Defra threatens the old tracks

It announced the department's programme to open up ancient roads and tracks, which now lie undisturbed and unused on private land, as if they were cocooned and perfectly preserved. No sooner have they CROW-ed (Countryside and Rights of Way Act) than they take another step on the path to nationalisation of rural assets.

CROW has opened up vast tracts of moor, dale, fell and down to wide and unmanaged access, jeopardising plant, bird, insect and animal breeding by destroying the sanctity provided by the footpath system. Defra already acknowledges that it intends to go further into woodland, pasture and riversides.

I have yet to meet walkers across my farm, who I believe are truly representative, who want anything other than managed and maintained access. To them, the historic foot and bridle path system is fine. As one said to me recently: "We find that, if we wish to take in a view that the path does not quite reach, farmers are happy that we should go and enjoy it; it's all about communicating from both sides of the farm gate."

But this new piece of legislation is about opening "Green Britain" up to the wonders of the four-wheel drive. Is that what walkers want? Does anyone ask the Minister for the Horse, Alun Michael, if his equestrians who can no longer hunt are happy at the prospect of their nags and ponies being carved up by motorbikes, quads and 4WDs?

We hear a lot about the new demands on the countryside, but the people who come out with such things from Government do not understand the facts.

Remarkably few people use the countryside in that they walk or ride in it but, when they do, among the essentials they expect are fresh air, peace and quiet. They are escaping the constant noise and pollution of metropolitan life and certainly do not deserve to be deprived of their pleasure by inept ideas.

Across both the urban and rural communities, the unneccessary ownership of four-wheel drives is causing concern, for they guzzle gas, eat rubber and take up valuable extra road space. In nine cases out of ten, they never get their tyres dirty. For six or seven years they have been top sellers to folk with money to burn looking for some status that those of us who use them as workhorses cannot understand. So popular are they that prices are coming down and, in some cases, if you buy one you can now have a crosscountry driving course. Surely it is time to tax these environmentally-unfriendly machines off the road and out of the countryside.

The designer of these new proposals is the Countryside Agency, on behalf of Defra. Surely the agency should know that the tracks it will open up were designed for human feet and cloven-hoofed animals, not for destructive tyres.

The old droves, mineral routes and tracks were rarely used by wheels, so the foot-trodden routes lasted for centuries and, as metalled wheels came on the scene, they were lightly paved but never was it thought that one day Parliament would open them up. The access to be granted is not for the benefit of nature lovers, but for the thrill-seekers who will travel miles to wreck and disturb the peace. In effect, they are being licensed to destroy ancient monuments which have lain for centuries undisturbed.

Have these civil sevants looked at the damage done by feet alone to the Lyke Wake Walk or by mountain bikes in the Welsh Borders?

When I was a child, my friends and I roamed an old Roman drove road which ran along the tops of the Downs for 30 miles, crossed by the odd lane. There were junipers and yew - sure signs of the age of this historic byway. Used only occasionally by farmers, who owned their stretch as access to the fields, it was a sanctuary for wildlife, peaceful and secretive. When I returned recently, it had been found by the 4WDs and bikers and is now a rutted, muddy area without charm and with rubbish and litter everwhere - a disgrace, but the farmers cannot keep out these vandals for, if blocks are put in place, access is gained across country.

Farmers are quite wrongly blamed for the decline of various species and we are even now paid for environmental management in preference to our traditional role of food production. But why bother, if the same paymasters are sponsoring destruction on a grand scale?

I am certainly not against access. As a farmer I have a debt to the taxpayer, to whom I also have a responsibility. On the one hand, I am happy to welcome him to my farm but, at the same time, I will try to ensure that, when he comes, he gets the beauty, peace and quiet that I enjoy and he expects. I must be able to manage this, however, and I should also be able, on my land, to say whether or not this or that access is or is not agreeable.

Why is Government now pushing to force yet another piece of legislation on the rural community, goaded on by another minority group? Those of us who have to have four wheels that will rotate together wish we didn't and, as each new model is introduced it, becomes less suitable for the job we need it for. They are done out in veneer, with sleazy upholstery, electric this and that, even tilt meters and compasses - all unneccessary and adding cost. The cross-country ability goes down as each model appears and it is clear that, as the green is opened up for ruin, the tracks will be full of glossy, but stuck, motor vehicles awaiting recovery by, no doubt, even larger machines.

D&S Times readers will be well aware of the debate about opening up green roads and it is obvious that this is led by a very small but vociferous group of people. This, like the hunting issue, is not democratic. There is, however, some hope in that on some green routes "no entry" signs have been erected. Are these now to be declared redundant?

In the press statement the Minister says: "This is opening up historic sites; it's exciting, bringing the countryside to everyone." Does he really believe that? If so, has he any idea of what he is talking about? Ask yourself this question: if an ancient track crosses your garden and those of your neighbours, will you welcome its reinstatement and opening up to quads of all kinds? Of course not. So why should the private land of farmers and others be submitted to a piece of law that will result in destruction of a national asset?