Protect clearing of nature

Trees and wildlife shouldn't be cleared for farmland.

Farming has caused humans to destroy land which will never be the same.

So farming shouldn't be allowed to expand and the amount of domesticated animals (cattle) should be reduced anyway. People aren't even supposed to eat meat.

Why is this idea important?

Trees and wildlife shouldn't be cleared for farmland.

Farming has caused humans to destroy land which will never be the same.

So farming shouldn't be allowed to expand and the amount of domesticated animals (cattle) should be reduced anyway. People aren't even supposed to eat meat.

Abolish the legal requirement to submit Animal Movement Documents

Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.

Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.

The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.

Why is this idea important?

Movement licences were introduced during the 2001 outbreak of Foot & Mouth Disease. No animal was permitted to be moved without a licence. Extra staff had to be employed by Local Authorities to deal with the enormous quantity of paperwork generated. I doubt if these civil servants have ever been laid off and, to keep themselves busy, Movement Documents have not been scrapped.

Anyone moving sheep or goats is required to submit a form, in quadruplicate (yes – really…FOUR copies), to the appropriate Local Authority within three days of the animal movement. I seriously doubt if any use has ever been made of the staggering amount of data that has been collected on sheep and goat movements and I doubt if it ever will.

The fact is that, prior to the 2001 Foot & Mouth Disease outbreak, animals were moved around freely, without any associated bureaucracy and without any problems. Diseases such as Foot & Mouth will be spread by animal movements but they are not caused by animal movements. Therefore, there is no justification for the government to monitor movements when no disease is present in the country. The refusal of the government to remove this ‘red tape’ is an example of politicians’ mania for absolute control and desire to micro-manage every aspect of the agricultural industry.

Agriculture and the UK’s inability to sustain itself at present and with current immigration rates.

In the UK we have very little in the way of agriculture and farming. Increasing the amount of agriculture in the UK is needed and now! With the increasing global population food and beverages are going to become increasingly scarce and in the UK this is a major issue what with the UK's high immigration of 600 thousand and total net migration of 200 thousand when we take away those emigrating from the UK. Also include the fact that at this moment our population has passed 61.8 million according to the latest government statistics. What we need is to increase the funding on agriculture and educate people that farming is a profitable business and will be increasingly profitable as the global population increases.

Why is this idea important?

In the UK we have very little in the way of agriculture and farming. Increasing the amount of agriculture in the UK is needed and now! With the increasing global population food and beverages are going to become increasingly scarce and in the UK this is a major issue what with the UK's high immigration of 600 thousand and total net migration of 200 thousand when we take away those emigrating from the UK. Also include the fact that at this moment our population has passed 61.8 million according to the latest government statistics. What we need is to increase the funding on agriculture and educate people that farming is a profitable business and will be increasingly profitable as the global population increases.

Abolish legislation requiring farmers to maintain useless records

It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.

The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.

The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.

The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray?  I think not!

Why is this idea important?

It is currently a legal requirement for livestock farmers to maintain an up to date record of all animal movements (I believe entries must be completed within 3 days of the movement or else…..!!). Also an Animal Medical Record Book must be kept. Both these must be presented for inspection by a civil servant every one to two years.

The Medical Record Book is particularly ridiculous. One must record such information as the date of administration of a medicine, the identity of the animal treated, when the latter might be sold and the name of the individual treating the animal. None of these things can be checked. None of these things matter to anyone. How does one identify the 324 sheep treated one week and the 534 treated a week later (or whatever)? Individual tag numbers – no thank you! That would take longer than the job of treating the flock in the first place.

The withdrawal period for the drug must also be entered. Obviously animals should not be sold for slaughter within the withdrawal period but if any farmer is so unscrupulous as to do so they are extremely unlikely to make a careful note of the fact in their Medical Record Book.

The date of purchase of a medicine must be entered. Does anybody give a toss on what day I might buy a can of antiseptic foot rot spray?  I think not!

End farmers relief on rates and avoidance of inheritance tax

Why should farmers get 20% rates relief . Why should farming be a special case and avoid tax on inheritance when a farm is passed to another family member surely as farmers often tell us farming is a business which should be treated like any other . Farmers have been given grants of tax payers money since the war its time this practice stopped.

Why is this idea important?

Why should farmers get 20% rates relief . Why should farming be a special case and avoid tax on inheritance when a farm is passed to another family member surely as farmers often tell us farming is a business which should be treated like any other . Farmers have been given grants of tax payers money since the war its time this practice stopped.

How to reform the foreign aid to better help the third world develop, increase food security, reduce CO2, increase forest cover in the UK and build cheap and affordable houses for British people.

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Why is this idea important?

 

This is long, so bear with me:

We should convert 12% of farmland in the UK into 90% woodland and 10% housing. This would build roughly 3.8 million houses and add another 560,000 hectares of forest, increasing the amount of forest cover of the UK by 56%. This would also cut our carbon footprint by 8% (a big contribution towards our aim to cut 80% by 2050) and generally improving the environment.

Then use the Foreign Aid budget to build farms in the developing world by buying licenses of the governments there. We can then use the food grown in this otherwise unused but productive land to feed our population and increase food sustainability. 

There is of course the matter of security for our farms. It is unlikely for there to be Zimbabwe style farm invasions as this policy shall increase affluence and decrease unemployment in these countries. In the very worst case scenario, we can deploy British troops to protect these farms, though this may also be unnecessary as we should try to get the foreign governments to control crime.

And just to clear one thing out the way, Africa is not all barren and unfertile. It has 28% of all the worlds arable land, more than North America and Europe combined and furthermore more than any other continent, even Asia or South America. The reason it is not very productive is that it is poorly run by corrupt governments. Prime examples are Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa.

The amount of shipping and flights from foreign countries to the UK delivering food may generate some emissions, though this is dwarfed by the mass of trees and other plants being grown in the UK and the foreign countries.

Allowing temporary signs for promoting farmers’ markets

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Why is this idea important?

Amending the planning legislation which currently prevents farmers' markets from displaying signs to promote their markets.  Better promotion leads to more popular and better attended markets which are both good for the farmers and producers who attend but also the local community where the market is based.

Abolish the ban on the burial of fallen livestock on the farm

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the legislation banning the disposal of dead livestock on the farm.

This legislation requires farmers to pay an abattoir to remove all carcases, even those of tiny lambs.

It is inconceivable that on-farm burial poses any health risk to humans. Anybody suggesting that there is such a risk is taking the Precautionary Principle to absurd and extreme lengths.

This is European legislation. I suggest that Britain either pulls out of the EU or gets a bit tougher in rejecting ludicrous legislation.

Abolish the beef labelling scheme

The beef labelling scheme was brought in as a panic reaction to BSE.  It is optional, but if you want to make any claims about your beef – eg the breed, you have to enter into the whole scheme and for small producers in particular such as farm shops the cost of audit is disproportionately high.  Small producers in any case are less likely to be importing strange foreign carcasses.  It is outdated unnecessary and adds nothing to traceability or quality

Why is this idea important?

The beef labelling scheme was brought in as a panic reaction to BSE.  It is optional, but if you want to make any claims about your beef – eg the breed, you have to enter into the whole scheme and for small producers in particular such as farm shops the cost of audit is disproportionately high.  Small producers in any case are less likely to be importing strange foreign carcasses.  It is outdated unnecessary and adds nothing to traceability or quality

Increase import tax on food items

We all know about the decline in our own farming. There are many programmes on television now showing us how and where our food is produced and we all want to reduce our food air miles.

With companies like Mc Donalds importing their chicken from south America because it is cheaper, surely it would be of benifit to increase import tax on such products so that our farmers could supply firms like these.

Buying food items out of season, as we all know, is now a way of life, and I dont think we would be able to change the mindset of the general public, but making out of season imported food items more expensive, then we may start to change the buying habits of a lot of people looking for cheaper produce at that time of year. Which will be non imported british grown food.

It may well be impractical to increase import tax on all food items, but surely we could start with the food items we know we can produce well in this country. Cows, sheep,pigs and chicken. The government should make it impossible for a person to buy a lamb cheaper from New Zealand than from Wales.

Finally, with UK farmers employimg more staff and making more money for themselves, this would increase the amount of income tax paid, which also helps the british economy.

Its all very well and good buying meat, fruit and vegetables from overseas, but it shouldnt be so cheap to do so.

Why is this idea important?

We all know about the decline in our own farming. There are many programmes on television now showing us how and where our food is produced and we all want to reduce our food air miles.

With companies like Mc Donalds importing their chicken from south America because it is cheaper, surely it would be of benifit to increase import tax on such products so that our farmers could supply firms like these.

Buying food items out of season, as we all know, is now a way of life, and I dont think we would be able to change the mindset of the general public, but making out of season imported food items more expensive, then we may start to change the buying habits of a lot of people looking for cheaper produce at that time of year. Which will be non imported british grown food.

It may well be impractical to increase import tax on all food items, but surely we could start with the food items we know we can produce well in this country. Cows, sheep,pigs and chicken. The government should make it impossible for a person to buy a lamb cheaper from New Zealand than from Wales.

Finally, with UK farmers employimg more staff and making more money for themselves, this would increase the amount of income tax paid, which also helps the british economy.

Its all very well and good buying meat, fruit and vegetables from overseas, but it shouldnt be so cheap to do so.

Cutting red tape for small farms

Much of the damage to wildlife results from big farms with big fields all doing the same thing at the same time. Small farms (less then 100 acres) have smaller fields, and have an economic need to do things differently from their neighbours.

Small farms do not get the commercial discounts that their larger neighbours get. They also suffer from having to pay minimum charges for many services required under European Waste Directive etc. Sometimes the minimum charge is larger then the entire profit on small enterprises. Householders get the same ammount of rubbish disposed of free.

Livestock disposal cost is much higher for small farms then for large farms. On one occasion I calculated that we paid more per kilogram to dispose of 2 still born lambs then a large commercial farm paid in fines and disposal costs after illegally disposing of nearly 200tons of carcasses.

Electronic Identification of sheep (EID) costs much more for a small flock then for a large one. Officially the cost is about 60p, but after the cost of the application tool is taken into account it costs about £2.00 a sheep for our flock. (We couldn't possibly buy the machine which reads the tags)

Transport licences: We have a rare breed flock and need to buy in one ram every 3 years to avoid in-breeding. The nearest flock of the same breed is over 100 miles away. (We provide a unique insurance against foot and mouth etc for this breed that only has about 500 sheep in the world) Without a licence we can only transport our sheep 40km. Getting the licence for transporting our own sheep would cost £150 and involve 2 days away from our small business. Paying anyone else to transport them would cost more. 

Farmers get their ORDERS from DEFRA, and sometimes (in our case) from the Welsh Assembly (WA). The division of responsibilities bewteen these two organisations is not clear. Sometimes the WA website just links straight through to DEFRA, sometimes neither seems to have relavant information.

We have to apply for Rural Payements Agency forms to the local WA Dept of Ag office. We have a very reliable local postal service, but vital Rural Payements Agency forms often go missing. After 10 years, and having completely lost the opportunity to get Single Farm Payments because of undelivered forms, I have only just discovered that the forms are posted to Wales from somewhere in England. What is worse, WA Dept Ag staff do not even know where the forms actually come from! THis makes affective chasing of lost forms almost impossible.

When we were turned down for Single Farm Payment we were told that there was a two stage appeal. We tried the first stage, but couldn't go onto the second stage because the charge was more then we had in the bank, and was about 25% of the payment we would have gained if the appeal was succesful.

Surprisingly, having failed to get SFP we were told we could still get Tyr Cynnal (Entry level environment scheme) We would have to stick to a management scheme. I wrote out a scheme that had succesfully supported summer Grasshopper Warblers and winter Snipe but as soon as I presented it it was screwed up and thrown on the floor. We were told to obey a plan from Brussels. The field cannot be grazed or topped at the time Brussels allows as it is usually waterlogged at that time of year. The field is now swamped with rushes, we have lost the Grasshopper Warblers and Snipe and are losing the very rare Whorled Carraway which used to blossom there. I have seen no new species. Although we run the farm as a nature reserve with 1/2 acres fields the extra boundary regulations took 16% of our land out of production.

Also there are no grants available to help very small farms to diversify into non farming enterprises. All that are available require match funding that exceeds that available from cash flow. Banks are, apparently, not interested in small rural enterprises. 

I am sure that many farmers have similar stories and can give many other examples of damaging red tape.

  

Why is this idea important?

Much of the damage to wildlife results from big farms with big fields all doing the same thing at the same time. Small farms (less then 100 acres) have smaller fields, and have an economic need to do things differently from their neighbours.

Small farms do not get the commercial discounts that their larger neighbours get. They also suffer from having to pay minimum charges for many services required under European Waste Directive etc. Sometimes the minimum charge is larger then the entire profit on small enterprises. Householders get the same ammount of rubbish disposed of free.

Livestock disposal cost is much higher for small farms then for large farms. On one occasion I calculated that we paid more per kilogram to dispose of 2 still born lambs then a large commercial farm paid in fines and disposal costs after illegally disposing of nearly 200tons of carcasses.

Electronic Identification of sheep (EID) costs much more for a small flock then for a large one. Officially the cost is about 60p, but after the cost of the application tool is taken into account it costs about £2.00 a sheep for our flock. (We couldn't possibly buy the machine which reads the tags)

Transport licences: We have a rare breed flock and need to buy in one ram every 3 years to avoid in-breeding. The nearest flock of the same breed is over 100 miles away. (We provide a unique insurance against foot and mouth etc for this breed that only has about 500 sheep in the world) Without a licence we can only transport our sheep 40km. Getting the licence for transporting our own sheep would cost £150 and involve 2 days away from our small business. Paying anyone else to transport them would cost more. 

Farmers get their ORDERS from DEFRA, and sometimes (in our case) from the Welsh Assembly (WA). The division of responsibilities bewteen these two organisations is not clear. Sometimes the WA website just links straight through to DEFRA, sometimes neither seems to have relavant information.

We have to apply for Rural Payements Agency forms to the local WA Dept of Ag office. We have a very reliable local postal service, but vital Rural Payements Agency forms often go missing. After 10 years, and having completely lost the opportunity to get Single Farm Payments because of undelivered forms, I have only just discovered that the forms are posted to Wales from somewhere in England. What is worse, WA Dept Ag staff do not even know where the forms actually come from! THis makes affective chasing of lost forms almost impossible.

When we were turned down for Single Farm Payment we were told that there was a two stage appeal. We tried the first stage, but couldn't go onto the second stage because the charge was more then we had in the bank, and was about 25% of the payment we would have gained if the appeal was succesful.

Surprisingly, having failed to get SFP we were told we could still get Tyr Cynnal (Entry level environment scheme) We would have to stick to a management scheme. I wrote out a scheme that had succesfully supported summer Grasshopper Warblers and winter Snipe but as soon as I presented it it was screwed up and thrown on the floor. We were told to obey a plan from Brussels. The field cannot be grazed or topped at the time Brussels allows as it is usually waterlogged at that time of year. The field is now swamped with rushes, we have lost the Grasshopper Warblers and Snipe and are losing the very rare Whorled Carraway which used to blossom there. I have seen no new species. Although we run the farm as a nature reserve with 1/2 acres fields the extra boundary regulations took 16% of our land out of production.

Also there are no grants available to help very small farms to diversify into non farming enterprises. All that are available require match funding that exceeds that available from cash flow. Banks are, apparently, not interested in small rural enterprises. 

I am sure that many farmers have similar stories and can give many other examples of damaging red tape.

  

let milk be milk – repealing pasteurisation laws

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Why is this idea important?

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Scrap Farm Subsidies

Farm Subsidies hark back to the era just after the war when there were severe food shortages.  We no longer live in that world and farm subsidies are no longer needed.

They also cost Billions each year that could be saved. 

Why is this idea important?

Farm Subsidies hark back to the era just after the war when there were severe food shortages.  We no longer live in that world and farm subsidies are no longer needed.

They also cost Billions each year that could be saved. 

End to Agricultural Subsidy or the Fat Tax

The health service is creaking with the expense of dealing with obesity related ill health.

One cause of obesity is  "too cheap" food loaded with corn starch sugars.  Corn starch sugars are used in food production because they are subsidised.  Farmers grow rich, the poor grow fat, the NHS grows weary trying to square this circle

Why is this idea important?

The health service is creaking with the expense of dealing with obesity related ill health.

One cause of obesity is  "too cheap" food loaded with corn starch sugars.  Corn starch sugars are used in food production because they are subsidised.  Farmers grow rich, the poor grow fat, the NHS grows weary trying to square this circle

Ear tagging and tracing sheep

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish all legislation concerned with monitoring the location of sheep. Tracing sheep is pointless, unnecessary, unachievable, time wasting, expensive and harmful to the ears of the animals. It is legislation designed by bureaucrats for bureaucrats. These bureaucrats are parasites in our society.

There is no justification for this insane legislation. It is stated to be essential ‘in the event of a disease outbreak’ but it will do nothing to prevent disease or to control disease.

Farmers are now required to record the movement, not just of batches of sheep, but of individual sheep. Sheep are obliged to have a tag in each ear, inscribed with a unique number which must be entered onto a licence whenever the animal is moved. Many farmers have several thousand sheep.

Get rid of agricultural tie restrictions on dwellings

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Why is this idea important?

Good idea after WW2, but out of date in 2010. Why should owners of agtie properties be forced to either comply with restriction or have to sell if they cannot?  If an ag business or employment ceases why should I leave my home?  I should not be forced to market it for up to 2 years to demonstrate a lack of local agricultural housing need! I dont want to move.

I accept there has to be some planning regulation in the countryside, but this law is surely against human rights? Im proposing radical changes in what constitutes agricultural occupancy.  The list of occupations should be widened to encompass smallholder, farrier, blacksmith, and other country occupations not presently accepted under the existing legislation. And, because profit isnt necessarily the main point for some whose lifestyle choice has led them to an agtie property, the necessity to prove income should be abolished.  

Change the organic farming system

Currently we have an artificial division between organic and non-organic farmers. Organic farmers pay to be certified that they do not use chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The have to deal with a lot of paperwork and undergo inspections. Instead we should require farms using chemical fertilisers and pesticides to be registered, keep records of how such things are used/disposed of, pay for training in their correct use and disposal.

Why is this idea important?

Currently we have an artificial division between organic and non-organic farmers. Organic farmers pay to be certified that they do not use chemical fertilisers and pesticides. The have to deal with a lot of paperwork and undergo inspections. Instead we should require farms using chemical fertilisers and pesticides to be registered, keep records of how such things are used/disposed of, pay for training in their correct use and disposal.

Burying dead livestock on farm

It is now illegal to bury on farm livestock which have died.  They must be left out for a lorry to collect which goes from farm to farm for that purpose.  

Please ease this law so that farmers have the option to bury on farm if they wish.  It is heartbreaking to lose a favourite animal and doubly so that a decent burial cannot be provided on farm.

It has always been the case that dead animals (and people) are buried – earth to earth, ashes to ashes etc.  This EU ruling goes against common sense.

Why is this idea important?

It is now illegal to bury on farm livestock which have died.  They must be left out for a lorry to collect which goes from farm to farm for that purpose.  

Please ease this law so that farmers have the option to bury on farm if they wish.  It is heartbreaking to lose a favourite animal and doubly so that a decent burial cannot be provided on farm.

It has always been the case that dead animals (and people) are buried – earth to earth, ashes to ashes etc.  This EU ruling goes against common sense.

Relax ear tag requirements for pet/non breeding livestock

Ear tags are used to identify livestock. All livestock must now have 2 eartags, sheep one with a microchip in.   Ear tags get pulled out with depressing regularity and even worse cause much damage to ears.  Owners are fined if animals do not have the correct tags.

If I went to my livestock and slit their ears with a knife I would rightly be fined (or worse) for animal cruelty.  But the effect of putting in eartags is not dissimilar. Animals put their head through fences or into bushes and rip the tag out.

There would be outrage if tags were suggested for dogs and cats.

Whereas I appreciate the use of identifying animals going into the food chain I do not see the point of disfiguring pet and non breeding stock.

Why can we not have the option of microchipping the animal (not the eartag) for identification purposes.  This provides a permanent identification without animal cruelty.

I would like to see this option for all livestock.  Markets and abbatoirs must have microchip readers and many farmers also have them.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Ear tags are used to identify livestock. All livestock must now have 2 eartags, sheep one with a microchip in.   Ear tags get pulled out with depressing regularity and even worse cause much damage to ears.  Owners are fined if animals do not have the correct tags.

If I went to my livestock and slit their ears with a knife I would rightly be fined (or worse) for animal cruelty.  But the effect of putting in eartags is not dissimilar. Animals put their head through fences or into bushes and rip the tag out.

There would be outrage if tags were suggested for dogs and cats.

Whereas I appreciate the use of identifying animals going into the food chain I do not see the point of disfiguring pet and non breeding stock.

Why can we not have the option of microchipping the animal (not the eartag) for identification purposes.  This provides a permanent identification without animal cruelty.

I would like to see this option for all livestock.  Markets and abbatoirs must have microchip readers and many farmers also have them.

 

 

 

Leave the EU – that should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

Why is this idea important?

Leaving the EU should stop most of the daft, expensive legislation which this site was set up to do. Most of the ideas proposed on this site would be impossible to repeal because the are binding on our government. Euro diktat has precedence over UK law in many cases.

Most of our legislation is now directed from Brussels. The government you elect here in the UK can rarely do anything about laws, regulations and bureacracy from the EU. Most of these things have been created after lobbying by special interest groups or big business. They have the deep pockets to employ specialist PR agents who – at best – wine and dine the EU bureacrats.

Even where the legislations sounds to be positive, it is usually at enormous cost.

Every year, thousands of new rules and regulations are published producing a monumental nuisance for almost every organisation in the country.

Some we know are EU-inspired, but other laws are less well known as EU in origin. In fact most of our legislation comes from over the water.  But the majority of EU laws and regulations are expensive to implement and monitor, and ineffective in not producing the intended effect; some are harmful, and of course some actually useful.

remove movement ban on livestock

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Why is this idea important?

remove the animal six day movement ban as it restricts farming business (and is still enforced from 2001 foot & mouth outbreak) It  is of no benefit to disease control and is costly to both farming and Trading standards council enforcement officers. 

Repeal of the Fur Farm Act

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Why is this idea important?

Repeal of the Fur Farming in the UK Act on the grounds:
1. It set a dangerous precedent in UK Law:
a Law was passed in ‘the interests of public morality’ – no legal precedent for such rubbish
2. It sends out a bad public message about a completely legitimate, ethical, Conservation friendly material. Fur is an infinitely renewable resource. The alternatives; made from petro chemicals are evidently as we see in the Gulf of Mexico are not eco friendly and are finite.

Review all DEFRA regulations hastily put in place during Foot & Mouth outbreak

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!

Why is this idea important?

In my opinion DEFRA should be split up and the Ministry of Agriculture should be brought back, the industry needs to be led by policymakers who understand the trade and how different it is from other commercial operations.

Filling out forms is not a farmer’s forte; more time is now spent doing on a desk than a tractor.

Farmers should not be required to get separate driving licences that say they can transport certain types on animals in their trailer. Farmers know how to look after their animals and don't need people who've never stepped foot on a farm telling them how to.

Also, stop adding more regulations or amendments to EU rules that affect the industry, believe it or not this puts us at a disadvantage!!