In recent years Natural England, the executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by DEFRA has succeeded with the almost unprecedented achievement of rousing consistent ire from land managers across the country.
The explanation for this is often given that often well intended motivations from the executive leadership are too often undermined by those with more radical beliefs from middle-management and its army of advisers from charitable conservation sector.
The latest example of this manifesting itself comes from Madeleine Lundholm, the Partnership Manager at Natural England’s Protected Landscape Partnership.
In a recent blog from Julia Davies, an impact investor and founding member of the Patriotic Millionaires group who campaign for wealth taxes, she recounted two weeks walking in the English uplands and claimed “To restore nature to levels where it has a chance to thrive we have to move on from outdated and barbaric land uses which are still allowed on huge areas of the UK… Other change simply involves banning a nasty anti-social hobby of a tiny minority which not only involves the mass slaughter of wildlife, but also damaging sensitive peat land with release of carbon plus increase of flood risk to villages below these mismanaged upland areas. We don’t have time to continue to put up with this vandalism and grouse moors and release of grouse and pheasants should simply be banned as a common sense measure putting the safety of us all above the nasty hobby of a tiny few”.
Such an unbalanced and extreme view would normally be ignored by an official, particularly anyone with influence on policy, but not so Natural England’s Madeleine Lundholm.
Commenting on the blog Lundholm wrote: “It’s so refreshing to hear someone mention the unjustifiable practice of grouse and pheasant shooting in its current form. While it is very important that we shift farming practices, how can we neglect to mention the vast amount of land being used for the privilege of the very few.”
It is difficult to imagine a less balanced view from a Natural England representative, and not something you would ever expect the organisation to ever communicate through official correspondence, but sadly confirming of the suspicions many upland communities feel Natural England harbours against them.
Apart from failing to point out the obvious mistake Davies makes in suggestion that grouse, a wild bird, are ‘released’, Lundholm’s comments will do nothing to improve the working relationship with many of the partners in the protected landscape partnership she is tasked with managing.
Davies and Lundholm would do well to remember managed uplands are widely recognised not just for their beauty, but the social, environmental and economic benefits they bring. There is after all a reason places like the Yorkshire Dales have consistently been voted the best national park in Europe.
Comments