Farmland or countryside?

In article <[email hidden]>, martyn
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I'd like to add a comment, if I may. I agree with the implied suggestion that there is little
difference between farmland and countryside. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is overwhelmingly
dedicated to encouraging output through intensification of farming practices in the UK, and
farmers' support of the CAP has resulted in the majority of land being cultivated that ordinarily
would not have been.

A countryside perceived as 'untouched' by farming in the UK is all but myth. As American
environmental historian, William Cronon, remarks, 'The dream of an unworked natural landscape is
very much the fantasy of people who have never themselves had to work the land to make a living -
(i.e.) urban folk for whom food comes from a supermarket or a restaurant instead of a field...Only
people whose relation to the land was already alienated could hold up wilderness (read countryside)
as a model for human life in nature...'

Please define "farming". I would hardly define the highlands and upper lowlands of Scotland as
"farmland". Technically maybe in that you can see the occasional sheep in the lowlands but hardly
"farmland".

And of course Scotland is "most of the UK".

And FWIW I don't equate "wilderness" with "countryside".

Bernard Hill Selkirk, Scotland

Bernard Hill said:

Please define "farming".

Quoted message said:

And FWIW I don't equate "wilderness" with "countryside".

I equate "countryside" with "farmland". I know we don't have any true wilderness in the UK, but I
use the term wilderness to describe land which is not actively altered by humans, even if it is
altered by sheep chewing the grass. So I class our mountains and moorlands and even most of the
coastline as being "wild" even if not technically so. I think of most of it as "second-hand
wilderness", in that much of it was changed by humans in the past but now it is left relatively
unmanaged (apart from path intrusions and similar travesties). I even consider old mine workings to
qualify as second-hand wilderness in the sense that they have returned to the wild.

To me, countryside means managed land. Farmland is drained, ploughed, fenced or hedged, unlike
mountain and moorland. There are occasional walls and fences in the mountains but in themselves
they don't change the "wild" character of the place. These places are managed by the elements. I
suppose I'd have to class foresty within the countryside category too, since it's actively managed
by humans.

I have three broad definitions - urban, countryside and wilderness (built-up, managed and unmanaged
if you like). I suppose parks would qualify as urban, since many parks are not merely managed but
are actually designed.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Bernard Hill said:

Please define "farming".

Quoted message said:

And FWIW I don't equate "wilderness" with "countryside".

As for Wales, I would say that it was nearly all forest or agricultural. Almost every hill Ive done
there is a field full of sheep and often fenced to boot.

I feel privilaged that I did my shepherding in small fields, near the house at the bottom of a nice
warm valley. Thanks to my recent ancestors who made the big move 'back' Eastwards.

I cannot begin to imagine life on the hill before the quadbike.

Richard Webb

The message <[email hidden]>
from Bernard Hill <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

And of course Scotland is "most of the UK".

Another Scot led astray by a particular map projection. :-)

England alone is about 65% larger than Scotland in area.

--

Roger

In message <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I have three broad definitions - urban, countryside and wilderness (built-up, managed and unmanaged
if you like). I suppose parks would qualify as urban, since many parks are not merely managed but
are actually designed.

It is still my contention whatever we are talking about the majority of the litter outside urban
areas looks like it was left there/put there by the farmers/land owners/sheep farmers/grouse or deer
hunting entrepreneurs - not by walkers, mountain bikers.

Actually I missed out the worst culprits - namely the mobile phone companies and wind farmers - who
leave the worst loads of junk in the most prominent places.

--
Martin Richardson
216/284 Munros (34/34 'Furths'😉
217/89 Donalds 409/1552 Marilyns 439/439 Nuttalls

"martyn" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'd like to add a comment, if I may. I agree with the implied suggestion that there is little
difference between farmland and countryside.

<snip>

This appears to stem from a brief comment I made in another thread that farmland and countryside
weren't the same thing so I suppose I ought to elaborate and say that I think of countryside as
woods, hills, moors, heathland etc, where you can wander at will and farmland as crappy boring
fields where you can't. Fields with redeeming features such as streams or significantly overgrown
hedges or tree borders qualify as countryside but only if they haven't got cows or sheep in them.

I was having a conversation with someone the other day where I was saying that despite living in a
city I was more in the countryside than them because all they had around them was fields with a few
footpaths and I was overlooking a river less than 100 metres away with a few square miles of
woodland on the other side along with a country park and what most people would I suppose call a
common and major cliffs a quarter of a mile up the road. (Bristol)

"Martin Richardson" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Actually I missed out the worst culprits - namely the mobile phone companies and wind farmers -
who leave the worst loads of junk in the most prominent places.

On a trip up to the Cairngorms recently, can't remember where exactly but maybe somewhere just north
of Perth on the A9 I caught a glimpse of an odd looking sort of pine tree standing alone in the
middle of a field with some railings around the bottom of it that I thought might be an attempt to
camouflage a phone mast. Anyone know if it is? Or was it just a genuine tree?

AndyP said:

This appears to stem from a brief comment I made in another thread that farmland and countryside
weren't the same thing so I suppose I ought to elaborate and say that I think of countryside as
woods, hills, moors, heathland etc,

Well it's just semantics really isn't it? I suppose before we get too deeply into personal
definitions a quick look in the dictionary might help, Oxford in this case;

Countryside n. country districts.

Hmm... Really, that's all it says.

Country n. 1. The territory of a nation. 2. The national population.
3. a land or region with regard to its aspect or associations. 4. Open regions of fields and woods
etc. as distinct from towns or the capital. 5. Country and western.

So there you have it, number 4, it's everything that isn't urban. My "definition" of countryside as
"non-wilderness" is just a matter of convenience really, to make a distinction between managed and
non-managed land. But somehow the rugged cliffs of Snowdonia and the word "countryside" seem to be
at odds to me. Countryside is too "nice" a word to describe rough wild land IMO (but of course the
OxDic proves me wrong).

Quoted message said:

where you can wander at will and farmland as crappy boring fields where you can't.

Yes you can. There are usually plenty of ROWs through farmland. I gather that some people actually
enjoy walking through it.

Quoted message said:

Fields with redeeming features such as streams or significantly overgrown hedges or tree borders
qualify as countryside but only if they haven't got cows or sheep in them.

Ah, now we're coming to the arbitrary exceptions to the rule! :-)

Quoted message said:

I was having a conversation with someone the other day where I was saying that despite living in a
city I was more in the countryside than them because all they had around them was fields with a
few footpaths

I'd have to disagree. I lived on a farm for a few years surrounded by fields and I was definitely
living in the countryside.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

I'd have to disagree. I lived on a farm for a few years surrounded by fields and I was definitely
living in the countryside.

Bleugh! Must have been awful for you.

AndyP said:

Quoted message said:

I'd have to disagree. I lived on a farm for a few years surrounded by fields and I was definitely
living in the countryside.

Bleugh! Must have been awful for you.

To be honest it was pretty dull compared to my beloved mountains, but on the other hand, it was
*way* better than living in the city!

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

On a trip up to the Cairngorms recently, can't remember where exactly but maybe somewhere just
north of Perth on the A9 I caught a glimpse of an odd looking sort of pine tree standing alone in
the middle of a field with some railings around the bottom of it that I thought might be an
attempt to camouflage a phone mast. Anyone know if it is? Or was it just a genuine tree?

There is a similar feeble attempt to disguise a communications mast on the southern verge of the M4
in the Newbury/Reading area (not sure where exactly). It looks ridiculous. I'd almost rather it was
the normal type of monstrosity.

Quoted message said:

This appears to stem from a brief comment I made in another thread that farmland and countryside
weren't the same thing so I suppose I ought to elaborate and say that I think of countryside as
woods, hills, moors, heathland etc, where you can wander at will and farmland as crappy boring
fields where you can't. Fields with redeeming features such as streams or significantly overgrown
hedges or tree borders qualify as countryside but only if they haven't got cows or sheep in them.

Happily, not all farmland is industrial. Still a few trad ones hanging on, and in many ways an old
farm with hedges and small fields grazed by cattle, preferably Herefords :-) , is the best
countryside of all.

Every now and then I come across a patch of beauty in otherwise dull looking areas. Between Burton
and Ashbourne or just east of Worcester are a couple I have recently visited. Quite a shock, as I
was not expecting to find such places attractive.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

It is still my contention whatever we are talking about the majority of the litter outside urban
areas looks like it was left there/put there by the farmers/land owners/sheep farmers/grouse or
deer hunting entrepreneurs - not by walkers, mountain bikers.

Away from the roadsides, where the scummers practice drive by littering, you are spot on.

Worse example was when orienteering in Bentley Woods, Warks - fiercely gomlised woods, amazed you
are even allowed to look at them from the road. The place was full of litter, mostly plastic stuff
and cartridge cases. Our shooting tenants pick theirs up - as do most.

Seriously the place was a tip, and it was not us wot done it.

Then elsewhere there is the dreaded silage bag. At least they are black and soon fall prey to UV,
still horrid though.

I get very angry when the "keep the country to ourselves brigade" quote litter. Remember
Grosvenor justifying hogging Bowland to Muriel Gray on telly? He justified it using the example
of coke cans on the *roadside* of the Trough. The previous owners of those cans were probably
welded to their <topical phrase> chavmobiles - they will never darken a moor - too frightened of
the American Werewolf!

I see very little tourist generated litter on the hill, I expect that is true of all of us.

Richard Webb

Quoted message said:

On a trip up to the Cairngorms recently, can't remember where exactly but maybe somewhere just
north of Perth on the A9 I caught a glimpse of an odd looking sort of pine tree standing alone in
the middle of a field with some railings around the bottom of it that I thought might be an attempt
to camouflage a phone mast. Anyone know if it is? Or was it just a genuine tree?

There a re a lot of funny "trees" that are phone masts. There are some at that evil roundabout south
of Dunblane, and a couple around Wolverhampton

Richard Webb

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 21:01:03 GMT, Roger <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The message <[email hidden]> from Bernard Hill <[email hidden]>
contains these words:

Quoted message said:

And of course Scotland is "most of the UK".

Another Scot led astray by a particular map projection. :-)

England alone is about 65% larger than Scotland in area.

I expect he meant length of coastline :-) Or more likley amount of mountain and moor. Mind a lot of
Scots I know, are shocked at just how much of England is hill and moor.

I see a lot of maps where there is a view point over France and Scotland is reduced in area. BBC
weather. This is advantageous as it emphasises the importance of SE England and avoids sticking
Shetland in its box in the Moray Firth.

Richard Webb

Following up to martyn

Quoted message said:

A countryside perceived as 'untouched' by farming in the UK is all but myth. As American
environmental historian, William Cronon, remarks, 'The dream of an unworked natural landscape is
very much the fantasy of people who have never themselves had to work the land to make a living -
(i.e.) urban folk for whom food comes from a supermarket or a restaurant instead of a field...Only
people whose relation to the land was already alienated could hold up wilderness (read countryside)
as a model for human life in nature...'

I live in London, which is pretty urban, I use supermarkets and restaurants, I don't confuse
countryside with wilderness. What is your point exactly? That we shouldnt value landscape like the
ELD? CAP is bad, or what?
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London
etc "fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- you can email us@ this site Spain, food and walking "fell-fell-Open ↗
walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to AndyP

Quoted message said:

This appears to stem from a brief comment I made in another thread that farmland and countryside
weren't the same thing so I suppose I ought to elaborate and say that I think of countryside as
woods, hills, moors, heathland etc, where you can wander at will and farmland as crappy boring
fields where you can't. Fields with redeeming features such as streams or significantly overgrown
hedges or tree borders qualify as countryside but only if they haven't got cows or sheep in them.

I call it access land?

Quoted message said:

I was having a conversation with someone the other day where I was saying that despite living in a
city I was more in the countryside than them because all they had around them was fields with a few
footpaths and I was overlooking a river less than 100 metres away with a few square miles of
woodland on the other side along with a country park and what most people would I suppose call a
common and major cliffs a quarter of a mile up the road. (Bristol)

Yes, I enjoy the Thames path through London more than some field edge walks I have done in the
countryside!
--
Mike Reid "Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso Walking, Wasdale, Thames path, London
etc "fellwalk.co.ukfellwalk.co.ukOpen ↗" <-- you can email us@ this site Spain, food and walking "fell-fell-Open ↗
walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Paul Saunders

Quoted message said:

To be honest it was pretty dull compared to my beloved mountains, but on the other hand, it was
*way* better than living in the city!

Depends where you live in a city IMO, the problem with cities (I speak of London only, I rarely
visit any other UK cities) is you need lots of dosh to buy a nice place and then even more dosh to
make use of the facilities, nothing much for free except walking and taking digital photos! :-) I
would like to live near mountains or coast but imagine living deep in the prairies of the US? What
could be duller? I think flat inland rural land is my last choice of location.
--
Mike Reid Virtual Thames walk "fellwalk.co.ukthamesphoto.htmOpen ↗"

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 09:42:42 GMT, [email hidden] (RJ Webb)

Quoted message said:

I see a lot of maps where there is a view point over France and Scotland is reduced in area. BBC
weather. This is advantageous as it emphasises the importance of SE England and avoids sticking
Shetland in its box in the Moray Firth.

Ha ha ha, feck off :-)

This'll be the map that looks like it has been drawn from the perspective of a 21mm lens atop the
Eiffel Tower, I presume ? Some newspapers seem to like this one too, the southern gets.

SE England is completely up itself. I know, I've lived there.

--
Never stand between a fire hydrant and a dog.

Mail john rather than nospam...