Forest Notes: Stream tinkering has resulted in swamp-like conditions

His choice of land is, at first sight, somewhat difficult to explain because today much of it is very wet indeed, but this shortcoming is a fairly modern development.

I don’t suppose there is a shred of truth in the story, but it no doubt appealed to the sense of humour of those whom early writers on the Forest often described as the West Saxon peasants. In fact, a written grant of 1284 confirms a slightly earlier disposal of the land from the Forest. Included in the grant was the area we know today as Penny Moor.

I doubt if the commoners of the 13th century were overjoyed at the loss of 400 acres from their grazing, but in those days if the king said jump, you jumped.

As the centuries passed, the enclosure was abandoned and the freehold was finally re-purchased by the Crown in 1942. The Dyke was once again formally part of the open Forest.

A few years later a statutory obligation was placed on the Forestry Commission to ensure that the Forest is “properly drained” (New Forest Act 1949). That was a hard-won concession secured by the commoners and amenity societies of the Forest after many years of fighting inaction by the commission.

It took a while, but by the 1970s considerable drainage works had been successfully completed and a free-flowing stream had been restored from Denny Lawn right through to near the boundary of the Beaulieu Estate. In places this drainage was a bit heavy-handed and could have been better planned, especially from the landscape point of view, but it worked well and the Forest was pleased.

Forest management policies were then thrown virtually into reverse as European Union ecological regulations began to bite. Nearly all drainage work was abandoned, together with much other open Forest management. It was claimed that the regulations were powerful enough to wipe out at a stroke any piece of British legislation which conflicted with them, including the drainage requirements of the New Forest Act. The Forest submitted meekly and the claim was never contested.

Then, with Brexit, it seemed that our own legislation might be restored, but the carrying-forward of EU regulations into our national law appeared to frustrate this.

Whatever the legalities of the matter, over 20 years ago the ecologists, flush with huge sums of European money, set about wrecking (or “restoring”, depending on one’s point of view) the earlier drainage works. The streams within the Bishop’s Dyke from Denny Lawn, through Penny Moor to Pigbush, were substantially destroyed or diverted and swampy conditions spread in all directions. Penny Moor, potentially the best semi-natural lawn in the south of the Forest (after Balmer Lawn), became a quagmire for much of the year.

Repeated tinkering with the system for a number of years exacerbated the damage, although no doubt achieving the ecological objectives. At a meeting last month, a senior local commoner remarked that until the recent wave of tinkering, the drainage of Penny Moor had been perfectly adequate. He was, of course, speaking from a grazier’s point of view, reflecting the safety and welfare of his animals. Contrary views, again backed by large financial resources, were very different.

The latest engineering proposals for Penny Moor are extremely complicated and I won’t try to explain them. Forest Enterprise has produced a large technical report for anyone who is interested and has the ability to interpret computer-generated cross sections, based on lidar, of the areas surrounding the streams.

Its proposals are in the form of four options on which consultation is taking place before a decision is made and (most probably) additional partial stream filling can start.

Whether any of these options would improve conditions or simply make them worse, is open to question. What has been completely ignored within them is that the southern flow on the streams below the railway is thoroughly impeded a little above Rowbarrow Pond.

The photograph shows a choked and overflowing stream course resulting from this outlet blockage. Until that is dealt with there can be no satisfactory long-term solution.

I remember a late chairman of the Commoners’ Defence Association, Captain Tim Moore, repeatedly emphasising the importance of ensuring a free-flow of water from all the Forest’s main stream systems. I think at the time his repeated insistence seemed a bit unnecessary, but the truth of his words has been well and truly demonstrated ever since.

During the January meeting, it became clear that the ecologists have rather misunderstood the history of the Penny Moor area and its highly productive state in the past. It was suggested that the area is a dried-out peat bog destroyed by drainage. It is not.

Certainly, there have been some areas of shallow peat, as will be found in any Forest valley. We know that such an area was burnt off in 1976, but Penny Moor is entirely different from the adjoining deep and ancient bog peat which extends up Stephill Bottom and under the railway to Shatterford. That was extensively mined in the mediaeval period and perhaps earlier.

Around Penny Moor, the 1970s drainage revealed considerable evidence of Bronze Age and much later occupation of the stream banks and this was occupation which could not have been present in swampy condition. Such use continued right up to Denny Lawn north of the railway, at least on the south bank. At the same time (probably about 3,000-4,000 years ago) a series of enclosed streamside meadows was laid out stretching from beyond Rowbarrow to the railway.

Indeed, there is some evidence that even arable land came to within 60m of the stream course near Woodfidley Pound. In the same area an oval earthwork enclosure has been suggested by a leading Forest historian as the base from which a mediaeval vaccary (cow farm) was operated, and if this is correct, the agricultural use of the Moor probably continued even into the bishop’s period of occupation. Perhaps it influenced his choice of land for inclusion in the grant.

A deer tragedy

As Forestry England stocks the crown lands with ever increasing numbers of deer, or simply fails to control them, the rate of casualties from one cause or another grows all the time, particularly on private land surrounding the Forest.

This probably does not worry the public too much. The widely held belief is that all you have to do in an emergency is to telephone King’s House and they will send a keeper to sort out the problem. Failing that, you can always get an agister to deal with it.

Both assumptions are entirely wrong. Most people don’t discover this until faced with an immediate and often distressing crisis.

Forestry England will deal only with deer casualties on its own land in the Forest, although how far this rule remains inflexible in the case of road accidents surrounding the Forest I do not know.

They certainly will not deal with injured deer on private property. Similarly, the agisters are not authorised to deal with wild animals on private land. Their role is restricted to livestock on and from the commons.

One might think that since the government (through Forestry England) is at least morally responsible for the over-stocking with deer, it should also pick up the bill and inconvenience for dealing with the resulting problems and suffering.

On my own (very small) farm in the last 50 years I have had three cases of deer trapped in wire on my boundaries with adjoining landowners. One of these was 40 years ago and the other two were within the last six months. This is perhaps a reflection of the recent explosion in the deer population.

The latest of these tragedies occurred in January when, overnight, a fallow doe jumped my neighbour’s fence into her land and miscalculated the height of the obstruction. It was a classic injury in which the victim’s leg gets caught between the two top wires and the deer then falls head over heels, twisting the wires into an inescapable snare and (in this case) breaking the leg. Next morning the deer was found, still alive and partially suspended by the broken leg, which was secured four feet above the ground.

My neighbour, not unreasonably, assumed that Forestry England would deal with the problem, but I pointed out that this was not the case. I possess no gun or humane killer and I accordingly telephoned a very helpful and suitably armed deer expert in the south of the Forest. He was unable to attend immediately, but put me in touch with a local animal welfare charity. The charity proved to be overworked and understaffed, so they could not assist.

Between them and the expert, it was decided that the best course would be to phone the fire service and that was done. The call-handler agreed to send a specially trained officer, but he was far away and would take three quarters of an hour to arrive.

When he did arrive, the officer skilfully secured the deer in a canvas straight jacket to reduce its struggles. He then cut free the broken leg and said that he would normally have shot the deer himself, but all his department’s guns were away being serviced.

He accordingly had to hold the deer down for the best part of another hour, while the original expert drove across the Forest and dispatched the unfortunate animal. Both the fireman and the expert warned my neighbour that she would be responsible for the disposal of the carcase – much to her distress.

Everyone involved in the incident did their best and acted as quickly and professionally as possible, but it was still three hours after the initial phone call that the deer was shot.

A Forest keeper could have arrived and done the job in a fraction of that time.

It does seem wrong that bureaucratic rules or cost avoidance prevent such intervention. Still, for the time being it seems that the rules are at least clear, if not sensible.

For trapped deer on the common land of the Forest, telephone Forestry England, and on private property the fire service. Don’t try to free a trapped deer yourself unless you are certain that it is not seriously hurt and that your intervention will not risk personal injury.

The need to pursue a deer with a broken leg will simply increase suffering, while a large, heavy and terrified animal may be dangerous.