Footpath saga.........

[SuzieP]

Thanks Luce - I didn't know that the right to roam only applies to open space.....and I would guess that I'm not alone in that! As you say, it hasn't exactly been made clear has it.

[Debbie]

Oi there's the pickle! Right to roam without some form of responsibility means many 'walkers' will abuse the right, utilizing the countryside as a form of playground where they may tramp about strewing their litter as they go.

Not all walkers are like this, and sadly the responisible ones get shunted into the same group as these. And its very much the same with the dog walkers.

As a dog groomer living on the beach in Lincoln City, Oregon we saw this time and time and time again. Although it was a rule, it was never enforced that dogs remain on a six foot leash on the beach. Instead people would loose their dogs with the belief their dog 'loved them so much they would come back instantly'. Cannot tell you how many toddlers I saw knocked down, nor how many dog fights, nor how many dogs were miles down the beach with their owners chasing after them fruitlessless calling. Moral: dogs are *rarely* under the control needed when they are off lead. The sad part is, because this control is not enforced, dogs will eventually be banned entirely from the beaches, lumping the responsible dog owners with the bad.

I'd like to know who got it into their daft heads to let people stomp around the fields in their 'rights to roam' through farmers' fields?? Afterall, its not Joe Public that pays taxes on that land year after year after year. Its not not Joe Public who'll be brought to bear if their they or their dogs damage a herd, and livestock IS spendy. Vet bills are as well.

I can understand if its a well established public walking trail upkept with public funds, but this is ridiculous. Would the city dwellers like if we stomped through with mucky wellies through their living rooms, dogs running amuck en route to some back alley and on our way?? I think not, and its much the same thing.

[lucydales]

The Rambler's Association says a bit more on RtoR, borrowed from their website (see below for link for more info on where you can go):

"After decades of campaigning by the Rambler's Association, we now have a legal right of access on foot to some of the wildest and most dramatic landscapes in England and Wales. This new legal right - or right to roam - provided by The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW), applies only to mapped areas of uncultivated, open countryside namely mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land."

The Ramblers’ Association has been at the forefront of the campaign, dating back over a century, to gain wider public access to open uncultivated countryside.
The new rights of access apply to mapped areas of mountain, moor land, down land, heath land and registered common land and gives the public the chance to legally explore away from the beaten track for the first time.
Where you can go

The best way to find out where the new right of access applies is by looking at a new OS Explorer Map. (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk). All the maps have all been updated to show access land. Lookout for the access symbol on the front.

You may come across the symbol when out in the countryside, for example on fence posts to let you know when you have reached an area designated as access land.
You can also find out more about where you can go by checking at the Countryside Access web page (www.countrysideaccess.gov.uk). This site is also the best place to find information about any local restrictions which may apply to the right of access

www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/righttoroam/newplacestowalk.html

The following is the CRoW act on Defra's website:

www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/cl/index.htm

The Ramblers Ass'n says the following about dogs/horses:

Dogs

9. Dogs have been taken on highways since time immemorial, and it seems likely that, if ever challenged in the courts, they would be considered a ‘usual accompaniment’ and hence permissible on footpaths. There is no law specifying that they must be kept on a lead, but local authorities can make an order under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to introduce this as a requirement on designated highways. Additionally, the dog must be allowed to walk only along the line of the path. An act of trespass may be committed against the land holder if it wanders too far away from the official route.

10. Walkers with dogs should take particular caution when crossing through fields containing livestock. Section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 makes it an offence for a dog to be at large, ‘that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control’, in a field or enclosure containing sheep. It is also an offence for dogs to attack or chase livestock, and farmers are permitted to shoot dogs that are worrying, or are about to worry, farm animals. This is outlined in the Animals Act 1971 section 9, which also states that the farmer is not liable to compensate the dog’s owner in such circumstances.

11. If you are out on a walk with your dog, as at all times, adhere to the country code. Be particularly vigilant during the breeding and nesting seasons, and do not allow your dog to run through crops, hedgerows or undergrowth where it may harm or disturb wildlife. Extra care should be taken on bridleways and byways where dogs may frighten horses, or be at risk from vehicular traffic (6).

12. Dog owners have a duty to ensure that their animal does not threaten or harm a member of the public. The Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 made it an offence for ‘any unmuzzled ferocious dog’ to be at large in any street (this term is defined as including any ‘public passage’, and therefore covers all rights of way). Restrictions can be placed on dog ownership under the Dogs Act 1871 if the animal is found to be out of control. A magistrates’ court is empowered to make an order for a dog to be destroyed, and, by means of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 can also ‘make an order disqualifying the owner from having custody of a dog for such period as is specified in the order’. Further to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 3, such an order can be made regardless of whether or not the dog has actually injured someone. The court can also specify what measures should be taken to keep a dog under control.

13. Separate legislation was drawn up in 1975 to regulate the use of guard dogs on private property, and it is only permissible to use dogs for protecting a dwelling house, building or agricultural land, unless the dog is tied up securely or is being controlled by its handler at all times. Section 1 (3) of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 states that ‘a person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises’.

14. In its advisory leaflet (2) the RSPCA explains that care should be taken when a dog exhibits tense body language, especially if it raises its tail, makes growling noises, and glares at you. If it shows its teeth the wisest course of action is to back away slowly - running will only elicit a ‘chase response’ from the dog.

Back to the top
Horses

15. A footpath is defined as a highway ‘over which the public has a right of way on foot only’, hence horse-riders are restricted to the use of bridleways and byways. It is not actually an offence for a horse to be ridden along a footpath, rather it constitutes an act of trespass against the holder of the land. So, if the horse-rider has permission then there is no trepass, if not, the holder is entitled to order the rider off the land and can also sue for damages.

16. Every local authority has a duty under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 ‘to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians)’. District, county, metropolitan and London borough councils are therefore empowered to make byelaws or orders preventing horse-riders from using specific footpaths or bridleways for reasons of safety, or because such use is damaging the surface of the right of way. Any infringement of a byelaw or road traffic regulation order is a criminal offence.

Back to the top
Misleading Signs

17. Although the provision of warning notices is a legal requirement for guard dogs, and is recommended by the HSE where bulls are kept on rights of way (3), it is also an offence to display such signs in order to deter someone from using a footpath, bridleway or byway by providing false information. For example, a landowner may erect a sign saying ‘Danger, beware of the dog’ when there is no dog present, or the dog does not have access to the footpath. This is a fineable offence under section 57 of the National Parks & Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and the highway authority can initiate prosecutions in the magistrates’ court.

www.ramblers.org.uk/footpaths/law/animals.html

Hope I've not bored the pants off everyone! LOL!

[lucydales]

Just noticed the Horse stuff is for horses using footpaths, not the keeping of horses in footpath fields!

[harveydales]

Thanks Lucy - this is very interesting stuff and has cleared up several points I wasn't sure of. I will print this all off. I did know about the RtR land but it is nice to have it in black and white so I can quote it to any walker who happens to think they can roam all over our paddocks.

We have a "Beware, guard dogs" sign on our main garden gate (which is not on the public footpath). It was put up by previous owners and we've kept it to deter undesirable people. I had wondered about the legalities of this but it seems we are OK.

The only worrying thing is it sounds like our council could, if they really wanted, stop me allowing my horses to cross the public footpath to get from one field to the other.

[dalesponyrider]

The local council have put small signs up on the footpath going through D's field asking people to keep dogs on a lead (here in Lincoln). Not that anyone takes any notice! There are some men who deliberately take balls and things into the field and play with their dogs. Joe is worried that some harm will come to any future foal from people and dogs in the field. I am thinking of putting some sort of warning notice up when D is in foal saying something along the lines of "Mare in foal, please keep you dog on a lead and stick to the footpath as my mare WILL kick your dog if she thinks either herself or her foal are threatened."

As for disabled access, I think common sense has to apply. I met someone on crutches on one of our footpaths yesterday. The ground was quite rough but he was determined to get out and about. This was made possible for him by the fact we have small gates rather than stiles. I did rather admire him. I do intend taking my mother in law out on our footpaths in the wheelchair next summer. She has always been a very enthusiastic walker and misses getting out in the countryside enormously. Again, this is made possible by the gates but I will have to wait till summer when the ground is better. I wouldn't however, DREAM of pushing the wheelchair up and down the hills in the Peak District or over Pam's bumpy fields! I would attempt a flat river walk in the Peak district though. Surely the local councils can pick and choose SUITABLE footpaths for the disabled?

[greydales]

Feb 25, 2008 7:04:28 GMT -1 dalesponyrider said:

I wouldn't however, DREAM of pushing the wheelchair up and down the hills in the Peak District or over Pam's bumpy fields! I would attempt a flat river walk in the Peak district though. Surely the local councils can pick and choose SUITABLE footpaths for the disabled?

This is the whole point, there are many paths especially designated for people with disabilities/wheelchairs - so I would have thought the number of people actually wanting to attempt unsuitable footpaths must be extremely small??

[dalesponyrider]

Quite. I agree. But there is room to MAKE some footpaths suitable. Just because the number of people is small doesn't mean their interests shouldn't be taken account of. This is where common sense has to prevail but that is very difficult as people on both sides of the argument can put forward very passionate and coherent views. (Ducks head below parapet and puts helmet on to protect head from sharp objects!)