I WRITE in support of John Bishop’s letter (Readers’ Times, August 4).

We have a ridiculous situation in this country where preservation of the environment has gone mad, and it seems to the powers-that-be that this is more important than food production, despite food shortages and and increasing population.

It should be remembered that the farmers preserve the environment and have always done so. They have not ruined it in the same way as urban development including airports, motorways and power stations which are all major concerns that we rarely ever hear about.

The agricultural industry is being singled out by current policies.

We are very short of food, but Natural England is paying substantial subsidies to farmers to keep stock off the hills. This is a ridiculous situation as this will only result in scrub, briars, bracken and scrub trees growing on the same.

Sheep, in the past, preserved the wonderful hills this country possesses and this will soon change under current policy. Natural England states that by 2060, it would like to see 25 per cent of the uplands wooded. In 1086 15 per cent of England was wooded and it is doubtful if ever 25 per cent of the hills were wooded.

One can travel for miles in the hills and see no sheep. This is a bizarre situation with no future for young hill farmers as the expertise of dealing with hill flocks will be lost.

Policies and laws are designed by over-educated academics with little, if any, practical experience of agriculture. Quite frankly I think that if anybody is put in the position to formulate these laws they should have worked on a livestock farm, in particular a hill farm, for a continuous period of three to five years experiencing all the difficulties of winter with bad weather, cold, snow, incessant rain, etc.

They should also have access to farm accounts to see how little these farmers make having regard to the hours they put in and the capital involved.

R G WILLIAMS,

Marstow, Ross-on-Wye.