£140,000 cost of using sheep to mow grass in Brighton and Hove (From The Argus)

idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical

So one of their green buddies is pocketing all the cash from the public fattening up his sheep on public land.

'Corruption' anyone?

It would be nice to get a complete breakdown of the costs, including the time the Countryside Rangers spend on their daily vists, The sheep are not tended to by volunteer lookers alone.

From the picture shown it would appear to be overstocked with sheep. Has anyone looked into Defra guideline for sheep per acre?

What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical

...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep.

Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in.

The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't.

Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel?

It's great that a freedom of information request has been made that shows this waste of money. Worrying that the council committees haven't spotted this and stopped the project. Clearly the costs have spiralled and the benefits have not. Indeed it's closing off areas that people want to use

So lets save money and improve access by abandoning this as soon as possible. This method seems to be costing double the mowing costs. 40K a year to be saved here.....

On a lot of these sites like at Coldean all the sheep have done over the past 3 years is turn rough grass into shorter rough grass with none of the acclaimed chalk grassland species of flora and fauna making a comeback.On some sites it works but on most it doesn't and never will and at the heavy cost of public exclusion from public land for several months in the year...

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.

What a wizard-wheeze for the owner of the flock. No need to rent pasture land. Actually get paid to graze your sheep.. No doubt there an EU farm subsidy or two to claim as well.

The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved.
Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing.

As with every news article its wise to take a step back and look at what you're being told...and what you're not.

There are no comments from the council here, I would assume they were not asked to comment or were not given time to (otherwise we'd have the usual 'XXX declined to comment'). So its interesting the Argus decided to run this article without any input from the council. Therefore, it is impossible to understand exactly where the money have come from (grants etc) and exactly how the money is spent. Initial costs of projects is always higher in the first few years than it is predicted to be in the future.

In terms of conservation, woodland is not a threatened habitat. Chalk grassland is. Have a poke around on the internet and you'll see this habitat is extremely limited worldwide and this project has a valuable aim. Don't expect results within the first year, it isn't that simple!

I very very much doubt that the farmers are making more than a very very low profit on this!! I don't claim to know the ins and outs of farming, but believe me this isn't a money earner!!

StyleCop wrote:

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical

...you can't get simpler than a herd of sheep.

Consider the cost of mowers, moving them around from location to location, the cost of a flat bed truck, the fuel for all, the maintainance costs, the fixed overheads for storage etc - I'm sure it's equivalent when it's factored in.

The difference? - Sheep belong in the country - whereas trucks and mowers don't.

Have you ever considered the cost of those weird futuristic pavement sweepers you see guys piloting aroudn the streets? - how much do they cost to run, maintain, house and operate... especially compared to a broom and a shovel?

well I know a chewing gum removal machine cost £120.000 and needs 2 people a trailer and vehicle and needed modifying at the councils expense because the company the council purchased it from went into liquidation so dont expect anything else

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.

I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet

fredflintstone1 wrote:

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

Nice little earner, isn’t it? People even look after the shepherd’s flocks for free!!

Hundreds of oaks, ash and other trees are being felled in our parks and fences put in place, transforming the landscape. Is this because the recently-arrived Londonistans expect a view of the rural idyll here without having to venture out on to the Downs as such?

Sorry, but Wild Park is not ancient grassland - any more than is the site by Asda at Hollingbury where these sheep are also grazed. This unnecessary, unwanted work is being paid for by taxpayers (not the EU - although that is funded by us too), and it is destroying established species.

The Downs originally were covered by forests, until the trees were cut down - so if you want to conserve a natural landscape, let areas that have reverted to woodland on the urban fringe, out of the grasp of greedy shepherds, remain as woodland and manage them on this basis.

Everywhere we’re told that there’s no money to help the old, young and vulnerable, but the Greens still pursue their vanity projects - totally regardless of logic, cost or public opinion.

I heard that who thought the idea up were big on egos but short on qualifications in this field, and that it had always been to steep for sheep and it had been used for rabbit farming, when rabbit had beenin the weekly diet

David Hirst wrote:
The land being restored and conserved by the grazing, although called grassland, is a rich reserve of wild flowers and plants, along with insects, like butterflies, that feed on them. It is much more than just grass. These communities have evolved over the thousands of years that the downs have been grazed, and we would all suffer from their loss. Both because we would lose the beauty of them, and because the resilience this variety and biodiversity of life provides us would make us all more vulnerable. Much of this “flowerland” has survived decades of neglect because it is on steep slopes, which cannot be cut by machine, and we owe a lot to the rabbits for the bits they have preserved.
Despite the draconian and unnecessary cuts imposed by one of the most unkind and anti-green governments ever known, Brighton & Hove is preserving support for the old, the young and the vulnerable. They are not put at risk by the grazing.

Sorry, but they are being put at risk ... If you go to a farm park as I did recently with my young daughter, there are hygiene precautions in terms of hand gels, notices etc., but in Stanmer Park for example, children could be playing on land that has been heavily contaminated with E.coli, Salmonella etc..

The sheep are even wandering on school playing fields at times. The Council has a duty to protect public health, but it's failing to do so.

DEFRA stats reveal that just a single sheep will produce the equivalent of 2750 tablespoons of droppings scattered over its enclosure every month.

So how about volunteers to clear up sheep poop in our public parks? Don't forget to take your own picnic spoons next time you visit one of these wonderful 'natural' areas with your family, and perform a valuable public service before you sit down and enjoy yourselves!

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

Where exactly do you think EU money comes from ? Ah yes - OUR pockets AGAIN !

Another contentious issue to add to cyclists, cycle lanes, students, 'greenies', 'incomers' (or Londonista's), bus drivers, kids playing outside yer 'ouse, and so on and on and others that the xenophobic, anti-anything crackpots can have a rant at.

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical

The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity

rayellerton wrote:
idiots..they do this when 2/3 gardeners could be employed to tend parkland and verges with mowers...but that would be too simple and practical

The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity

ban you stupid annoying dogs that poo all over the park lol .. money money money is all it is ....The sheep graze the land slowly allowing wild plants to grow which intern is amazing for wild life this is all
Part on conservation and a helps with bio diversity. your dogs kill everything you people moan all the time get a life .. how do dogs kill everything ??? well there poo and ****

Will we get to eat them once the experiment is over? Yum!

Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic.

Sussex jim wrote:
Why is there a hefty cost for transporting the sheep? They could be driven along the public roads themselves, controlled by a few shepherds. This would also help the council's ambition to bring maximum disruption to motor traffic.

Most of the ancient sheep droves are now bridlepaths so it could work very well and would not need to cause disruption to all the obese, fat gobbling, fag smoking haters driving half a mile to the pub!

What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.

aabton wrote:
What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.

Are you delusional or a green councillor? Where is your evidence that most people support this huge waste of money when the article says over 1770 people signed a petition opposing it?

Ironic that a green council that tried to force its refuse collection workers to accept meat-free Mondays has been shown to have spent more than £140,000 on keeping sheep for meat and now wants to cut the wages of these and other public sector workers. You & your fellow green toadies should crawl back under your stones.

You missed the opportunity of a cracking headlline here Argus...Jason and the Golden Fleece.
Cllr Jason Kitkat heads a council which ignores almost every community and every group in the city asking for help, to continue with his ego boosting vanity projects which include digging up a cycle lane on the lewes road and replacing it with a cycle lane and hiring a flock of sheep.
For flocks sake.
I honestly don't know how they can sleep at night, but I suppose all dictoators have egos so large they lose their hearing.

aabton wrote:
What an irresponsible article to publish. You clearly didn’t give the Council time to respond to your story because you’re missing a lot of the facts. There are of course start up costs associated with this project but long term this will be a cheaper option. I believe over the life of the project it will be £28k cheaper per annum. I guess that doesn’t make a good story.
Having read the FOI release it clearly states some costs relate to other general maintenance. Shame you don’t mention that in your article.
Get your facts together before you turn Argus readers against an environmentally friendly project which most people think is a great idea and costs us less.

So perhaps you'd like to discuss the £350 paid to take five sheep to participate in a sheep-shearing demonstration at Dorothy Stringer? If the farmer or Sussex Wildlife Trust want to do that, then they or the school should pay. Simple. This was a blatant and totally unjustifiable misuse of public money.

This whole business is nothing more than a full scale farming exercise, being carried out at the taxpayers' expense.

Thanks to the Argus, the truth of this scandal is now starting to emerge. Hopefully, they will dig deeper into the story now as you suggest, and I look forward to reading their investigation.

Brighton Pensioner wrote:
What the Argus did not report was that Council receives grant funding from the EU to help conserve ancient grassland, which is our equivalent of rain forests. Conservation grazing, which is what this is, helps to save an enormous variety of wildlife. And no, I am not a Green.

Oh dear.
A touch of sanity in the Argus comments.
Whatever next?