Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Tenant Farming, Subsidies, BPS & Legal Issues
Stuff farming, we’re Natural England!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Extreme Optimist" data-source="post: 5517648" data-attributes="member: 1609"><p>Firstly, is it "transitional"? I am not sure it was mentioned anywhere in the "contract" that it was transitional, and if it was, it should have been clearly stated - right at the beginning! Secondly, if it was to continue after the duration of the contract then surely there should be payment for it being taken out of profitable production (if anything can be described as profitable) otherwise the farmer may as well have introduced wildlife enhancements himself without the bureaucratic stranglehold of Natural England. I do however agree that it achieves very little other than some minor short term advantages. </p><p>I think the thing that upsets most is the underhand way in which they change/manipulate the rules and regulations (even some of their staff agreed!) and then when they are caught out, they hide behind "European legislation". </p><p>I have also found that complying with their rules has an adverse effect on wildlife. I farm with a large nature reserve in the middle of my land and the wardens reckon that wildlife has gone up exponentially since I came out of Stewardship and I am happy to work closely with the local wildlife trust to help them achieve some of their goals.</p><p>What is really damning is that one of the NE agronomists had an off the record farm walk around the farm and said that having seen the areas that I managed and the areas subject to NE rules said that the rules weren't achieving there objective and were basically destroying the SSSI whereas he would be delighted to show people around the site I was managing myself without any premium. They forget that often these areas are of value BECAUSE of the way they are farmed. The first thing NE do is immediately change the management.</p><p>The whole thing is a farce and nothing to do with wildlife enhancement but more of a control mechanism. They are shooting themselves in the foot as people like me who love seeing a variety of wildlife around the farm will never join another one of their schemes again. They need to be careful as if they continue to force these ideals on people, they will find good farmers going out of business and much of the land that is environmentally value will revert to scrub.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Extreme Optimist, post: 5517648, member: 1609"] Firstly, is it "transitional"? I am not sure it was mentioned anywhere in the "contract" that it was transitional, and if it was, it should have been clearly stated - right at the beginning! Secondly, if it was to continue after the duration of the contract then surely there should be payment for it being taken out of profitable production (if anything can be described as profitable) otherwise the farmer may as well have introduced wildlife enhancements himself without the bureaucratic stranglehold of Natural England. I do however agree that it achieves very little other than some minor short term advantages. I think the thing that upsets most is the underhand way in which they change/manipulate the rules and regulations (even some of their staff agreed!) and then when they are caught out, they hide behind "European legislation". I have also found that complying with their rules has an adverse effect on wildlife. I farm with a large nature reserve in the middle of my land and the wardens reckon that wildlife has gone up exponentially since I came out of Stewardship and I am happy to work closely with the local wildlife trust to help them achieve some of their goals. What is really damning is that one of the NE agronomists had an off the record farm walk around the farm and said that having seen the areas that I managed and the areas subject to NE rules said that the rules weren't achieving there objective and were basically destroying the SSSI whereas he would be delighted to show people around the site I was managing myself without any premium. They forget that often these areas are of value BECAUSE of the way they are farmed. The first thing NE do is immediately change the management. The whole thing is a farce and nothing to do with wildlife enhancement but more of a control mechanism. They are shooting themselves in the foot as people like me who love seeing a variety of wildlife around the farm will never join another one of their schemes again. They need to be careful as if they continue to force these ideals on people, they will find good farmers going out of business and much of the land that is environmentally value will revert to scrub. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Tenant Farming, Subsidies, BPS & Legal Issues
Stuff farming, we’re Natural England!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top