The Chase, national trust reorganisation of the chase Options

[wooltonhillbilly]

I just wondered whether anyone on this forum uses The Chase in Woolton Hill to walk their dogs. The National Trust have just finished almost two years of work on The Chase, to include coppicing, and tidying up the fences. They have also put cattle in there and barbed wire fences. They now say no dogs should be off a lead, and no dogs are allowed in the lake any more, and it looks like no fishing, as they have put barriers up on the two main areas where you could walk down to the lake.

How do people feel about this, as a local dogwalker, I am extremenly disappointed I cannot throw sticks or balls to my dog off the lead, and he loves to swim in the lake. I have been here nearly 30 years and this is the first time we have nowhere local to let our dogs off the lead and play. I am also concerned about the barbed wire and the fact that this is a nature reserve and not a farm.

What do others think?

[Strafin]

How can they make you do that? I would let the dog off anyway.

[Vodabury]

Hi

Before my lovely and faithful hound passed away, I used to walk her at The Chase. Being away from the traffic and being able to let her off the lead was one of the reasons we went there.

I have seen the new regulations and think they are a little over the top.

As long as dog walkers are considerate, for example picking up dog mess - especially if done on or near a path, then I do not see a problem with dogs off leads.

As far as the cattle are concerned, is this possibly to do with a government/EU grant for the land owner?

Rgds

[Simon Kirby]

Of all the places I walk my dogs The Chase was my favourite. I have utter contempt and loathing for the National Trust who have deliberately engineered the exclusion of dog walkers from The Chase by making it on-lead only and further discouraged dog walkers by introducing cattle.

The Chase was a beautiful woods with many, many beautiful trees, and the National Trust have ripped the heart out of it. I won't go back, it will be just too upsetting. There were some fantastic conifers, the beech at the meeting of the paths which had the hornets nest in (I got stung having a look), the birch-hazel inosculation opposite that was of national significance, the dead tree by the newt pond that grew the increadible crop of orange toadstools, the three swamp cypresses that came into such delicate leaf in the spring, the great oaks by the lake, the avenue of sweet chestnuts where my dogs knew the squirrels lived, the tall stump by the letter box (was it a letter box?) that Clover could jump onto, the oak on the long west path with the bug hole that looked like an ****, the scots pine on the way down to the lake that had the brain fungus that grew at the base of it - I could go on and on. I watched the newts for hours - get your eye in and you could count twenty - and in the spring I'd watch the brook lampreys in the stream, though that was before the Thames Water pollution incident. The woods were totally perfect, idyllic, they needed nothing.

The only up-side is that I've discovered two new walks, and we still see many of our friends who were also refugees from The Chase. There's Jonathan Hill and the Herbert Plantation: it's safe enough to lets the dogs off for most of it, though I'm nervous about adders in the heath area. And there's also Penwood which is my favourite. The trees don't have anything like the character of The Chase, but it's good all the same and fantastically well maintained.


Birch-hazel inosculation.

[Vodabury]

I also think the National Trust have been too eager with the chainsaw.

I thought that the great storm of 1987 taught us that it is generally better to leave woodland alone. I remember reading that after the storm damage, areas that were not cleared repaired faster and better than those where there was human intervention.

I understand that there has to be some management (e.g felling unsafe trees) but I am also not impressed with what has occurred at The Chase.

Rgds

[Simon Kirby]

I also think the National Trust have been too eager with the chainsaw.

I thought that the great storm of 1987 taught us that it is generally better to leave woodland alone. After the storm damage, areas that were not cleared repaired faster and better than those where there was human intervention.

I understand that there has to be some management, but I am also not impressed with what has occurred at The Chase.

Rgds

If you haven't already, take a look around Penwood. This year the forestry commission installed a new car park, re-laid paths and dug a substantial network of drainage ditches to keep the paths dry, and scrubbed out a huge area of dense rhododendron ponticum understory. The woods remained open for the whole of this time and the work was completed without any fuss or inconvenience. It really is a model of how a wood can be sensitively maintained for everyone.

[JeffG]

Like others on here, when I had a dog we used to take her to the Chase regularly. It's a pity if the NT have now effectively excluded dogs from there.

Another great place to try is Sydmonton Common: coming from Newbury, first right off the A339 (towards Basingstoke) after the Swan roundabout, over the old hump back bridge, then left and left again brings you to a large lay by at one of the entrances.

[Andy Capp]

If you haven't already, take a look around Penwood. This year the forestry commission installed a new car park, re-laid paths and dug a substantial network of drainage ditches to keep the paths dry, and scrubbed out a huge area of dense rhododendron ponticum understory. The woods remained open for the whole of this time and the work was completed without any fuss or inconvenience. It really is a model of how a wood can be sensitively maintained for everyone.

The mean Tories would rather get rid of such efficiency I seem to remember.

[Turin Machine]

Err, woodland and forestry maintenance means lots of chainsawing and coppicing, ther is almost no "old" woodland left now, most of it blew down, I'm sorry but come back in 10 years time and it will be better than ever. If left, most woodland becomes leggy and overgrown with little or no secondary growth, coppicing, and, or pollarding is at first sight a brutal and godless act, however its how practically all of our woodland has developed over the last 500 years. As for the dogs issue, well I don't know. But perhaps a call to find out why might be more in order, I know for example that a lot of ponds and lakes have been infected by a particularly virulant strain of blue / green algae that has resulted in the loss by poisoning of several dogs who entered the water concerned.

Worth asking the question before going off on one.

[Simon Kirby]

Err, woodland and forestry maintenance means lots of chainsawing and coppicing, ther is almost no "old" woodland left now, most of it blew down, I'm sorry but come back in 10 years time and it will be better than ever. If left, most woodland becomes leggy and overgrown with little or no secondary growth, coppicing, and, or pollarding is at first sight a brutal and godless act, however its how practically all of our woodland has developed over the last 500 years. As for the dogs issue, well I don't know. But perhaps a call to find out why might be more in order, I know for example that a lot of ponds and lakes have been infected by a particularly virulant strain of blue / green algae that has resulted in the loss by poisoning of several dogs who entered the water concerned.

Worth asking the question before going off on one.

And before preaching to me why not ask me what I know, and what I've done to inform my opinion.

I went to the public meeting, and I heard the line you've just spun.

A healthy woodland ecosystem needs no intervention whatsoever. Yes, coppice requires coppicing, but there is no coppice at The Chase. There are areas of birch and alder that have been regularly cut to provide a variety of regenerating habitats and that's worked fine, but this wholesale desecration of the wood has nothing to do with coppicing. If you want to see some traditional hazel coppice under oak standards visit the Brailes at Bedwyn, and you'll see how the coppice is taken out on rotation and the oaks remain for hundreds of years, many many hundreds of years if they're pollarded as they were in Savernake.

Oak, ask, sweet chestnut, pine, spruce, and fir are all forest trees and are never coppiced. Left to themsleves they would reach maturity and decline in two to three hundred years maybe, and eventually they'd just fall down where the beetles and fungi would complete the cycle. The hole in the canopy would bring on one of the many saplings that ordinarily would die for lack of light and the forest would continue for ever. How do you suppose woodland colonised the British Isles after the ice age - you think it only happened because stone-age man managed it?

If you cut down a two hundred year old tree you don't get another two hundred year old tree of another two hundred years.

Dogs have been banned from the stream because the NT said they were erroding the bank. Actually it's the stream that errodes the bank. The NT just don't like dogs. Actually they don't like people visiting their property either, but they poke up with that because they want their money more.

[Simon Kirby]

Like others on here, when I had a dog we used to take her to the Chase regularly. It's a pity if the NT have now effectively excluded dogs from there.

Another great place to try is Sydmonton Common: coming from Newbury, first right off the A339 (towards Basingstoke) after the Swan roundabout, over the old hump back bridge, then left and left again brings you to a large lay by at one of the entrances.

Thanks for that. I'll check that out one day.

[Turin Machine]

I wasn't preaching, some of your comments are valid, and I wasn't talking about post ice age forests I was merely talking about the majority of woodland in britain today ! and yes, as you say, its your opinion, most people have one you know, even if you don't agree with them. I would , as amember of long standing take issue with your comments re the NT. Without the NT that you so despise most of the large properties that we all enjot simply would not exist today.

And I did say I didn't know about the dog situation I was merely positing a possible cause. And its not a "line" it is in the vast majority of cases, good woodland management like it or not.

[Darren]

Hi

Before my lovely and faithful hound passed away, I used to walk her at The Chase. Being away from the traffic and being able to let her off the lead was one of the reasons we went there.

I have seen the new regulations and think they are a little over the top.

As long as dog walkers are considerate, for example picking up dog mess - especially if done on or near a path, then I do not see a problem with dogs off leads.

As far as the cattle are concerned, is this possibly to do with a government/EU grant for the land owner?

Rgds

Until one starts chasing the cattle....

Remember, the farmer is perfectly entitled to shoot the dog if worrying livestock, and provided it's reported to the police within 24 hours, there is no legal comeback.

[part time]

Well it sounds like it will be a an improvement to me, every time I took the kids for a walk round there in the past, it's been like a massive dog toilet.

[Vodabury]

Until one starts chasing the cattle....

Remember, the farmer is perfectly entitled to shoot the dog if worrying livestock, and provided it's reported to the police within 24 hours, there is no legal comeback.

Remember, this thread is about The Chase, not a farm estate.

The livestock owner (or his agent) has a legal defence in shooting a dog if he can prove that it was the only reasonable way of preventing it from worrying/attacking livestock (e.g. dog out of control and no owner present). It must be reported within 48 hours. I wonder, however, if the NT woud give anyone permission to discharge a lethal weapon on land frequented by families and children? Can you imagine if a child got hit by some stray shotgun pellets?

I think to put vulnerable livestock (e.g. sheep) on a small piece of land bang in the middle of a dog walking area would be a bit silly maybe. I think the few animals (young bullocks?) that I saw there are for the purposes of gaining eligibility for some type of woodland-grazing grant. A farmer friend of mine used to put a few of his beef cattle on a local authority owned nature reserve - he told me it was done just to get some money by way of a grant.

[Simon Kirby]

Remember, this thread is about The Chase, not a farm estate.

The livestock owner (or his agent) has a legal defence in shooting a dog if he can prove that it was the only reasonable way of preventing it from worrying/attacking livestock (e.g. dog out of control and no owner present). It must be reported within 48 hours. I wonder, however, if the NT woud give anyone permission to discharge a lethal weapon on land frequented by families and children? Can you imagine if a child got hit by some stray shotgun pellets?

I think to put vulnerable livestock (e.g. sheep) on a small piece of land bang in the middle of a dog walking area would be a bit silly maybe. I think the few animals (young bullocks?) that I saw there are for the purposes of gaining eligibility for some type of woodland-grazing grant. A farmer friend of mine used to put a few of his beef cattle on a local authority owned nature reserve - he told me it was done just to get some money by way of a grant.

Cattle have a natural enmity towards dogs, and it's not the cattle that come off worse. Actually it's not usually the dogs either, as they get out of the way, but there are people trampled and killed pretty much every year because they've been trampled by bullocks. I don't think it's well understood, but cows with calves can be extremely dangerous if they believe their calf is threatened. That said cows can become quite accustomed to dogs and I've not personally had any problem on Greenham Common, but it makes me very nervous and a walk should be relaxing so I don't like to walk where there are cattle - and this is much of the reason for the NT grazing cattle in the woods. They come out with some ecological rubbish about the benefit of the cows, but it's all about intimidating the dog walkers.

[Simon Kirby]

Well it sounds like it will be a an improvement to me, every time I took the kids for a walk round there in the past, it's been like a massive dog toilet.

Right, so replace the dogs with cows and you're happy. Cows pooh too you know.

It would be overstating it to say I had sympathy for your point of view because you clearly have no consideration for my needs, but I would have liked to see the NT address the dog-pooh problem. Dog walkers, especially dog-walkers who take the effort to drive out to The Chase, are responsible people who are perfectly aware of the problems caused by dog pooh - no one wants dog pooh on their shoes or buggy tyres. If we can't find a pooh bin we'll often carry it back to the car and throw it away when we get home, but if we're in the country then unless there's been some particular effort to encourage us to bag-it-and-bin-it the pooh stays where it is. All the NT had to do was install some pooh bins, particularly near the entrance, and there wouldn't have been a problem.

[Simon Kirby]

I would , as amember of long standing take issue with your comments re the NT. Without the NT that you so despise most of the large properties that we all enjot simply would not exist today.

Only we don't all enjoy those properties, do we. For a start, I'm excluded from most NT property because of their anti-dog policy, and the cost of visiting excludes me from many others. Take Avebury for example, I used to visit frequently, but the NT put the car parking charge up from £1 to £5, and I'm just not going to be fleced like that.

[Vodabury]

From the National Trust website:

Never leave poo where people walk, play or picnic. We ask that if your dog fouls, particularly in car parks and on paths, you pick up and remove the mess. Flick it into rough grass or woodland, or take it away with you and dispose of it at home. There may be dedicated bins to put it in at heavily used sites.

Most dog walkers at The Chase I have seen over the years have acted in accordance with the above. But it only takes a few lazy individuals to cause a problem.

[NWNREADER]

Only we don't all enjoy those properties, do we. For a start, I'm excluded from most NT property because of their anti-dog policy, and the cost of visiting excludes me from many others. Take Avebury for example, I used to visit frequently, but the NT put the car parking charge up from £1 to £5, and I'm just not going to be fleced like that.

Surely, if you take membership you park for free? As a 'members' organisation you could then raise the dog policy and see if there is a majority desire to allow dogs, provide bins, enforce use.... oh, and deal with the potential damage of displayed items due to wagging tails, spontaneous canine clashes etc..... (and I don't mean just at Avebury Circle, where I accept the tails are unlikely to cause mayhem.

Are dogs allowed in English Heritage sites, museums, etc?