In article ,
Oz wrote:
Robert Seago writes

I don't say environmentalists are right but we have already been through
years of heartache when many of our best sites were being lost or
neglected.

You really can't expect the majority of farmers to be able to both fund
and accept a reduction in income to handle these sites whilst VERY rich
quangos plead poverty.
The idea may not work, as it should, but penalties don't happen now I
believe, the stick has become carrots and there is money for 'good
condition'
All your best sites should have been protected or
protectable, and its up to you to see that they are.
But we had a long period when a government had a mandate to protect the
countryside, and they left a 3 month loop hole at which time countless
sites were lost

In point of fact the majority of farmers DO preserve their sites (if
they are aware of them) because its nice to have that sort of thing on
your farm. They do this for free, and will very likely augment them.
However when economics are dire something has to be cut, and hobbies are
the first thing to go (or at least go to nil-spend).
Yes, I know a lot of such farmers.
From what you are saying we are facing the all or nothing scenario. We
will probably have to settle for what we can extract from that, as you
will.

Indeed. What is particularly galling is how our production is being tied
up in (hugely expensive) red tape at every turn, whilst competitors have
essentially no restrictions at all.
Surely Europe do.
Just consider brasil became plated
with a huge area in gm crops, whilst officially any gm crops were
banned. If that happens, just imagine how well environmental, animal
welfare and other things are being policed (MUCH HARDER).
Very true, but I think we all know that the Brit farmers are inclined to
break rules too.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago