Friends of Epping Forest
CATTLE GRAZING IN EPPING FOREST

Of course the steady reduction in the numbers of cattle on the Forest reflects the parallel reduction in the number of commoners/graziers turning out cattle on the Forest (in 2005 there can only be a handful!), and the virtual total change in the Forest hinterland since the passing of the 1878 Act.

In the 1800s when all the present suburbs were small villages, farms – including dairy farms supplying the London market – surrounded the Forest. Grazing was then a legitimate economic activity and was an important aspect of life for the poor cottagers who kept a cow or two on the Forest and who are in any case now excluded since they do not own the half-an-acre necessary for commoner status.

Forest grazing, perhaps not in a very organised way, probably does go back a thousand or more years as the document says. But did it loom quite as large in importance in shaping the Forest landscape and the wildlife as is claimed?

From distant times to comparatively recently the major function of the decreasing stock of woodland was as a source of firewood and timber. After the 12th century the area was part of the Royal Hunting Forest and strict laws were in place to protect the King’s deer. Over-grazing by commoners’ cattle was not tolerated as this affected the pasturage (vert) and therefore the deer.

In 1086 the Doomsday Book records that in all the then Forest parishes, from Harlow to Thameside and from Romford and Ilford to Waltham Abbey and Walthamstow, there were only 212 cattle. Many of these would be grazed locally and on the Thames, Lea and Roding water meadows. The small number remaining grazing on the Forest area, which was much larger then than now, would hardly have made much of an impact on the Forest landscape or wildlife diversity.

The document purports to suggest that the Conservators have some sort of legal obligation under the 1878 Act to so manage the Forest as to encourage commoners/graziers to turn out their cattle on the Forest. This is not so. The Act merely states that "All rights of common of pasture and of common of mast or pannage for swine on or over Epping Forest, as they exist at the passing of this Act, shall continue without prejudice, nevertheless to the provisions of this Act".

In relation to the motivation behind the saving of the Forest, the document exaggerates the importance of grazing and skirts carefully around – indeed does not mention at all – the real impetus behind the passing of the Epping Forest Act 1878. The objectives of the Corporation of London, The Commons Preservation Society and other bodies and individuals representing the nascent environmental movement was not to preserve commoners grazing rights but to preserve historic forest and valued open space for the recreation of the public. Of course it was the Willingales fight for lopping rights that helped to trigger of the action to save the Forest.

It is worth recalling, that in the 1960s, when there were only 8-10 commoners/graziers the cattle were causing some problems by straying off the Forest in search of better grazing off private gardens. Apart from resentment by residents there was the hazard caused by mixing with traffic, even then on the much less busy roads.

The Conservators sought to alleviate the problem by asking that cattle be kept north of Chingford and to encourage them to stay there by improving the pasture by fertilising the grasslands. Yardley Hill, Fairmead, Almshouse Plain, Chingford Plain and Honey Lane Quarters all received this treatment.

Despite this, problems continued and moreover in a succession of wet winters the open areas of the Forest became seriously ‘poached’ by cattle, and in 1975 the Conservators took powers to halt winter grazing which resulted in them paying compensation to the commoners/graziers for loss of rights.

At that time, in order to come to terms with the difficulties caused by free-ranging cattle needing to cope with heavy and fast moving traffic, the Conservators considered the tethering of cattle and folding within light fencing or full time herding, no mention being made of fencing the Forest itself. In the event the problem was solved by the fact that over the years the number of commoner/grazers reduced, as did cattle numbers until 1996 and BSE brought an end to grazing altogether.

Although in ideal circumstances, before the invention of the motor car, cattle grazing in moderation would be a desirable feature of the Forest scene, at present with the requirement of miles of permanent and temporary electric fencing and other measures, the minuses outweigh the plusses in our view.

We have agreed that grazing in the Forest goes back a long way, but we submit that it only, by and large, took place on the open grassy areas that still exist on much the same scale on the same locations as today. Cattle tend to eat grass rather than scrub. The picture we have is of a Forest where cottagers and farmers/commoners kept a single cow or a small herd on a grassy glade adjacent to their cottage or farm. Many were in need of regular milking!

When the Conservators took over the Forest in 1878 they found that much of the woodland was densely packed with spindly and misshapen pollarded trees and that had grown that way despite the presence of cattle on the Forest. So much so that they embarked on a vigorous programme of pollard, tree and scrub clearance and created paths, rides and glades so that the public could enjoy their new space for recreation.

Over subsequent years the cattle predictably and happily continued to graze the open grassy areas and sundry gardens. However, despite the presence of many cattle (over 600 in 1895) this did not prevent the re-growth of vegetation in the woodland.

Legislation now requires that cattle be taken off the Forest from November to April. Where would this vast number of cattle spend the winter? Large parts of the buffer land at Copped Hall and Warlies have been used over the last few winters to accommodate the modest sized ‘conservation’ herd of English longhorns.

However, the single farm payment scheme, which is applied to those areas, has recently decreed even this low concentration of animals is too much to sustain the ground in agriculturally and environmentally acceptable conditions and so 26 of the herd of 52 will be moved into farm-barn accommodation. There appears no way that these methods could cope with many hundreds of cattle.

Those who have walked over the bufferland in question will know how uneven and uncomfortable it is for pedestrians on account of the poached and dried sward caused by winter grazing. Ironically the Conservators have thrown open these areas to public access on foot. How many people will be ready to use these areas when they are so unpleasant to walk on and also contain herds of large animals sometimes including bulls.

Cattle can be and sometimes are dangerous and not all cattle on the bufferland are of the so-called placid English longhorn variety. When ‘spooked’ by dogs even these can just charge off in all directions to the danger of anyone who happens to be in the way. There have already been incidents of this kind and the Conservators should not just brush this matter aside, it is a real potential danger. Much has been made recently by the Conservators to improve access to a wider range of the public. These will be largely urban dwellers unused to mixing in unfamiliar circumstances with large animals, not the rural dwellers of centuries past. The measures under discussion will not improve access for more people, but circumscribe it.

It is acknowledged in the Corporation's document that the containment in safety of such large numbers of animals would present problems. Speeding and heavy traffic is of course the crux of the matter and reference is made to discussions with Essex County Council on the production of a Forest transport strategy. This would be highly desirable but the chance of achieving anything significant is, in our view, negligible. Traffic speeds would need to be reduced to 20mph or less in order to make main forest roads without fences usable by both cattle and vehicles.

In circumstances where under the East of England Plan half-a-million houses are planned for the region, including the development of North Weald Airfield and a major expansion of Harlow southwards, there will be a huge increase of traffic on Forest roads. There is no chance in our view, of a 20mph speed limit even being considered.

The only alternative, permanent fencing on main roads, would remove any possibility of road speed limitation by Essex County Council. Thus penning-in the cattle by such fencing would result in increased danger to smaller animals including deer and birds. The present fence alongside the A104 has not prevented deer from being killed by speeding traffic. To fence in the entire main road network would first increase deer-road-kill and then have the effect of deterring deer from penetrating the Forest altogether.

Under "Learning the Lesson" the document cites the New Forest, Malvern Hills and Ashdown Forest as examples of open spaces where all potential solutions (presumably to the grazing problem!) have been used. All of these places are completely different from our Forest. The New Forest is more than ten times as big and has a rural hinterland, Ashdown Forest is much the same size as Epping but has a rural setting and itself surrounds a similar sized area that is largely rural. Malvern Hills is a much smaller area and while it has the town of Gt Malvern to the north, elsewhere it abuts onto open country. None of them has the same level of public usage as Epping or is embedded within a vast urban population.

The Friends Constitution demands that we seek to see that the provisions of the Epping Forest Act 1878 are upheld, one of those is that the Forest should be open and unenclosed for the recreation and enjoyment of the public.

In the Wanstead Flats Integrated Site Management Plan and on various information boards in the Forest, it is stated that in pursuing the principal of inter-commonage the Corporation argued that there were no physical boundaries to grazing and that commoners’ cattle had always been free to wander from one part of the Forest to another. Any installation of permanent fencing to all main roads in the Forest clearly constitutes a barrier and therefore we oppose such a development as being against the letter and spirit of the Act.

The measures necessary in order to cope with free-ranging cattle; permanent fencing (we calculate some 45 kilometres), grids, electric fencing, contractors to clear huge areas of woodland, payments to commoners/graziers, out-pasturing in winter, would seem to be enormously expensive. We believe it would be more economical to achieve the object of a diverse biological future for the Forest by the means of strimming, selective shrub and herbage removal, ground scraping etc. which would sit more happily with a publicly accessible open space.

Measures should also be pursued to encourage more fallow deer and rabbits to move south through the Forest, this would bring about more natural grazing.

The Forest is more than a nature reserve with cattle grazing thrown in. People appreciate it for many reasons including its mystery. Even though one is never more than a few hundred metres from a road it still has a feel of remoteness and escape that would be totally lost were it to be turned into wood pasture, viz grassland with scattered trees. Question: Would woodland regenerate under such conditions? Overall pasture woodland treatment would create the impression of a farm or cattle ranch.

The Forest can be entered and left anywhere, there are no barriers and this is a priceless benefit also enjoyed at Hampstead Heath similarly unfenced and, incidentally, with no cattle; it is owned and managed by the Corporation.

Fences, grids, gates, stiles etc., especially in a heavily grazed farmed-landscape, all bear subliminal ownership and ‘keep out’ messages, that do not sit with the expansive and generous provisions of the Act and the intentions of the Corporation when they became conservators of the Forest.

The questionnaire in the Consultative document asks "Do you wish to see grazing re-established across further areas of the Forest?" This dodges the real question, which is, do you want to see grazing (and fencing) over the whole Forest.

The control measures question is unrealistic. Grazing over the whole Forest cannot be brought about just by slower road speeds, road signs, minor road closures, electric fencing or cattle grids. Permanent fencing of all the main roads will be necessary.

Cattle are seen by some people as an attractive feature and in modest numbers they have their value but the Conservators’ proposals constitute too high a price.