Home > UK / Ireland Guide > Other UK / Ireland topics >

Reviews for The Foot-and-Mouth crisis and the UK Countryside


The Aftermath of the crisis -  The Foot-and-Mouth crisis and the UK Countryside Other UK / Ireland topics
The Foot-and-Mouth crisis and the UK Countryside 

Newest Review: ... progress. However I think that it is important to note that even though the effects of foot and mouth were subsiding when we went on... more

The Aftermath of the crisis (The Foot-and-Mouth crisis and the UK Countryside)

matttt44

Member Name: matttt44

Product:

The Foot-and-Mouth crisis and the UK Countryside

Date: 30/01/02 (21 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Informative

Disadvantages: none

Edale region, England

This account is of a member of a DOE expadition which undertook the walk in October 2001.

The footpaths for one were much more beaten on the second walk. This was certainly good see as this meant that more people were using them now. The first expedition that I undertook consisted off path after path being completely camouflaged by nettles thorny weeds and more weeds on top of that. That fact that the most of us were wearing shorts at the same time made it a very memorable experience. However the second expedition was much more successful in this area. First the paths were much more obvious. This was mainly due to the fact that now more people had walked on them. But it is probably also worth while to not that the second expedition took part at the start of autumn and this greenery was starting to recede for winter. As well as preventing rashes from nettles and the like, it also made navigation much easier. Paths that were obvious were found quicker and we could make much better progress. However I think that it is important to note that even though the effects of foot and mouth were subsiding when we went on the expedition, the paths weren’t as well beaten as what you would expect, and from previous visits to the region I realised that they weren’t up to scratch yet. But it was good to se that they were now being used much more and that people were using the countryside again.

One very obvious difference between the beginning of foot and mouth and the end of foot and mouth was that, at the end, there were many more people actually walking the hillsides. The first expedition was fairly quiet in that respect and there was hardly a sole around. This was reflected in the quality of the paths as I have already mentioned above. At times it would be hours and hours before we saw another hiker. But even minutes after we had set off on the second expedition, it was obvious that there were plenty of
others also walking too.

The campsites on the first expedition were completely empty other than a few static caravans and even they seemed to be vacant. We were really the only people there apart from the odd cow or sheep. So the second expedition was quite surprising to see literally hundreds of people at certainly the second campsite. This was good to see as it showed the countryside especially in this area of the country starting to get back on its feet and receive the walkers, day trippers, and campers that it has so eagerly awaited. Also maybe a side affect in this increase in the number of people using the campsites, the prices for the actual site were higher. This was good as it showed that this area of recreation was back in demand.

Another good thing about the second expedition was that we didn’t get diverted from our route by any farmers who wouldn’t let us cross their land. This too was a time saver and it was good to see that farmers were allowing people to use the footpaths. The first expedition had a few moments when we were forced to take another route adding time and distance whilst draining energy and motivation. I am glad this didn’t happen again. There were still plenty of places where you were required to dip your feet, or walk over straw soaked in disinfectant. This showed that there is still concern for the disease returning again, and our group respected this by always taking the necessary precautions to prevent the risk of foot and mouth.

Finally the number of sheep and cows. This I really didn’t notice any difference in the number of sheep and cows between the two expeditions. However I am sure that there were farms affected severely in the area that we were walking in. But as far as I could tell there weren’t any obvious signs of lacking sheep or cows anywhere. And certainly buy the amount of shall we say “muck” around the place, I don’t think that ma
ny animals were lost.

All in all everyone had a really good time and foot and mouth didn’t spoil the expedition for any of us.

Summary:

Last members to rate this review:
(4 members total)

jillmurphy%2FJEHodgson%2FShazzy%2Fwhitby%2F

View all 4 member ratings

Overall rating: Useful

Nominate for a Crown:

See all newly Crowned Reviews

Last comment:
JEHodgson

- 30/01/02

Some interesting points there.
(I just read the sentences below and felt the need to add this bracket to say they may sound picky, but they aren't meant to!)
I was a little confused by your opinion, especially at the start: what were these two expeditions? Where were they? clarifying these matters might help readers with your opinion. (or is it just me?)
;-)
Jonathan


Top