Re the invading rabbit:
The obvious answer for such a man as yourself, Mr Sheard, is twofold, both aspects involving flies - the first will be adequately explained for those in the know by the word 'DUBBING'. The second by a word which I will enunciate more quietly - 'maggots'.

I think it would be a very positive move to shift the focus to maintainance of the countryside. I don't see why farmers shouldn't be rewarded for their work in this respect.

I would like to see farmland that is no longer needed for resources being returned as closley to it's original natural state as possible, recreating large areas of natural habitat for indigenous fora and fauna.

I'm 17 and I live in a small village where farming is important when I was little I remember going to the village green to watch the hunt set off now the hunt doesnt run because people think its cruel. But the people that think it's cruel mostly come from towns and inner cities where they've never seen what a fox can do to a horse and chicken!!

I think that only uninformed, ignorant people would consider the battery cage hell of all hells for laying hens. There is less feather pecking, aggressive pecking and bullying in a battery cage.

Does free range systems not worry you? 4000 birds running about on an open floor, how do they ever sort out their pecking order? I think the answer to this is never. Eggs enriched with disease, lovely for breakfast (sarcasm in case it went over your head). These diseases come from the wild birds which have access to the poultry house. The birds have increased risk to predators, and therefore injury. Some birds may never have access to food and water, due to bullying. This would not happen in cages because the birds are in small groups. Therefore, you may not have eggs for your breakfast because all of the hungry foxes and there cubs will have eaten them. Risk of disease caused by the snow, frost, temperatures etc....

Enriched cages (as it seems you don't have a clue of the benefits judging by your article) will provide the birds with everything they need for their behavioural needs
They will have nest boxes, for nesting when laying
Litter for ground pecking and scratching
Increased space - 750 cm2
Perches Etc

So maybe you should get better informed about the poultry industry before printing an article on the web.

I agree whole heartedly with your comments. I myself having lived all my life in this District now find myself in a position whereby I am unable to get onto the property ladder and so enjoy the beautiful surroundings I have always known and love so dearly. I am faced with having to seek a purchase outside of the Yorkshire Dales within a community I am unaccustomed to. More should be done to help local residents but I am puzzled to see anyway out of this dreadful dilema I fear many of us are in. I wonder how we will stand in another 10-15 years when my children may be looking at leaving the nest and seeking their own purchases. Will the Yorkshire Dales by then be a dead community of weekend visiting city dwellers with the history of home owning locals being a dim and distant memory !!

Can I refer people to the countryside agency's own website: www.countryside.gov.uk/netscape/access/accesspage03.htm

You will see that, nationally, there are 82,000 miles for footpaths, 18,000 miles of bridleways, 2,000 miles of byways and 3,000 miles of RUPP's.

So walkers have 100,000 miles of tracks which are guaranteed vehicle-free on which to walk, and yet people who drive a vehicle down the 5% of this which is a *road* should to be banned because people don't want vehicles in the countryside???

I'm sorry but that really smacks of selfishness, intolerance, and downright bigotry.

If you don't want to see a vehicle, don't walk down a road.

Why can't everyone enjoy the countryside, however they choose to do it?

Granted there are idiots who drive too fast, cause damage, etc. but banning vehicular access is not going to stop people who already break the law anyway - why would they worry if they're breaking one law or three? These people drive across farmer's fields, they break fences and gates. A sign or even a locked gate will not stop them, they will go through the nearest hole in the hedge and cause even more damage.

The way forward is for all groups to work together, to keep the idiots away or better still, point them to the nearest off-road site in an old quarry. That's the place for "mud plugging", but equally, green lanes are the place for a nice drive in the countryside.

How else might disabled people enjoy the countryside? Fit tractor tyres to a wheelchair? Be flown in to remote parts by a helicopter?

I would also like to refer people to my website dedicated to this subject: www.juracid.demon.co.uk/greenlanes
I have tried to collect as much information from as many groups as possible.

I would love to live in the 'countryside' to bring up my children in the fresh air and attend the 10 pupils to one teacher schools, but I must make a living and cut my cloth to suit, I must stay in leeds (urgh the thought of it) my point is, I detest the thought of subsidy to the 'well orth' from the pockets of joe bloggs grafting in the smoke. You live in the countryside you pay the going rate, stop moaning you lucky sods

I am a bird lover. However I do not want a cull of the hedgehogs - They should be distributed to other parts of the UK mainland where farming has devastated hedgehog populations. The hebrides do need to protect their wild bird habitats and I am in favour of the hedgehogs being removed but not culled. To survive hibernation just to be killed is just shocking and anyone supporting this action is not, in my view, a true lover of wildlife.

I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed concerning chanelling production money to conservation schemes. It cannot come soon enough. Much encouragement is required to ensure that, in the Dales particularly, farmers take their responsibilities regarding looking after dreadfully neglected woodlands and copses, simply by keeping stock out, and the planting of native species much more seriously than is currently apparent. Gills should also be protected from stock to allow regeneration.

First, let me correct some misleading statements by your correspondent. The laws that allow the public to drive their vehicles on the byways in the national park are the same laws that allow them to drive on roads sealed with tarmac. The law makes no distinction between roads that are sealed with tarmac and other types of sufacing such as cobbles or metalling. Indeed, having no man made surface at all does not affect their legal status. Your correspondent writes of 'ancient rights of way' implying that these byways are older than higher status roads but, in fact, most of the tarmac roads in the area are equally ancient and should be cherished as such. Far from being un-metalled, as your correspondent claims, most of the country roads of Yorkshire were covered in stones and the present byways and bridleways are those that escaped sealing with tarmac.

I have been looking at some recent photographs of the byways and bridleways of North Yorkshire and I must say that the grim picture of desolation painted by your correspondent seems to be exaggerated. Many, if not most, of these roads do still have the original metalled surface that they were given in the 19th century and are perfectly suited for driving vehicles. Most of those that are damaged have lost this covering of stones due to defective drainage making the soil too soft to support the weight of vehicles and horses. This defective drainage is clearly visible in the photographs as surface water. The remarkable thing is that these roads have been able to sustain such relatively intensive use for at least fourty years without maintenance. In that time considerable sums have been spent on restoring footpaths in the national parks and these paths have not had to withstand tractor use.

It is unreasonable to blame the traffic on a public highway for it being out of repair. No one asserts that drivers are at fault when holes appear in tarmac roads, so I feel that there is a double standard here. The law requires the highway authorities to maintain all public roads to the level required by the traffic that uses them, but clearly, in this case, this duty is not being carried out. NYCC have instead decided to take the bureaucratic approach to maintenance issues by regulating the traffic. This option is especially attractive because it is cheap and politicaly expedient. However, experience gained elsewhere shows that TROs are not effective as a means of conserving byways - especially if tractors continue to use them. Sooner or later the NYCC and the NYDNPA will have to accept that repairs will have to be made to these roads irrespective of recreational vehicle use. This vast expense could have been avoided had the byways received regular small scale repairs. Some of the blame for this negligence must be shared by the vehicular users themselves as they were in a position to carry out such maintenance tasks without having to expend much time or money.

The situation may seem hopeless but there is a light on the horizen because the Ancient Roads Conservation Volunteers have begun work on restoring the national park's byways and bridleways. Scarhouse Road has been completely reconstructed and I believe they have started work on the Pockstones Moor Road. Here is the contact for anyone interested in participating: Brian@limb.demon.co.uk

Absolutely gutted when I noted Loch Awe's absence from the Forest Enterprise Brochure 2003. We spent a magical week there in 2001, and looked forward to going back for a week of tranquility for years to come.

As your article suggests, it's a real travesty that this place has been put up for sale when 'hundreds' (not tens as you note) of millions are being spent on a white elephant of a talking shop down the road from our home.

This is not the end of this matter.......

Interesting article if somewhat biased, ill-informed and badly researched.
Can I refer you to this research http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/grants/reports/1779.php which disproves almost all of these emotional claims.

Notably, it concludes that walkers do more damage than recreatiomal vehicles and that disused (TRO'd) lanes suffer neglect and in effect become "linear woods" lost forever.

The minister is not "keeping his options open", merely his mind.

Your suggestion that "thousands of people unused to country ways" who visit car boot sales cause damage and litter is outrageous and I guarantee you cannot provide evidence of such.

No doubt the organiser of the sale you mention clears the site of all rubbish after each sale (I have never heard of an organiser that doesn't). The "damage" accusation is ridiculous unless you are including the usual wear and tear of any popular event such as country shows, agricultural shows, carnivals, steam rallies etc. etc.

Dear sir,
As part of a history homework, I am writing to you to express my feelings on fox hunting. Our class recently spent a whole lesson, discussing the factor, giving both sides of the argument.

Personally I think it's wrong, and i'll give you my reasons for thinking so.

• Firstly, it's incredibly cruel to the foxes when they haven't done anything to harm anyone, all they do is eat chickens, surely they have to have something to eat? Humans kill all kinds of animals, so why can't foxes eat chickens?
• Secondly, the foxes are wild animals the way they behave is natural instinct, so why not leave them alone?
• Thirdly, the way they're killed is most horrific. Having a pack of dogs chasing after them, with humans riding horses nearby. Nothing should be treated as badly as that.

Having just received our 2003 brochure for the Forrestry Commission my husband called me at work immediately to say that the cabins in Loch Awe wee no longer in the brochure. Thus after having scoured the internet to see if they were available by another company, I have stumbled accross your article. We too having three young children have taken two holidays in Dalavich by Loch Awe. The year before last in a beautiful bungalow right by the Loch wher one day out walking we came accross the Forrestry Commission cabins and last year actually staying in on of the cabins. Our children had a wonderful adventure using the upstairs balcony as a look out for their fun filled adventure games. The place was a haven for wild birds and birds of prey. I agree that it is an imense shame that the whole site is now up for sal and cannot understand why money hasn't been spent updating those cabins as it has at all the other sites that the commission has. Certainly when we were there in early March last year the place was packed with families and fishermen enjoying a late winter break.

I totally agree that it is a shame that money is wasted left right and centre in this Country and that nothing is done to maintain what values are just about left in society today.

A real great shame and loss for those of us that appreciate the simpler luxeries in life.

As I live in a town, I guess my views won't fit your world view.
However, you seem to want to both have your cake and eat it.
You want the luxury to farm, but not compete in the marketplace.
You want the facility of broadband, but not the roads to bring the equipment in.
You want the freedom to walk across the dales, but not extend this to the Londoners.

By choosing to live where you do, surely you should take some responsibility for your ability to receive services?

On the point of being encouraged to use public transport:
Four years ago following redundancy from my second established career, at the age of 55, I was obliged to take a job at reduced pay 12 miles from home. I was not very happy with the amount of fuel tax that I had to pay in order to travel to work, particularly having done the Welfare State the favour of coming off their pay roll.

Redundant again now at the age of 59, I am obliged to reduce my income even further and accept a job in Bradford. Not wanting to drive and park, I checked the bus fare. I was disgusted to find that travellers to work are charged more than the later travellers - who are presumably travelling through choice, not necessity, and can presumably afford it. It seems that wage earners are ripped off by the state no matter what their mode of transport.

Well done John Sheard, - I've been banging on about this subject for years. There are always two ends to every stick and this Government always, I repeat, always, gets hold of the wrong 'un.

My particular interest is in the Wharfe, for reasons piscatorial, but I'm sure my views apply to all the Dales spate rivers. In Wharfedale we can only be pleased for the residents of Castley, near Pool, who have been flooded out umpteen times in the last year or two. Millions of pound have been spent this last summer on building a bund wall the length of Castley Lane to protect numerous properties from the river when it bursts its banks. I sincerely hope it works.

More millions were spent on funding a similar scheme on the Ure at Boroughbridge a couple of years ago and, touch wood, that seems to be working, although only just I'm told.

Both these were very commendable projects, but surely, as with most things, it would have been better to attack the problem at source. i.e try and stop the river flooding in the first place. For goodness sake let's spend some money on filling in, or damming, those moor top drainage channels or 'grips' in an effort to try and slow down the currently rapid flow of water into the river and thus prevent the flash flooding which so often occurs nowadays. If that was done, hopefully no more money would need to be spent on preventing downstream properties from floating away.

Who am I to dispute that global warming may have something to do with the flood problem, but I am convinced that 80% of the problem lies on the moor tops.

Some forty-odd years ago some bright spark in the then Min. Of Ag.thought of the bright idea of paying the farmers to dig the grips. Is it too much to ask one of our present DEFRA comedians to pay them again to fill them in.

I suspect it would deemed politically incorrect to admit being wrong.

Certainly, ban hare coursing. I cannot see any justification for it. Foxhunting I support totally. Foxes need to be controlled and nobody has yet discovered a more certain or humane way of doing the job. I have shot for over 50 years and I wish I could guarantee to shoot to kill outright every time. Poison unfortunately affects other animals than those it is aimed at, so is out of the question.

Stag hunting I was dubious about until a farmer pal and I took the trouble to visit Exford on Exmoor to learn about it. Neither of us hunt but were brought up with foxhunting. After our visit we were both convinced that of all hunting that is probably the most humane.

In short, I'm pro fox and stag hunting and anti hare coursing.

I read with interest your news about BT and the provision of broadband access to rural locations, Burley in Wharfedale is such a rural location whilst Guiseley, 4 miles up the road and the same dialling code is not.

It also came as a revelation, when discusing with a friend the broadband gap, that although BT had asked for people to register an interest so that when a pre-ordained trigger point was reached the service would be povided, BT had not yet set the trigger level of interest so it didn't really matter how many of us expressed an interest we stood to be ignored.

Radio reception is also quite poor in Burley in Wharfedale, and when digital radio was introduced I was very interested in obtaining clear reception without the necessity of a satellite dish. Imagine my surprise therefore when contacting he BBC, who are very keen to impress upon us the benefits of digital broadcasting, available through free-to-air services, that not only is there no service available, there is "no intention to provide such service in the foreseeable future".

Truly the digital age is leaving some of us behind.