Comments on: Showground refusal ‘silly’

By: Rachel

Rachel — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:28:52 +0000

Terry, i wasn’t aware that they were able to ride on the land now – surely that is recreational use? They should be grateful that they are allowed to do that.

Report abuse

By: Horse lover

Horse lover — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:29:08 +0000

“somebody has to lighten the mood!”

…..and you proved to be the cattle-ist! :-)

Report abuse

By: Sarnia

Sarnia — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 20:35:14 +0000

Looks like someone’s already beaten you to it Shurgar! ;)

http://youtu.be/D4WtxKoal-c

Report abuse

By: Shurgar

Shurgar — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:03:34 +0000

I’ve got it….. How about training cows to show jump! 2birds one stone! alternatively how about investigating in a bovine x equine hybrid breeding programme you could name the breed mooonys!
Before the backlash starts coming this way- somebody has to lighten the mood!

Report abuse

By: Horses_for_Courses

Horses_for_Courses — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 12:33:35 +0000

And how many enormous gass guzzling ‘tin boxes’ do you possess to ferry your animals around in, HL…?

Report abuse

By: Guernseyman

Guernseyman — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:46:29 +0000

Well in the absence of landowners who want to pursue this activity or rent their land out for it you would need some sort of law change that forced people to make their unused land available for use. Or have some form of States purchase program (compulsory or otherwise) that would then rent the land back to those willing to work it.

There is little chance of the States approving that course of action unless of course they already have a decent amount in their possession that could be used.

Either that or a significant subsidy that incentivises people to want to do this instead of horses etc.

In the end it will come down to money and the immediate need to do it. It is easier and cheaper to import currently so in the absence of some cataclismic event affecting current supplies things will no doubt stay as they are.

Yes it is not good long term planning but people dont want to spend millions now for a benefit they cannot really see is necessary.

Report abuse

By: Horse lover

Horse lover — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:43:54 +0000

Wouldn’t that be a lovely thing to see? So much better for the environment than tractors too. Trouble is, it wouldn’t be a very economical way of producing crops and cheap food is taken for granted these days.

I’m not sure the showjumpers at BSJA would be up to pulling a plough either :)

Report abuse

By: Oh Dear

Oh Dear — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:39:48 +0000

What my post was supposed to say is that the car is a necessity to people. In other words those that drive believe it to be a necessity.

I still think hobby is far from the reason that most people own a car. Convenience sounds closer to the mark.

In terms of the article, what they’ve done is damaging. It’s no longer a workable field. If we ever had to fend for ourselves on this island, there is no way we could support 60,000+ people. I think it’s important that we should be able to feed our populace. Fields should be used for grazing animals (for food) and growing crops.

You’re right in that there isn’t any natural grassland left on this island. But a field looks a lot better than the mess in the photograph at the top of this page.

When I mentioned a damaging hobby, I meant with regards to the photo.

Having horses that graze on the grass and excrete a natural fertilizer is good. The hobby I was referring to is damaging to the environment.

Report abuse

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:59:42 +0000

It was an attempt at humour which apparently fell at the first hurdle…

Report abuse

By: islander

islander — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:11:18 +0000

Help to farm the land.get horses out of stables and on the land to work like days gone by.

Report abuse

By: Horse lover

Horse lover — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:05:31 +0000

You’re right that the world would be boring if we all liked the same thing. I think you’ll find that my earlier post recognises this and asks for a little less animosity and a bit of give and take. Much as I dislike the number and size of vehicles on our roads, I recognise people’s right to own and use them. Well done Oh dear for not driving. I’m sure you are in the minority here.

I disagree with you that for most people a car is a necessity. For many it’s a convenience but far from necessary. It makes life easier for some and therefore makes their life more enjoyable. For some it’s a part of their lifestyle that they would find it hard to do without. Maybe hobby isn’t the right word but it’s close enough.

The point is that, contrary to your post above, most aspects of horse husbandry and use are not damaging, aestetically or environmentally, and in some cases the land is actually improved.

Finally,”Natural Grassland” does not exist in Guernsey. The rural landscape is man-made by the uses it has been put to over the centuries. If allowed to be “natural” it would rapidly return to scrub and brambles. Grazing of animals, be they cattle, horses, sheep or llamas helps to preserve the green and pleasant views we are all fond of.

Report abuse

By: Farmers Wife

Farmers Wife — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 11:48:12 +0000

I am so gald to hear that you take care of your land. Shame that your landlord won’t allow a sacrifice paddock You don’t need permission to place woodchips (or sand) on an area of field as long as there is no hardcore or permanent fencing involved. However we do have permission for ours. Thanks for asking.

Report abuse

By: local food.

local food. — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 10:38:23 +0000

Rachel.
You are right that you can’t force anyone who owns agricultural land to ‘be a farmer’, but there could be more encouragement for landowners to allow farmers to farm their land. The present situation is forcing the local farming population into a corner because they are unable to compete with the prices that horse owners are willing to pay for fields. Allowing temporary ‘change of use’ for riding activities would simply exacerbate that situation because as Terry says above, what incentive would any owner have of ever turning it back to agriculture? It would be much more valuable to them with the ‘temporary changes‘ made. Land use restrictions are there to protect the farming community and it is already debatable as to whether they are strong enough. Land that is given ‘temporary change of use’ are rarely returned to their original form. (I think that Change of Use for personal growing or allotments is a different and more complicated argument.)

This particular field and area requesting planning approval, despite being zoned as agricultural, is already used exclusively for horse riding. Farmers have no access to it despite as I have explained in several posts further up, it being sandwiched between fields that are being farmed.

Report abuse

By: Horses_for_Courses

Horses_for_Courses — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:47:10 +0000

My family, who could ill afford them, have always had horses they kept on their own land.

I grew up around that, often went without so the horses could have their every need catered to, but, nevertheless, I love horses and don’t have a problem with the owning of horses itself….

it’s the obsessive, arrogant attitude and sense of entitlement that many – not all – horse owners have, that I can’t stand.

Report abuse

By: Terry Langlois

Terry Langlois — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 09:25:46 +0000

Rachel, they can ride their horses in the “agricultural” field now. No change of use, whether temporary or permanent, is needed for that.

The issue is that they want to improve facilities – which I take to mean that they want to build new sheds/stables or change the surface.

Report abuse