THE peace of Sunday afternoon, which means the snooze of Sunday afternoon, has been disrupted by the reports from neighbours of trespassers in one of our fields.

These are not ordinary trespassers, but trespassers with greyhounds or lurchers.

They will claim that they were not looking for hares. They will claim that the dogs had merely strayed, and the reason that they were several hundred yards from the road was that the dogs had strayed a long way. That they seemed to move in the opposite direction whichever way I approached them is just a coincidence.

The fact that the men and dogs disappeared into caravans parked in a lay-by near to the field supports the argument that the dogs had just strayed. The rest of us are expected to believe this.

This little incident brings up all sorts of questions. I have always accepted that those of us who have some land to look after should do so in a manner that improves it rather than damages it.

We are lifetime custodians and have a short term responsibility for something that was there before we were and will be here long after we are gone. Part of that responsibility is towards the wildlife on our farms. We do not really own it, even if we have put it there. Another part is towards the members of the public, who buy the food we produce and support us with payments which entitle them to have some say in countryside management.

This does need to be a two-way process. There are few things so dispiriting as thinking one is in a partnership of any sort and the other party not behaving in like manner.

Two or three times we have had agreements, some of them in writing, to supply goods at a certain price on a long-term basis. The market moves such that goods can be bought cheaper, and the other party finds a reason not to want our products.

Similarly there is a responsibility on the part of the walker to honour the deal. We have always had good numbers of hares on our land. We encourage them, partially because we like to see them about. If the result of this encouragement means that men with dogs can course them more conveniently, there isn't much point.

Most of the walkers understand. It is the rest of them we have to worry about. How to get the troublesome minority, from any group, to conform to the standards the majority have set, is one of the eternal problems.

One of the others is to stop the majority interfering where it is not necessary. It is important to sort out what matters and what does not. Uniformity should not be a policy target, though one suspects it is.

The Bill proposing a ban on hunting with dogs is continuing to make tortuous progress through Parliament. It all seems a bit pointless if it is not possible to stop people who are already acting illegally.

I could never understand why that issue was so crucial, unless it was a method of taking certain MPs' minds off other issues, such as crime, drugs and homelessness, which are much more intractable. Picking off easy targets is quite fun, but doesn't solve much in the long term.

A few years ago we had a major invasion of hare coursers from the North East. The police attended, prosecuted and obtained convictions. Apparently that was an organised course, with bookmakers and spectators. Sunday's incursion was minor. Much ado about nothing much.

Updated: 11:35 Tuesday, March 04, 2003