|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOREST STALWART WARNS OF NO-GO AREAS SPREADING |
|
Controversial closures of four New Forest car parks by the Forestry Commission-firmly opposed by NFDOG–prompted some lively correspondence in the local press. One letter sent by Hugo de Plessis to the Lymington Times stood out above all others. His knowledge of the Forest, its wildlife and management rivals that of most people alive, in the opinion of NFDOG. Mr de Plessis, who is not a member of NFDOG, was born eight decades ago into the family that owned the Newtown estate near Lymington. The de Plessis name is one of the best known in the Forest. Hugo de Plessis has walked and ridden in the Forest for most of his life. He still supports the New Forest Hounds. His letter makes observations about the workings of committees that control our access to and enjoyment of the Forest. When weighing up the value of his comments, remember that he was himself an Independent Conservative district councillor in the Forest for 15 years. He has a very deep insight into how such bodies operate. His pertinent and thoughtful letter must have made many of its targets squirm since it is hard to argue with his logic. Indeed, none of them appeared to attempt a response to the Times. With Mr de Plessis’s agreement, we republish the letter in full. “Dear Sir, Presumably these closures are aimed at dog walkers. But most dog walkers behave responsibly when asked to keep their dogs under control. Unfortunately there is a small minority who do not and are a nuisance, even a danger, to other people as well as birds. Surely these could be discouraged by the New Forest park wardens or the traditional Forest keepers, even being reported by other owners, who must know them. Walkers, with or without dogs, rarely stray from the tracks. They know better than to cross the bogs except at the ancient, safe passages or bridges. Walking in heather is hard work and a thick gorse brake has obvious disincentives. Nesting birds need cover, and cover makes difficult walking. These closures have all the signs of a hobby horse by someone who does not know the Forest. Where will they stop? The next step by the RSPB will be to demand permanent closure, then for more areas to be set aside and more species to be protected. Waiting in the wings are flower and butterfly and bug societies with lists of habitats they want to see protected. Before we know what is happening half the Forest will be declared a no-go area. Why penalise responsible dog walkers and other car park users just because of a few irresponsible dog owners? Why penalise walkers, like myself, who do not have a dog and pose no threat to birds? Why penalise the Sunday visitors who seldom stray more than a hundred yards from their cars or, that modern sacred cow, the disabled who cannot even leave the car park? Dog walkers are not the only disturbance. Birds will not come back until there is firm control of magpies and crows, as every game shooter knows. Magpies in particular are egg thieves and there have never been so many. But shooting them would raise an outcry from the bird protectionists. Grey squirrels too take eggs. Thanks to the ill-informed campaign by the anti-hunting protestors the Forest is overrun with foxes. I have never seen so many and others say the same. Foxes are an even greater danger for ground nesting birds, especially chicks, as well as eggs. Walkers have only two feet, placed on well-worn paths for only an hour or two. Commoners’ ponies and cattle have four clumsy feet, moving around and being put down all day and night, in all the nesting areas, the open moors, bogs and woodlands. It is an interesting calculation, and quite simple, to estimate the rough area trampled underfoot by a single pony. For the 100-day closure, a herd of 12 ponies could trample 240 acres. What are the odds on a bird’s nest not being squashed underfoot? Moreover this does not even consider the scything of the feeding pony’s mouth or the disturbance caused by its presence. If the park authority is really serious about protecting ground nesting birds then the commoners’ animals should be excluded. Also there needs to be determined control of vermin, not just what are considered to be human vermin like us, but the natural predators too. These closures show up a major danger of the national park. It is run by a committee appointed by a wide variety of interests, including outside interests. From my experience of councillors and committees, the members spend most of their time discussing matters they know little about in areas they have never been to and have even less interest. I wonder how many members of the committees responsible for closing the car parks knew where the Crockford bogs or Clay Hill were or what they were like. How many had been to see Two Bridges Bottom or Red Hill? How many will ever see if they can again hear a snipe drumming? Members rely heavily on their own staff, whose knowledge may also be limited but whose position does not allow them to admit it. I have known committees, on the advice of their staff, try to alter fundamental laws of nature by majority decision. Members often believe anything they are told by the proliferation of consultants, experts and self-styled authorities, and especially by powerful, well-funded protection societies. These may be sincere but have narrow minds focussed on their particular interest. A newly formed national park is an irresistible new pool in which to fish. The greatest danger local people face is not the national park itself but the hordes of outsiders, consultants, protection societies, recreational interests, politicians and others eager to impose their own narrow sectional interests. Hugo de Plessis
|
|
|
Site designed and hosted by
Copyright © 2000 New Forest
On Line Ltd. |
