Letter to the Paper

We've been sent a copy of this excellent letter to the papers,

Bryn Euryn grazing feasibility study
Dear Editor

How incredible that the Bryn Euryn Management Advisory Group have taken the mulish decision to embark on a feasibility study re the grazing of livestock on the nature reserve! This, in the face of, maybe churlishly because of, the groundswell of public opinion, beggars belief. I am a regular dog-walker on the Bryn but at this point can detach myself from my personal disappointment at the prospect of curtailed enjoyment of this public amenity. This is now an issue that every local tax/rate-payer should be sitting up and taking notice of.

The MAG claim maintenance of the Bryn has cost £4K in the last year. If this amount includes the expense of scrub clearance at the summit and in the woodland, involving use of a quad bike for access, how can this be a cost that would be eradicated by the use of grazing livestock? If this cost is purely for the twice yearly cutting of the calcareous grassland areas being singled out, I would suggest they are probably paying too much and could get the job done considerably cheaper. Environmental groups actually endorse the use of wild rabbits for grazing of calcareous grassland (Source: BugLife).

Minutes of the MAG meeting held on 23 April this year refer to funding of £5K from Conwy Council’s Tidy Town budget, which together with further funding from the Countryside Service budget has been earmarked to upgrade footpaths and revamp way markers. It would be deplorable if any of this finance was diverted to fund the fencing and water piping that would be required for a grazing scheme. There would be no income generated from livestock owners as this public land cannot legally be used for business purpose. Indeed, the council may find themselves liable for any problems arising from animals being left unattended there, together with the cost of damage from increased usage to the unadopted road leading to the grassland.Anyone, with an ounce of common sense, can see that this scheme is not economically viable nor environmentally necessary. Why on earth are the MAG committee members now indulging themselves with the expense of this feasibility study? They might be better advised studying the feasibility of their re-election prospects!
Yours faithfully