|
Back to Scottish Outdoor Access
Code
Why no QMS response to SOAC?
Open letter to Jim Walker
James Irvine
Teviot Agriculture, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Teviot Scientific Consultancy, Edinburgh
(Filed 16 June 03)
www.land-care.org.uk
Jim Walker
Chairman Quality Meat Scotland
The Rural Centre
Ingliston, Newbridge
EH28 8NZ
Monday 16th June 03
Dear Jim Walker,
At a recent visit to Quality Meat Scotland HQ
at Ingliston I had an opportunity to ask Andy McGowan, Industry
Development Manager for QMS, if QMS was intending to make a response
to the draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) that is currently
available for consultation until June 30th (1).
I was surprised and dismayed by his response
that QMS had decided on his recommendation not to make any response
as, in his words, “QMS had more productive things to do”.
He informed me that the basis for this statement
was that QMS (apparently again on his recommendation) regarded the
SOAC has “going to happen anyway and that a response from QMS
would not make any difference”.
I would like to remind you of the statement on
the QMS website (2) which says:
"QMS has two main objectives:
1. To improve the competitive position of the Scottish meat
and livestock industry at home and abroad, thereby bringing tangible
benefit to the sectors involved, from primary production to point
of sale.
2. To provide co-ordination and leadership for the whole of
the industry”
As a livestock farmer doing his best to run a
quality suckler beef herd in the immediate vicinity of a substantial
urban settlement I am greatly concerned at the extent of open access,
both day and night, to virtually all parts of the farm that is proposed
in the draft SOAC. This access extends to horses, mountain bikes,
group activities of undefined size, the climbing of fences and walls,
non-motorised activities in the air above the land, recreational
functions of all sorts, etc - all based on the access-takers presumed
understanding of what constitutes responsible behaviour.
It is well recognised that there is an ever widening
gap between urban and rural attitudes, with urban dwellers understanding
less and less about how the countryside works. Surely it must be
unreasonable to impose such an extensive burden of untutored access
on to livestock farms next urban settlements, especially where extensive
rights of way already exist. To do so would significantly compromise
biosecurity and make good livestock management much more difficult
to achieve.
Scottish Natural Heritage invites responses and
says that it will pay attention to them, and that each response
matters.
I would urge QMS to take this matter much more
seriously than it appears to be doing. Failure to do so would not
be in keeping with the objectives of QMS as stated above and for
which livestock farmers such as myself pay our subscriptions.
Yours sincerely
Dr James Irvine
Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie, Perthshire
Email: landcarescotland@aol.com
or
Email: editor@land-care.org.uk
Copy to: www.land-care.org.uk
References
1. Scottish Natural Heritage
(2003). Draft Scottish Outdoor Access Code: a document for consultation
(www.snh.org.uk/soac/)
2. QMS website
http://www.qmscotland.co.uk/qms_overview.html
. .
|
