, or crosses barbed wire and gets a cut, or be attached by one of your animals or by a wild animal then you are liable as the landowner. You could be sued for damages and lose your farm to pay the compensation. If the case went to court you are even more liable because you allow them access - you have some ammunition in court if the person was trespassing (but not a lot).

All locals are lovely and won't claim compensation :D:D

Yea right!

Do you wish to get in line as well? Well done This is my last post as the thread has descended from a polite request for information has turned into a typical virulent 'off my land diatribe' by a small but vocal minority using the same old scare stories and cliches I have heard again and again and do no one any favours. Yea right! as you said. Yes I do have insurance like nearly every other landowner with public liability cover. I asked a legal person this question some time ago and was informed that under the relevant acts for claims of this type, burden of proof is firmly on the claimant and you can't be sued for normal conditions like wet grass!. As for being savaged by a badger etc I'm not too sure As for other risks in the example before I have roadside trees that could potentially fall and 'perhaps' kill and injure someone on the road but that does not mean I am going to chop down all my trees. Neither am I going to pretend to be the big landlord and tell the mob / peasants to 'feck off' as it was so nicely put. The local people I referred to are largely neighbours and locals but I do allow visitors to the old church site. Access to that was long before my time and I presume will go on after me as well. I didn't make the land I own, it was passed on to me with the rights and duties it entailed, I shall be passing this on to someone else who hopefully won't see themselves as as being somehow better than everyone else

reilig

Cop on a little bit!

Nobody is having a personal pop at you!

people just don't agree with what you are saying and they are giving their views in a polite manner!

If you don't like it, then make the above post your last one. If you didn't want replies to what you posted, then why did you post anything on a public forum like this?

As landowners we have every right not to allow people on to our land, just as you have every right to allow people onto yours. if people want to protect their farms, their animals, and their liabilities then not allowing people onto their land is one way of doing this.

As for your legal advice, well I suggest getting a new advisor. I know someone who was sued by a walker who had no permission to be on the land when he got caught in barbed wire - and the walker got over €10k.

I have had personal experience of dog walkers on my land who's dogs mauled my lambs and i had to take legal action to recover the value of them.

You life of grandure with mobs and peasants just doesn't cut it with the ordinary farmer. Visitors onto private property are not welcomed by most farmers. Some don't put it in the politest fashion and maybe in your eyes require elocution lessons. But what ever way it is put, most farmers that don't want trespassers on their land are tired of having to tell people to get off - it's no wonder they do it in the manner that they do.

gozunda wrote: »

Do you wish to get in line as well? Well done This is my last post as the thread has descended from a polite request for information has turned into a typical virulent 'off my land diatribe' by a small but vocal minority using the same old scare stories and cliches I have heard again and again and do no one any favours. Yea right! as you said. Yes I do have insurance like nearly every other landowner with public liability cover. I asked a legal person this question some time ago and was informed that there has been no successful claims under the relevant acts for claims of this type. The burden of proof is firmly on the claimant and you can't be sued for normal conditions like wet grass!. As for other risks in the example before I have roadside trees that could potentially fall and 'perhaps' kill and injure someone on the road but that does not mean I am going to chop down all my trees. Neither am I going to pretend to be the big landlord and tell the mob / peasants to 'feck off' as it was so nicely put. The local people I referred to are largely neighbours and locals but I do allow visitors to the old church site. Access to that was long before my time and I presume will go on after me as well. I didn't make the land I own, it was passed on to me with the rights and duties it entailed, I shall be passing this on to someone else who hopefully won't see themselves as as being somehow better than everyone else

bbam

The problem is if some Jo shmo turns up at your door, how are you to know they aren't the type to drop litter or let their dog run wild.
And someone sees them walking and thinks it's a free for all.
Letting anyone in is the thin edge of the wedge. The general public don't behave, there is plenty of evidence out there to show this.

For my part the public aren't welcome.

gozunda

reilig wrote: »

You life of grandure with mobs and peasants just doesn't cut it with the ordinary farmer. Visitors onto private property are not welcomed by most farmers. Some don't put it in the politest fashion and maybe in your eyes require elocution lessons. But what ever way it is put, most farmers that don't want trespassers on their land are tired of having to tell people to get off - it's no wonder they do it in the manner that they do.

I reply only to clarify the 'The mobs' and F offs' weren't mine. There is no excuse for that imo. Thanks for the reply anyway.

reilig

gozunda wrote: »

I reply only to clarify the 'The mobs' and F offs' weren't mine. There is no excuse for that imo. Thanks for the reply anyway.

If any of them were directed at you personally, report the posts and i will deal with the person.

As far as i can see the only time that F off was used was by posters who said that it would be their response to people looking for permission. None were directed towards you personally and I cannot see how you would take personal offence to any of them?

bbam

gozunda wrote: »

I reply only to clarify the 'The mobs' and F offs' weren't mine. There is no excuse for that imo. Thanks for the reply anyway.

Nor is there any excuse for those who wander onto private property expecting to be welcomed with open arms.
It's a place of business, where we work and our animals expect to be left alone. Really, it's like wandering into the stock room in Tesco just for some exercise or pure nosiness.
Lads allowing the public in would be well advised to get some advice and maybe speak to their insurance company to see how they sit.

Greensleeves

I understand the whole problem with illegal dumping/antisocial behaviour etc but in all honesty I don't think walkers/ramblers are to blame. I've walked a lot in Wicklow and there doesn't seem to be a problem there. Or on the walking trails in the Slieve Blooms or the Beara Penninsula. There is a real problem in Ireland in general with waste disposal and littering, it strikes you as you drive off the ferry from Rosslare.

Does nobody worry that at some point in the future there will be an EU directive or some condition attached to CAP subsidies that will force a change in land access?

I read this article in the Guardian ages ago and I was reminded of it reading this thread; if this sort of thinking gained ground at an EU level it would spell trouble for Irish farmers.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/04/uk-farming-subsidies-shortchange-public

Bizzum

I couldn't allow access at home. There are cows there that are not to be trusted, especially for a time after calving. Even a dog on lead is a problem, in fact perhaps more of a problem for the person attached to the other end of the lead! Our own dog nearly got me in trouble by running in under my feet and drawing heat on me.
Around me there's the grandest Coillte forestry walk, and the Grand Canal has a tow path that can be wore away by walkers if they so desire where they're in no danger from livestock or the like.

bbam

Greensleeves wrote: »

I understand the whole problem with illegal dumping/antisocial behaviour etc but in all honesty I don't think walkers/ramblers are to blame. I've walked a lot in Wicklow and there doesn't seem to be a problem there. Or on the walking trails in the Slieve Blooms or the Beara Penninsula. There is a real problem in Ireland in general with waste disposal and littering, it strikes you as you drive off the ferry from Rosslare.

Does nobody worry that at some point in the future there will be an EU directive or some condition attached to CAP subsidies that will force a change in land access?

I read this article in the Guardian ages ago and I was reminded of it reading this thread; if this sort of thinking gained ground at an EU level it would spell trouble for Irish farmers.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/04/uk-farming-subsidies-shortchange-public

I appreciate it's not everyone, we bring all our waste home and teach our kids to do likewise.
However, ANYWHERE in Ireland we've walked or cycled there is a litter problem. Including Wicklow, the western greenway, Coilte forests and Canal banks.
I don't want this on my farm and the easiest way is to keep everyone out.

theholyghost

bbam wrote: »

However, ANYWHERE in Ireland we've walked or cycled there is a litter problem. Including Wicklow, the western greenway, Coilte forests and Canal banks.
I don't want this on my farm and the easiest way is to keep everyone out.

As a mountain biker of many years I find that generally Coillte forests aren't badly littered at all, especially once you are slightly off the beaten track. You will get a bit more in the close to urban forests.

At the same time go to some fairly isolated forests with a picnic area in rural Laois and you can see some terrible littering. I think Irish people can't handle public bins for some reason.

DeepSleeper

Lots of interesting posts here - I was pleased to see Gozunda suggesting that landowners should, where possible, be welcoming to walkers who seek permission and disappointed with the others who assert they would refuse access to all comers regardless of the circumstances. I'm an archaeologist and a hill walker and I regularly call to farmhouses to ask for permission to access land. In the majority of cases there is no problem and permission is granted, while in some cases conditions are attached (go this way rather than that way; go ahead but avoid the low field as there are cattle in it etc.) and these conditions are fine by me - if someone is going to give me access permission, then I have no problem following their conditions. On a handful of occasions, I have met with very hostile reactions when I sought permission, but I won't tar all farmers with that brush - only a few isolated cases come to mind.

Over the past few decades I have abseiled off a crag to rescue two sheep stuck on a ledge in the Reeks in Kerry, have pulled a sodden sheep out of a drain in the Gap of Dunloe where they had clear lain for hours and were close to death, have waded into a waist-deep river beside Mweelrea mountain in Mayo to rescue a sheep that was going under, have extracted a ewe from where she had gotten her head stuck in a fence in the Galtees and have gotten the scissors out of my first-aid kit to cut a dying ewe out of a barbed-wire entanglement in the Maamturk Mountains in Galway - what does all that tell you? Well, it shows clearly that sheep are not very bright, but it also suggests that I fully appreciate that I walk on private land and that I walk there with the permission of the landowner - the landowner does me a good turn by granting me access and if I can do him/her a good turn in return by helping out with an animal in trouble, then I will.

In a professional sense, I have asked for permission to visit archaeological sites and ended up looking over plans for slatted sheds and giving free advice to landowners on how best to proceed with proposed developments. The poster who suggested that people seeking access to historic sites should be redirected to the nearest OPW site which is open to the public do not really understand how archaeological research works - only about 1,000 monuments are in the care of the State, but there are actually more than 120,000 identified archaeological sites in the country and so the vast majority of research takes place on private land at privately owned sites. This research takes place with the support and permission of the landowners, who appreciate (like Gozunda seems to do) that these sites, while in private ownership, are really part of our national heritage and so need to be minded for current and future generations. Landownership is often discussed in terms of rights, but it is also a privilege in a way (since many can't afford it) and with privileges come responsibilities. That doesn't mean an access free-for-all, but it might mean greeting the next permission-seeker with a more open mind.

I don't demand access and I will not join KIO or similar organisations that do - in return I hope to be granted access permission but I expect to be treated with courtesy. I don't have a major issue with a landowner who explains that they don't allow people to visit the old fort on their land or that they don't like people using their land to access the open hill land above it, but I do have an issue with landowners who meet my polite request with hostility and aggression. There is evidence of similar aggression on this thread here already and it is worrying - I wouldn't treat anyone the way a handful of landowners have treated me, but I won't let their awful behaviour stop me from approaching farmhouses and asking for permission, since there is only a very slight possibility that the encounter will end badly.

So please don't tar all walkers/shooters/fishermen/archaeologists with the one brush - we don't all litter, we don't all break fences, we don't all bring dogs, we don't all park irresponsibly - some of us appreciate access when it is granted.

Bizzum

Thanks for your post, Deepsleeper, I deal with a lot of landowners and like yourself the vast majority are civil, decent people. The big difference here of course in your case is you have the decency to ask. I for one would have no issue with any man asking for access, and indeed would be liable to tag along in your case.
For pigiron: What reaction would you expect if you didn't seek permission but ploughed on regardless?

DeepSleeper

Bizzum wrote: »

Thanks for your post, Deepsleeper, I deal with a lot of landowners and like yourself the vast majority are civil, decent people. The big difference here of course in your case is you have the decency to ask. I for one would have no issue with any man asking for access, and indeed would be liable to tag along in your case.
For pigiron: What reaction would you expect if you didn't seek permission but ploughed on regardless?

Good question - I will admit to occasionally not asking for permission if I can't figure out who owns the land. This is most likely to happen in the case of an out-farm, particularly in remote areas, where houses are few and far between and neighbours, not to mind landowners, cannot be found. I am always uncomfortable in such situations and would not be so surprised to meet with a negative reaction - if I can't find anyone around, then the farmer is probably not expecting to meet anyone either.

Panch18

The only thing a farmer gets by letting anybody and/or everybody onto his land is the potential for insurance claims, broken fences, gates etc, cattle breaking out, upset animals, disease threat, littering and a whole host of other pains in the ass

It simple - land is private property - stay out

DeepSleeper

Panch18 wrote: »

The only thing a farmer gets by letting anybody and/or everybody onto his land is the potential for insurance claims, broken fences, gates etc, cattle breaking out, upset animals, disease threat, littering and a whole host of other pains in the ass

So I take it you reject my request not to tar all walkers etc with the same brush and deny that I ever assisted an animal in distress or advised a farmer for free?

Panch18

DeepSleeper wrote: »

So I take it you reject my request not to tar all walkers etc with the same brush and deny that I ever assisted an animal in distress or advised a farmer for free?

I do not deny that you assisted animals in distress or advised a farmer for free - I have no idea to be honest

Merely stating that a farmer has only potential costs and headaches by letting anybody in

Trust me I have repaired enough fences and chased enough escaped cattle to know that there is no good coming from letting anybody in

bbam

DeepSleeper wrote: »

So I take it you reject my request not to tar all walkers etc with the same brush and deny that I ever assisted an animal in distress or advised a farmer for free?

I'd say well done.
Your obviously one of the more reliable members of the public.
However. Your job relies on good relationships and so your not the typical visitor. Fr example are you likely to climb up on an unstable monument to have your mates take photos for Facebook?? I doubt it.
The general public on the other hand do this. We were in the deserted village in Achill over the summer and people were everywhere , knocking stones and climbing on the structures.
I know it sounds tough but it's easier to keep the public out. Professionals like yourself would definitely be viewed in a different light.

Conmaicne Mara

Greensleeves wrote: »

I understand the whole problem with illegal dumping/antisocial behaviour etc but in all honesty I don't think walkers/ramblers are to blame.

The blame lies with individuals. The trouble is there are quite a lot who don't give a fig. There are many facets of this from I don't care if it's your land I will do as I please on it, to general carelessness in breaking fencing, leaving gates open, ignorance in how a farm operates, dog walkers, etc.

I have previously been involved in walking, have walked not as many hills and mountains as I'd like to have done. I have seen good and bad within walking from urban attitude that it's everyone's land, to people actually damaging fences, to promoting the likes of KIO. I have come across walkers who are vehemently anti farmer.

No one can say, farmers, walkers, mime artists are ALL to blame. It lies with a variety of individuals. Dumping can be littering, it doesn't have to be multiple black sacks and mattresses.

DeepSleeper wrote: »

Lots of interesting posts here - I was pleased to see Gozunda suggesting that landowners should, where possible, be welcoming to walkers who seek permission and disappointed with the others who assert they would refuse access to all comers regardless of the circumstances. I'm an archaeologist and a hill walker and I regularly call to farmhouses to ask for permission to access land. In the majority of cases there is no problem and permission is granted, while in some cases conditions are attached (go this way rather than that way; go ahead but avoid the low field as there are cattle in it etc.) and these conditions are fine by me - if someone is going to give me access permission, then I have no problem following their conditions. On a handful of occasions, I have met with very hostile reactions when I sought permission, but I won't tar all farmers with that brush - only a few isolated cases come to mind.

Over the past few decades I have abseiled off a crag to rescue two sheep stuck on a ledge in the Reeks in Kerry, have pulled a sodden sheep out of a drain in the Gap of Dunloe where they had clear lain for hours and were close to death, have waded into a waist-deep river beside Mweelrea mountain in Mayo to rescue a sheep that was going under, have extracted a ewe from where she had gotten her head stuck in a fence in the Galtees and have gotten the scissors out of my first-aid kit to cut a dying ewe out of a barbed-wire entanglement in the Maamturk Mountains in Galway - what does all that tell you? Well, it shows clearly that sheep are not very bright, but it also suggests that I fully appreciate that I walk on private land and that I walk there with the permission of the landowner - the landowner does me a good turn by granting me access and if I can do him/her a good turn in return by helping out with an animal in trouble, then I will.

In a professional sense, I have asked for permission to visit archaeological sites and ended up looking over plans for slatted sheds and giving free advice to landowners on how best to proceed with proposed developments. The poster who suggested that people seeking access to historic sites should be redirected to the nearest OPW site which is open to the public do not really understand how archaeological research works - only about 1,000 monuments are in the care of the State, but there are actually more than 120,000 identified archaeological sites in the country and so the vast majority of research takes place on private land at privately owned sites. This research takes place with the support and permission of the landowners, who appreciate (like Gozunda seems to do) that these sites, while in private ownership, are really part of our national heritage and so need to be minded for current and future generations. Landownership is often discussed in terms of rights, but it is also a privilege in a way (since many can't afford it) and with privileges come responsibilities. That doesn't mean an access free-for-all, but it might mean greeting the next permission-seeker with a more open mind.

I don't demand access and I will not join KIO or similar organisations that do - in return I hope to be granted access permission but I expect to be treated with courtesy. I don't have a major issue with a landowner who explains that they don't allow people to visit the old fort on their land or that they don't like people using their land to access the open hill land above it, but I do have an issue with landowners who meet my polite request with hostility and aggression. There is evidence of similar aggression on this thread here already and it is worrying - I wouldn't treat anyone the way a handful of landowners have treated me, but I won't let their awful behaviour stop me from approaching farmhouses and asking for permission, since there is only a very slight possibility that the encounter will end badly.

So please don't tar all walkers/shooters/fishermen/archaeologists with the one brush - we don't all litter, we don't all break fences, we don't all bring dogs, we don't all park irresponsibly - some of us appreciate access when it is granted.

I would commend your sheep rescue efforts, they are certainly not the brightest of animals. I am also glad you don't share KIO's aims.

The issue is the individual bad apples, while there are many good people in many industries and hobbies there are also many bad people. Now we have an increasing number of individuals seeking to access farmers lands in an aggressive and disrespectful way, this will always cause friction and will reap the crop that it sows. The increase in numbers means an increase in the bad apples also.

Indignant, ignorant, rude types who will disrespect a farmer on his or her own land.

I also know an archaeologist who is a walker, a very knowledgeable and interesting man. However I certainly wouldn't share his views on farming, something along the lines of raping the land.

We have lovely views from some of our land. But there is a massive risk to my business in me allowing access because I don't know who people are, what they may do, or what motives they may have.

Timmaay

I view my farm as being the same as any other factory or place of work, are the general public allow casually stroll through the likes of an intel factory? You bet they aren't, and the biggest reason is its a huge safety risk, and that person will not be insured etc. Even from an insurance point of view, where the hell does the farmer stand, if he gave permission for a person to walk through their fields, and say they trip over something and knock themselves out, can they turn around and sue you for being careless and letting them have access to walk your farm when it wasn't safe etc. I'm normally not at all the sort of person who gets hung up on issues as such, but my farm has a laneway down the middle of it with access to a beach, and you get every tom dick and harry who asking for access to my fields to camp etc, you got to draw the line somewhere!

Rho b

Greensleeves wrote: »

I understand the whole problem with illegal dumping/antisocial behaviour etc but in all honesty I don't think walkers/ramblers are to blame. I've walked a lot in Wicklow and there doesn't seem to be a problem there. Or on the walking trails in the Slieve Blooms or the Beara Penninsula. There is a real problem in Ireland in general with waste disposal and littering, it strikes you as you drive off the ferry from Rosslare.

Does nobody worry that at some point in the future there will be an EU directive or some condition attached to CAP subsidies that will force a change in land access?

I read this article in the Guardian ages ago and I was reminded of it reading this thread; if this sort of thinking gained ground at an EU level it would spell trouble for Irish farmers.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/04/uk-farming-subsidies-shortchange-public

I have been thinking about this tread for the last couple of days and the thoughts that were expressed on both sides.
I have an awful feeling that the tail is going to wag the dog sometime in the future. I was shocked by the attitude in that KIO website but it is that type of attitude that gets these minority groups places :mad:
Like Greensleves I have a horrible feeling that something like this is coming down the tracks at us.

DeepSleeper

bbam wrote: »

I'd say well done.
Your obviously one of the more reliable members of the public.
However. Your job relies on good relationships and so your not the typical visitor. Fr example are you likely to climb up on an unstable monument to have your mates take photos for Facebook?? I doubt it.
The general public on the other hand do this. We were in the deserted village in Achill over the summer and people were everywhere , knocking stones and climbing on the structures.
I know it sounds tough but it's easier to keep the public out. Professionals like yourself would definitely be viewed in a different light.

Fair point - I've seen people acting the fool at the deserted village on Achill and elsewhere, and it can't be easy for a landowner to allow a regular walker on to their land when the people who came the day before were acting like idiots. Most visitors to the deserted village don't realise that every house and 'garden' (i.e. small field or veg plot) there is owned by a different person. They think because the sheep wander all over the place that it is part of the Slievemore commonage and so assume access isn't an issue. Well, access there isn't a problem, but it is an issue - if the landowners didn't allow access there, Achill would lose an important place of interest for tourists - most visitors to the island visit the deserted village and if that became closed to visitors, the visitors to the island would lose out and the whole tourist industry on the island would suffer.

DeepSleeper

Timmaay wrote: »

I view my farm as being the same as any other factory or place of work, are the general public allow casually stroll through the likes of an intel factory? You bet they aren't, and the biggest reason is its a huge safety risk, and that person will not be insured etc. Even from an insurance point of view, where the hell does the farmer stand, if he gave permission for a person to walk through their fields, and say they trip over something and knock themselves out, can they turn around and sue you for being careless and letting them have access to walk your farm when it wasn't safe etc. I'm normally not at all the sort of person who gets hung up on issues as such, but my farm has a laneway down the middle of it with access to a beach, and you get every tom dick and harry who asking for access to my fields to camp etc, you got to draw the line somewhere!

As far as I know, since the enactment of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, not a single case taken by a walker (or other person seeking recreation) against a landowner has succeeded - 18 years and not one farmer has been successfully sued. (I know of no case from before that date either, but I don't have legal training and would be interested to learn of any if anyone can cite the case law). In one well known case from Donegal, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier High Court decision and found in favour of the landowner - that precedent is likely to protect landowners from lawsuits for many years to come.

Here is a quote from an article on this subject by Prof William Binchy of TCD (note - his term 'occupier' includes farmers):

"Recreational users are not treated very generously by the legislation: they are regarded as having no greater rights than trespassers. Section 4(1) relieves the occupier of “the common duty of care” towards either recreational users or trespassers. All that is required of the occupier is that, in respect of a danger existing on premises, the occupier neither injure them (or damage their property) intentionally nor act with reckless disregard for them (or their property)".

ganmo

There is an earlier post regarding the county councils establishing walk ways, here's my experience of that.
The coco called for the registering of the rights of way asking locals and organisations like KIO to submit walkways. anyway it turned out that someone submitted a walk across our land and we found out about it after the fact. We had to go to court to get it removed even though the council admitted the walkway shouldn't of been there.
The Dublin Mountain Partnership group did trojan work in getting The Dublin mountain way up and running. I reckon that it falls to groups where walkers and farmers sit down together to iron out the issues.

reilig

ganmo wrote: »

The Dublin Mountain Partnership group did trojan work in getting The Dublin mountain way up and running. I reckon that it falls to groups where walkers and farmers sit down together to iron out the issues.

But these walkways mainly on unfarmed land, on unowned land or on commonage. The Mountain Way existed for hundreds of years before it was formalised. This is very different to someone coming onto a farmers land where no right of way or public pathway existed in the past. I doubt many posters here who stated that they would not allow people to walk on their land are referring to historic pathways or historic rights of way?

ganmo

But the original aim of the Partnership was to use more private lands...kinda straighten out the route a bit. But between the heel and the reel that option wasn't getting too far.

KatyMac

ganmo wrote: »

There is an earlier post regarding the county councils establishing walk ways, here's my experience of that.
The coco called for the registering of the rights of way asking locals and organisations like KIO to submit walkways. anyway it turned out that someone submitted a walk across our land and we found out about it after the fact. We had to go to court to get it removed even though the council admitted the walkway shouldn't of been there.
The Dublin Mountain Partnership group did trojan work in getting The Dublin mountain way up and running. I reckon that it falls to groups where walkers and farmers sit down together to iron out the issues.

Isn't that similar to what happened in Lissadell house's surrounding lands? And look at the cock up the Co Co did with that!

rancher

KatyMac wrote: »

Isn't that similar to what happened in Lissadell house's surrounding lands? And look at the cock up the Co Co did with that!

I don't give permission, but I don't put anyone off the land either, seems to work out alright

Timmaay

DeepSleeper wrote: »

As far as I know, since the enactment of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, not a single case taken by a walker (or other person seeking recreation) against a landowner has succeeded - 18 years and not one farmer has been successfully sued. (I know of no case from before that date either, but I don't have legal training and would be interested to learn of any if anyone can cite the case law). In one well known case from Donegal, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier High Court decision and found in favour of the landowner - that precedent is likely to protect landowners from lawsuits for many years to come.

Here is a quote from an article on this subject by Prof William Binchy of TCD (note - his term 'occupier' includes farmers):

"Recreational users are not treated very generously by the legislation: they are regarded as having no greater rights than trespassers. Section 4(1) relieves the occupier of “the common duty of care” towards either recreational users or trespassers. All that is required of the occupier is that, in respect of a danger existing on premises, the occupier neither injure them (or damage their property) intentionally nor act with reckless disregard for them (or their property)".

This is for the case of walkers who never asked for permission, or all walkers? What about the case that you, the farm owner, gives permission for a person to walk? But in any case, point taken that getting sued actually is very very low, ya learn something everyday!

DeepSleeper

Timmaay wrote: »

This is for the case of walkers who never asked for permission, or all walkers? What about the case that you, the farm owner, gives permission for a person to walk? But in any case, point taken that getting sued actually is very very low, ya learn something everyday!

The paragraph by Binchy just before the one I quoted states:

The Act created a new category of “recreational user”, an entrant who, with or without the occupiers’ permission or at the occupier’s implied invitation, is present on premises without a charge (other than a reasonable charge in respect of the cost of providing vehicle parking facilities) being imposed for the purpose of engaging in a recreational activity (s 1(1)): “‘Recreational activity’ means any recreational activity conducted, whether alone or with others, in the open air (including any sporting activity), scientific research and nature study so conducted, exploring caves and visiting sites and buildings of historical, architectural, traditional, artistic, archaeological or scientific importance"."

Dont be daft

DeepSleeper wrote: »

As far as I know, since the enactment of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1995, not a single case taken by a walker (or other person seeking recreation) against a landowner has succeeded - 18 years and not one farmer has been successfully sued. (I know of no case from before that date either, but I don't have legal training and would be interested to learn of any if anyone can cite the case law). In one well known case from Donegal, the Supreme Court reversed an earlier High Court decision and found in favour of the landowner - that precedent is likely to protect landowners from lawsuits for many years to come.

Here is a quote from an article on this subject by Prof William Binchy of TCD (note - his term 'occupier' includes farmers):

"Recreational users are not treated very generously by the legislation: they are regarded as having no greater rights than trespassers. Section 4(1) relieves the occupier of “the common duty of care” towards either recreational users or trespassers. All that is required of the occupier is that, in respect of a danger existing on premises, the occupier neither injure them (or damage their property) intentionally nor act with reckless disregard for them (or their property)".

Hey Deepsleeper.

Just to expand on the legal liability issue. While its true to say there have been no farmers or landowners successfully sued in the Higher Courts by walkers since the 1995 Act, that does not paint an accurate picture of the reality.

There have been several cases settled outside of court by insurance companies/potential defendants. There are no figures available because natural any settlement outside of court is private as well as confidential. Therefore not published nor available publicly. Even legal teams involved cannot give particulars.

The Donegal case you refer to was not a particularly pro-landowner decision. Yes, ultimately the Supreme Court sided with the landowner.
However this was only because the danger involved, a cliff, was so blatantly obvious as a danger. I think she even admitted under cross-examination that she was aware it was dangerous.
If a concealed or unusual danger existed on a property the law would probably side with the walker. Its this fact that has pushed several insurance companies into settling outside of court.
Just to put it all in perspective. In the Weir-Rogers case the walker sued for 100k. She was unfortunate in that the landowner in question was a San Francisco based religious order that didn't feel like getting taken for a ride and fought the case all the way. In the end their costs far exceeded the original 100k sought.
Weir-Rogers was unfortunate in that she sued someone with the determination, financial resources and stubborn morality to go all the way. Had it been a sheep farmer she'd probably have never seen the inside of a court.

There is even precedence in the UK for not only civil liability being pursued on farmers but also criminal.

Its a complex issue and I'd be writing for a week to cover even the basics points. But what I'm trying to say is that legal liability is very real issue in the debate of walkers access and farmers.

Greensleeves

That's why I was suggesting the county council (or some other body) buying strips of land outright; the insurance, legal problems, fencing, maintenance, etc would then not be the farmers problem.

While I love walking accross farmland in England it is IMO a bit mad that I am allowed to walk through working fields (with or without stock) and if I was the farmer I would far prefer a fenced off headland to allowing walkers stomp accross a field of cattle or turnips.

Obviously where the issue is access to an archaelogical site then other complexities arise, but the walkers/ramblers who set out to walk for 10 or 15 miles using the instructions in a walking guidebook would be better off on separate way-marked trails so they are not a headache for farmers.

randomperson12

in englasnd there try ing to get torism and alot of fsrmers suffer also but if the farmer is freindly and dosnt mind or a person who doesnt want you to walk on there land respect there desision

gobnaitolunacy

gozunda wrote: »

Re back garden etc I think it has been established in the thread that this is not the same as 'land beyond'.

Interesting suggestion about strips the land. Most the people who walk around here are locals so I don't have experience of any the groups mentioned above. I do believe however that a complete lock down by landowners will only aid these groups in making it a bigger issue than it should be. There was a case a few years back of the old railway route being proposed as a walkway by a local development group -,the railway hadn't been used for a number of years and it was still owned by Irish rail. The plan fell flat because several canny landowners either side had permantly 'annexed' parts of the line. So I suppose it was the direct opposite of making strips available. Anyway it had to be handed back to IR but the walk route didn't happen as reinstating the rail embankments would have cost thousands. Lots of fodder imo for these walking groups. Reckon we need to be smarter than that.

Where is this route? This is currently a hot topic around Listowel right now, the landowners are bordering the route and using the railway land for their own purposes, even though CIE have made statements that they are in fact the legal owners. Thing is at a complete impasse now, and funding for creating a long distance walkway a la the one from Westport to Achill, may be lost. One of the landowners' mouthpieces is a town councillor, himself having land in the area in question, no surprises there.

John_Rambo

bbam wrote: »

Anyone looking for access to our land will be told to feck off.

In all my years of canoeing, hiking, camping, surfing etc... I have never ever been refused to cross or camp on a farmers land. I have never come across this type of attitude. I have spent a good few nights by a campfire with farmers (and their fascinated kids!) after a long day on one of our rivers. Plenty of farmers and their kids have had their first paddle on my boats and I have been sucked in to a good few hours of farm work for my efforts!

It's a good thing, it taught me a thing or two about farming and it certainly cuts the urban rural divide and develops understanding. I'd love my kids to be able to do it but I guess the times and attitudes are changing, it's a sad state of affairs which seems to be flamed by pub talk and false fears.

99% of outdoor recreation and extreme sportsmen and women leave nothing but footsteps and sometimes take others rubbish home. You'll find 99% of dumping, damage, fly tipping and vandalism is very very home grown.

Capercaille

Don't allow anybody on the farm. Just afraid I'd be sued if an accident was to happen.

John_Rambo

Capercaille wrote: »

Don't allow anybody on the farm. Just afraid I'd be sued if an accident was to happen.

Has that happened to many of your peers?