Horse feathers

[+Simply Paul]

Over 50mph round a bend on a dark wet road, I'm not sure that this would have been entirely down to the horse

That would depend on the radius of the curve and the camber, wouldn't it? It was a dual carriageway road, which is why I wasn't expecting horse-poop at all. Now, a dead badger on the racing line...

 

Edited to add quote as we've somehow made it to page 2 without this topic being stopped for not being caching-related.

Edited August 13, 2009 by Simply Paul

[Neath Worthies]

I understand now, I am responsible for everything and everybody else. As UKTim said "Society has gone mad"

No - you're only responsible for what you own! Your shoes, your dog, your garden. Riders have as much right to leave horse poo lying about (with the landowner's consent) as we do to leave tupperware lying about.

At last someone sees the point! "Responsibility"

 

As you say I'm responsible for things I own shoes, dog, garden etc. By the same logic other owners must bear the same responsibility i.e. owners of horses, cats etc.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand your logic though, you seem to be implying that while I'm responsible for clearing up after my dog (which as it happens I always do) a horse owner has a right not to. Strange.

[+keehotee]

I understand now, I am responsible for everything and everybody else. As UKTim said "Society has gone mad"

No - you're only responsible for what you own! Your shoes, your dog, your garden. Riders have as much right to leave horse poo lying about (with the landowner's consent) as we do to leave tupperware lying about.

At last someone sees the point! "Responsibility"

 

As you say I'm responsible for things I own shoes, dog, garden etc. By the same logic other owners must bear the same responsibility i.e. owners of horses, cats etc.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand your logic though, you seem to be implying that while I'm responsible for clearing up after my dog (which as it happens I always do) a horse owner has a right not to. Strange.

 

No, nobody here has said anything about rights.

 

What everybody in this thread seems to have ignored is the fact that while you might have a "right" to walk or ride on a bridleway, the bridleway actually belongs to somebody else. I have a right to walk along Exeter High Street - but I doubt anyone would take too kindly to me putting a tent up on it.

 

What happens to horse poo is down to the owner of the bridleway. They could, if they were minded to, prosecute the horse owner for littering or damage (trespass). But that is down to them - not other users of his land!

 

The fact that you have been given the right to walk on somebody else's land does not give you the right to impose your standards on that land.

Edited August 14, 2009 by keehotee

[+uktim]

I understand now, I am responsible for everything and everybody else. As UKTim said "Society has gone mad"

No - you're only responsible for what you own! Your shoes, your dog, your garden. Riders have as much right to leave horse poo lying about (with the landowner's consent) as we do to leave tupperware lying about.

At last someone sees the point! "Responsibility"

 

As you say I'm responsible for things I own shoes, dog, garden etc. By the same logic other owners must bear the same responsibility i.e. owners of horses, cats etc.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand your logic though, you seem to be implying that while I'm responsible for clearing up after my dog (which as it happens I always do) a horse owner has a right not to. Strange.

 

The key factor is risk, as the risk rises or falls the responsibilities alter. Dog poo carries fairly significant health risks, I believe cats are similar but they bury their poo so the risk is less, horse poo is fairly innocus stuff. Therefore you clean up after a dog, give a cat a litter tray and let horse poo lie.

 

These days it's called risk assessment in the good old days it was called common sense

[+Happy Humphrey]

What happens to horse poo is down to the owner of the bridleway. They could, if they were minded to, prosecute the horse owner for littering or damage (trespass). But that is down to them - not other users of his land!

 

The fact that you have been given the right to walk on somebody else's land does not give you the right to impose your standards on that land.

I think you're wrong about all this. I'm no lawyer, but I understand it like this (in the context of access to private land).

In England a "landowner" merely has rights to exploit the land, and this doesn't extend to having special laws that only they can apply, apart from the following. Should you leave the bridleway and cause damage to his property, then he can force you to rectify the damage. Should you walk on his land without causing damage, in many areas he has the right to demand that you leave and is allowed to escort you off the premises.

 

If there's littering on the bridleway (and I'm not convinced that horse manure counts as "litter"), the landowner has no particular powers to prosecute; you or I could report the littering offence with the same amount of authority.

 

And as for "given the right to walk", remember that the landowner was actually given the right to work the land; but as a convenience is allowed to maintain various footpaths and bridleways in order to channel the public and keep people and horses from wandering all over the area and causing damage and nuisance. Which I'm happy to co-operate with, I should add.

But all "private" land is subject to the law; for instance, if a farmer wants to convert a barn on "his" land to a house, he has to ask us for permission first (via the local planning authority). He can't dig a deep pit next to the bridleway and leave it unfenced (much though some would like to!). Nor can he start a private rifle range wherever he likes. So we do impose our standards on that land.

[+keehotee]

What happens to horse poo is down to the owner of the bridleway. They could, if they were minded to, prosecute the horse owner for littering or damage (trespass). But that is down to them - not other users of his land!

 

The fact that you have been given the right to walk on somebody else's land does not give you the right to impose your standards on that land.

I think you're wrong about all this. I'm no lawyer, but I understand it like this (in the context of access to private land).

In England a "landowner" merely has rights to exploit the land, and this doesn't extend to having special laws that only they can apply, apart from the following. Should you leave the bridleway and cause damage to his property, then he can force you to rectify the damage. Should you walk on his land without causing damage, in many areas he has the right to demand that you leave and is allowed to escort you off the premises.

 

If there's littering on the bridleway (and I'm not convinced that horse manure counts as "litter"), the landowner has no particular powers to prosecute; you or I could report the littering offence with the same amount of authority.

 

And as for "given the right to walk", remember that the landowner was actually given the right to work the land; but as a convenience is allowed to maintain various footpaths and bridleways in order to channel the public and keep people and horses from wandering all over the area and causing damage and nuisance. Which I'm happy to co-operate with, I should add.

But all "private" land is subject to the law; for instance, if a farmer wants to convert a barn on "his" land to a house, he has to ask us for permission first (via the local planning authority). He can't dig a deep pit next to the bridleway and leave it unfenced (much though some would like to!). Nor can he start a private rifle range wherever he likes. So we do impose our standards on that land.

 

Just because it's Friday, and I've been in an awful meeting all morning - apologies in advance, but I'm feeling argumentative...

 

You don't have to leave a bridleway to cause damage amounting to trespass. Damage to the bridleway itself could amount to trespass if it results in material loss to the landowner (bridleways aren't only fenced in sections - they pass through gates, and cross open fields and farm yards, for example.)

 

We - as individuals - do not impose our standards on landowners. A planning department has no right to walk on a public footpath, but individual members of the public or representatives of that department do. The countryside and rights of way act applies to private individuals, not political or corporate bodies...except where they have a direct bearing on that right of way.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

Goodness! You're all wearing shoes / boots / footwear aren't you?

 

I often have to push, yes, using my hands through various piles of cack, and the only one I find absolutely objectionable is human ... anyone who did Bus Stop Bewilderment over the weekend will be able to vouch for the authenticity of said deposit ... probably from 20 paces.

 

It's the countryside, what do you expect? I mean, seriously, what do you expect?

 

Our road is often frequented by horses, they leave deposits sometimes. Do I complain? Nah, just get out there double quick with bucket and trowel cos once its gone off a bit tis great for the garden.

 

Let's keep it real and worry about the things we can change

[+pklong]

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

 

...wrong thread ... this ones meant to be about horse sh**

[+drdick&vick]

It's the constant bull$h!t that gets me.

Edited August 14, 2009 by DrDick&Vick

[+metal-bijou]

Perhaps, to highlight the issue, we could have a new series - Cr*p Micros. I can think of a few hundred around here that already fit the title...

 

 

I have just the coin (crapy cache award). Shame it wasn't trackable.

[+metal-bijou]

Don't have a problem with it myself, if you're in the country you should expect to have to negotioate horse/sheep/cow/rabbit/fox/bird/...... poo, if you're expecting people to sweep up after their horses, will it be the sheep & cows next? In my experience there's not that much of it about, it's easy to see (unlike dog poo) and easy to step around, and even if you do step in it it's only grass and doesn't stick or smell as bad as dog poo.

 

Also regarding horses on footpaths, bear in mind that most footpaths in the country are on someones land and if that landowner wants to (or is happy for other people to) ride a horse on their land I don't think there's much can be done about it.

 

Boo I hate fox poo. Can we ban fox poo from being left please. My mutt loves; all around her neck.

 

What does drive me wild is dog owners who pick the poo up but leave the bag hanging from a tree. In some places it's better left for nature to dispose of, ok not on the pavement I agree.

[+metal-bijou]

I understand now, I am responsible for everything and everybody else. As UKTim said "Society has gone mad"

No - you're only responsible for what you own! Your shoes, your dog, your garden. Riders have as much right to leave horse poo lying about (with the landowner's consent) as we do to leave tupperware lying about.

At last someone sees the point! "Responsibility"

 

As you say I'm responsible for things I own shoes, dog, garden etc. By the same logic other owners must bear the same responsibility i.e. owners of horses, cats etc.

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand your logic though, you seem to be implying that while I'm responsible for clearing up after my dog (which as it happens I always do) a horse owner has a right not to. Strange.

 

The key factor is risk, as the risk rises or falls the responsibilities alter. Dog poo carries fairly significant health risks, I believe cats are similar but they bury their poo so the risk is less, horse poo is fairly innocus stuff. Therefore you clean up after a dog, give a cat a litter tray and let horse poo lie.

 

These days it's called risk assessment in the good old days it was called common sense

 

Apparently dog poo is only toxic if ingested and cat poo is only toxic if pregnant. Go figure.

[+Lost in Space]

... and cat poo is only toxic if pregnant...

 

So all preganant women should do as I do and get an air rifle..........

[+metal-bijou]

... and cat poo is only toxic if pregnant...

 

So all preganant women should do as I do and get an air rifle..........

 

Great idea. Can you practice on my cat please

[+Lost in Space]

Great idea. Can you practice on my cat please

 

With pleasure - just post me your address.

Edited August 14, 2009 by Lost in Space

[+Happy Humphrey]

 

Just because it's Friday, and I've been in an awful meeting all morning - apologies in advance, but I'm feeling argumentative...

I know the feeling! But I take this to be a discussion rather than an argument so no need to apologise.

You don't have to leave a bridleway to cause damage amounting to trespass. Damage to the bridleway itself could amount to trespass if it results in material loss to the landowner (bridleways aren't only fenced in sections - they pass through gates, and cross open fields and farm yards, for example.)

OK: but I think that's a minor point.

We - as individuals - do not impose our standards on landowners. A planning department has no right to walk on a public footpath, but individual members of the public or representatives of that department do. The countryside and rights of way act applies to private individuals, not political or corporate bodies...except where they have a direct bearing on that right of way.

My point was that the landowner doesn't have jurisdiction over the land: we do (as a society). So the landowner has to ask us for permission to do anything that we haven't already specifically allowed, via our public servants (such as the local planners). This is to demonstrate that the land is not some sort of autonomous state where the landowner can dictate what happens on it.

 

On top of that, the way land access has been arranged is highly convenient for landowners.

 

So no need to feel grateful that the landowner has so kindly allowed us to walk or ride across the land.

This was a bit off-topic really; it was merely a reply to your point about "you have been given the right to walk on somebody else's land".

[+HouseOfDragons]

 

On top of that, the way land access has been arranged is highly convenient for landowners.

 

 

How is it convenient?

[+The Duckers]

Don't get me going!!!

 

You've opened another can of worms there........................

 

 

Yeah wormcasts, thats another one...........

[+uktim]

 

On top of that, the way land access has been arranged is highly convenient for landowners.

 

 

How is it convenient?

 

Good question. I think it's a bit wide of the mark to say that access has been arranged in any way whatsoever, all we've done altered the way we use existing Rights of Way that were intended to get locals to and from work, the church or the village pub. In many cases these routes aren't really suited to recreational use and to describe them as "highly convenient" for anyone seems somewhat naive.

[+HouseOfDragons]

 

On top of that, the way land access has been arranged is highly convenient for landowners.

 

 

How is it convenient?

 

Good question. I think it's a bit wide of the mark to say that access has been arranged in any way whatsoever, all we've done altered the way we use existing Rights of Way that were intended to get locals to and from work, the church or the village pub. In many cases these routes aren't really suited to recreational use and to describe them as "highly convenient" for anyone seems somewhat naive.

 

I wondered because one footpath I walked recently went diagonally across a field. I doubt it could have been less convenient for the landowner!

[+Happy Humphrey]

I wondered because one footpath I walked recently went diagonally across a field. I doubt it could have been less convenient for the landowner!

Depends on the type of field; if it's just for sheep grazing I doubt that he'd be bothered.

 

But the point is, the next person will also go diagonally across the same field. Without the footpath, the farmer would have to cope with various paths and trails all over his land. Not to mention all the attempts to climb over walls and fences in various locations. Plus, people are on and off the land quickly and efficiently as they don't have to "explore" to find a way through.

 

So it's extremely convenient for all parties, not least the landowner!

[+HouseOfDragons]

Without the footpath, the farmer would have to cope with various paths and trails all over his land. Not to mention all the attempts to climb over walls and fences in various locations. Plus, people are on and off the land quickly and efficiently as they don't have to "explore" to find a way through.

 

So it's extremely convenient for all parties, not least the landowner!

 

Surely without the footpath there wouldn't be people walking across their land? I don't have a footpath across my garden and I've never had a problem with people wandering all over it and climbing over fences. Oh, and as it happens, this path wasn't signposted. It was only when I looked at my map later (I'd left it in the car) that I realised where it ran. So I'd wandered across the top of the field about 4 times (long story) totally off the footpath.

 

I would imagine that the type of people who would just wander where there isn't a footpath wouldn't stick to the path where one existed. Especially if there was a pile of horse poo in the middle of it (note the clever return to the original topic )

Edited August 15, 2009 by HouseOfDragons

[Neath Worthies]

I wondered because one footpath I walked recently went diagonally across a field. I doubt it could have been less convenient for the landowner!

Perhaps one of our farmer contributors could answer a question for me. I have a field near me where the footpath goes diagonally across it (I know this is right because it was one of the paths I checked on the county definitive map). However the field is currently planted with wheat and rather than trample the crop people have been going around the edge of the field.

 

Ignoring the legal requirement to reinstate the path within 2 weeks of planting, would our farmers prefer people to trespass around the edge of the field or exercise their legal right by keeping to the line of the path and damaging his crop?

[+Pharisee]

I wondered because one footpath I walked recently went diagonally across a field. I doubt it could have been less convenient for the landowner!

Perhaps one of our farmer contributors could answer a question for me. I have a field near me where the footpath goes diagonally across it (I know this is right because it was one of the paths I checked on the county definitive map). However the field is currently planted with wheat and rather than trample the crop people have been going around the edge of the field.

 

Ignoring the legal requirement to reinstate the path within 2 weeks of planting, would our farmers prefer people to trespass around the edge of the field or exercise their legal right by keeping to the line of the path and damaging his crop?

I did exactly that, a while back. Walked around the edge of the field, which had a rough margin area at least 3 metres wide all round, rather than walk diagonally across the newly sprouting crop. I should add that the legal footpath was not obvious and had not been marked out in any way other than a signpost pointing across the field. I was accosted by a gentleman, presumably the landowner / farmer, and was told quite firmly that the public path was across the field (and it would be marked in due course) and not round the edge which was set aside for wildlife. You just can't win sometimes Edited August 15, 2009 by Pharisee

[+martlakes]

Why would we want to ignore the legal requirement to reinstate the path within 2 weeks of planting?

I'm all for following the line of the path whatever the state of the crop. Given the size of some fields you could go miles out of your way!

A well marked path in Norfolk:

 

[+Water-Rats]

That well marked path in Norfolk. Is that Salhouse area? It looks very much like one we walked along at the end of April, early May time.

 

We walked diagonally through a field the other week, it was a field of maize. As we walked along, Mr_Rat was going on about 'children of the corn'. Thanks for that. All I could think of was "If you build it, he will come".

 

We do walk around fields when the path isn't clear, or if its full of cows. We did have a path across a goat field the other day, not to mention a path across a pig field. It had been raining so we are not sure if it was very sloppy mud or lots of pig poo. My money is on the poo After that caching trip and walking through the poo of every farmyard animal known to mankind, we tested out the hiking sandals by putting them through the washing machine!

[+Pharisee]

After that caching trip and walking through the poo of every farmyard animal known to mankind, we tested out the hiking sandals by putting them through the washing machine!

Bu**er the sandals... what about your feet!!

[+martlakes]

"That well marked path in Norfolk. Is that Salhouse area?"

 

Yep, the very one. It'd be a fair trek round the edge of that!

 

A good job by the farmer making it clear and it pays off as everyone keeps to the path.

[+Water-Rats]

"That well marked path in Norfolk. Is that Salhouse area?"

 

Yep, the very one. It'd be a fair trek round the edge of that!

 

A good job by the farmer making it clear and it pays off as everyone keeps to the path.

 

That would be Mr Cator then

Norfolk does tend to have huge fields after getting shut of all the hedgerows. The hedgerows are being re-introduced.

There is a lovely bridal path near that field too, I've ridden along it many a time in my youth.

[+Hike-and-$eek]

I wondered because one footpath I walked recently went diagonally across a field. I doubt it could have been less convenient for the landowner!

Perhaps one of our farmer contributors could answer a question for me. I have a field near me where the footpath goes diagonally across it (I know this is right because it was one of the paths I checked on the county definitive map). However the field is currently planted with wheat and rather than trample the crop people have been going around the edge of the field.

 

Ignoring the legal requirement to reinstate the path within 2 weeks of planting, would our farmers prefer people to trespass around the edge of the field or exercise their legal right by keeping to the line of the path and damaging his crop?

I did exactly that, a while back. Walked around the edge of the field, which had a rough margin area at least 3 metres wide all round, rather than walk diagonally across the newly sprouting crop. I should add that the legal footpath was not obvious and had not been marked out in any way other than a signpost pointing across the field. I was accosted by a gentleman, presumably the landowner / farmer, and was told quite firmly that the public path was across the field (and it would be marked in due course) and not round the edge which was set aside for wildlife. You just can't win sometimes

 

Had the same problem today with a new crop, but I remembered this post and decided to march across the field - luckily my gps tells me if I am more or less on the footpath as it has 1:25,000 as a background. It doesn't feel quite right though, I felt as if I should be going around the edge.

[+Hike-and-$eek]

Goodness! You're all wearing shoes / boots / footwear aren't you?

 

I often have to push, yes, using my hands through various piles of cack, and the only one I find absolutely objectionable is human ... anyone who did Bus Stop Bewilderment over the weekend will be able to vouch for the authenticity of said deposit ... probably from 20 paces.

 

......

 

I had never come across this until today, they had left their deposit + loo roll at the base of the tree where I had to search for a micro 'hidden in the ivy'. It was really hard to look for the cache whilst minding where I stepped.

 

The tree was also just outside of a churchyard next to a public footpath - some people!!!

[Neath Worthies]

Well I've had several replies from walkers regarding walking on footpaths through crops but none of our farmer friends have yet replied. So why not jump in now and give us your thoughts.

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

I walked up the trail near Eden last night to do the Mustards cache and whilst I can confirm theres quite a quantity of Horse Poo on the way, it does have the advantage over dog poo of being pretty large and therefore obvious - the only danger to a cacher being that of a tripping hazard if you're not looking where you're going.

 

I found the cache and if the topic hadn't been raised here I'd not deem it worthy of further mention.

 

Dog poo on the other hand - is somewhat less obvious to a walker and in my opinion stinks to high heaven and is a b***** to get off your shoes!

 

In my spare time (some of it anyway) I volunteer at an animal saunctuary - and I have to say Racoon poo is gross and merekats not much better!

[MHmedia]

 

Being a horse rider...... I'm just wondering how you expect me to clear up after my horse while out riding in the middle of nowhere?

 

http://uniquehorsetrailers.blogspot.com/20...se-diapers.html

 

You're in luck ! Wouldn't fancy emptying it though!

[Pajaholic]

I think you had better tell the riders that, the Camel Trail is a sustrans cycle path and footpath and you have to dodge the horses, the same goes for the trail where I left our Eden cache.

The Camel Trail is a shared-use trail on which horses are permitted. In contrast, horses are forbidden on the Plym Valley Cycleway, which has "no horses" signs. Yet horse riders completely disregard the law and ride there anyway - leaving horse-poop behind which is at best a distasteful inconvenience to cyclists.

 

I do agree that horse riders should be required to pick up after their animals just as dog handlers must. Those who say that horse-poop does no harm have very myopic vision IMO. I'm fed up to the teeth with the mess (sometimes literally - even though Mrs P's bike has mudguards). When we go out on the Camel Trail etc. it's often with our dog. Mrs P and I ride our bikes with me towing a dog trailer. Our cachehound trots along on my left for some of the trip and rides in the trailer for the rest. After the horses have been particularly er.. active, large areas of the trail are covered with horse-poop ranging from widespread mess a few millimetres thick to fresh, steaming dollops. It's impossible not to ride through that lot - which means that at the end of our ride our bike frames, mudguards, and the trailer often have a liberal coating of faeces, which transfers to the inside of our vehicle on the way home and can take hours to clean off everything when we get there.

 

Horse riders who don't pick up are just plain thoughtless IMO. When my dog poops, I have to unclip, dismount, make the bike and trailer safe, pick up the poop in a nappy sack, and place it in a suitable outer bag for disposal. Often we have to carry it home since not all trails have poo-bins. Note, I don't put it in my pocket - it goes in a pannier I use only for that purpose. Cleaning up after a horse is no more of an effort. Just like me, horse riders have to dismount and make safe their mounts; and just like my pannier, horse riders could easily use a saddle-bag. At the very least, horse riders should dismount and clear their animal's excrement to the verges IMO.

 

Anyway, enough ranting. I rode the Camel Trail from Padstow to Wadebridge and back today and noted that the trail was reasonably clear of horse-poop. More annoying is that I know there are caches alongside the trail and I left my GPSr in the vehicle at Padstow

 

Geoff

[+fatblokecaver]

Right hand bend, on a public A road, at night, on a motorbike, large dollop of horse poo.

Leant into the bend, next thing I have the ability to fly luckily into a small link fence, 3ft either side of where I bounced back, and ended up eating grass, would have killed me, as the chain link was held up with concrete posts.

This incident happened just out side of the New Forest boundry on the way out of Lymington. There are over 100 miles of forest to ride on so why do horse riders HAVE to ride on the road?

 

FBC

[+drsolly]

I was on a trail a few days ago, and there was a notice that said "pick up after your pet". That's all we're asking.

[+Team Noodles]

There are over 100 miles of forest to ride on so why do horse riders HAVE to ride on the road?

 

most the time they have to just to get there, it's not like all yards are dead in the middle of said area. You cant exactly teleport your horse. 99% of riders dont WANT to be on the roads ever.

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Well looks like DEFRAs sorted out the cows... Horses next?

 

Cow Pats

[+Yorkie30]

Well looks like DEFRAs sorted out the cows... Horses next?

 

Cow Pats

 

Is it April the 1st already????

[+martlakes]

Excellent news!

 

I just hope they look at the wider problem - it's not just poo but the whole muddy nature of the paths out there. Leaves, mud, water, uneven surfaces, - the list goes on. It's about time something was done about it!

 

Anyone who thinks the roads are bad should get out and have a walk in the countryside to fully appreciate the hazards and general yukiness that walkers have to face.

 

And let's not even mention rabbit and sheep droppings everywhere!!

[Neath Worthies]

I agree, excellent news. The next logical step is for all landowners with rights of way to pave over the footpaths so we don't get muddy shoes. Also to install roofs over them so we don't get wet when it rains. Air conditioning would be nice for those extra hot/cold days.

[team tisri]

I agree, excellent news. The next logical step is for all landowners with rights of way to pave over the footpaths so we don't get muddy shoes. Also to install roofs over them so we don't get wet when it rains. Air conditioning would be nice for those extra hot/cold days.

 

And after that they could take a leaf out of the trains' book, and make sure that in June during a heatwave all the windows were screwed shut and the heat was on maximum. Needless to say all the windows would be removed and the heating turned off in December during a snowstorm.

[+Border Caz]

Having read all this, I think I've got it sussed.

 

From breakfast tomorrow I shall be switchng my decoy dogs from their current diet of meaty chunks and meaty biscuits to one of Soya chunks and baked beans.

 

Thus they will be vegetarians like horses and within a few days (once all the meaty chunks are cleared from their system) I can dispense with the bag full of plastic bags, the picking up of the poo, and the carrying of the bags full of poo around with me for miles on end and hours at a time until I encounter a bin.

 

And no-one will mind stepping in the deposits they leave 'cos they are vegetarian and therefore not a risk to health.

 

Sorted.

[+okie-wan]

Not sure I understand what all the fuss is about over horse, what you call, poo.

Out here in Oklahoma, we just call 'em road apples. Common as leaves on the trees.

[+mcwomble]

Excuse me whilst I have a little rant.

 

This lunchtime's cache involved walking along a bridleway so no complaints about the droppings left behind, I can walk around those.

 

Why oh why oh why oh why do riders, when faced with a large shallow muddy puddle on the path, *insist* on riding their horses round the puddle and thus churn up the ground for the pedestrian users?

Are horse aquaphobic or something?

Do they shrink if they get wet? (That could explain Shetland ponies)

Why? Why? Why?

[+drsolly]

Excuse me whilst I have a little rant.

 

This lunchtime's cache involved walking along a bridleway so no complaints about the droppings left behind, I can walk around those.

 

Why oh why oh why oh why do riders, when faced with a large shallow muddy puddle on the path, *insist* on riding their horses round the puddle and thus churn up the ground for the pedestrian users?

Are horse aquaphobic or something?

Do they shrink if they get wet? (That could explain Shetland ponies)

Why? Why? Why?

 

I would imagine that the horse has a substantial say in the exact place it puts its hooves. And they probably don't like splashing through water, if there's an easy way to avoid it?

[+keehotee]

I was on a trail a few days ago, and there was a notice that said "pick up after your pet". That's all we're asking.

 

I quite agree.

 

Riders should carry around bags, so they can pick up their horse's poos when they've finished and hang them from nearby trees and fences for all to admire.

 

Obviously the pink and powder blue nappy bags that seem so fashionable on the footpaths around here wouldn't be quite big enough, so perhaps they could recycle Tesco carrier bags for a little variety and to add a splash of patriotic colour to the landscape

Edited January 22, 2010 by keehotee

[+The Blorenges]

As from next week, we'll be experiencing the joys of putting our re-cycling into red and purple sacks. There should be a UK standardisation regarding all these various re-cycling schemes and the relevant colours used.

 

I suggest that horse poo, which is commonly associated with excellent roses, should only be hung up in nice, deep rose pink sacks.

 

MrsB