Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Biodiversity is a slippery word. In the dictionary it translates as "life on earth". None of us objects to that, but some scientists have reinterpreted the word. It has become a religion, a cause and an excuse for changing anything and everything in the name of preserving life. Dr Phillips has allowed it to mean whatever she wants it to mean. That is what can happen when quangos are let out. They lose a sense of proportion. In addition-if I dare say this in this world of austerity-they are paid over the odds. Dr Phillips receives £144,000 a year, and six of her senior management team receive more than £80,000 a year. They have offices all over the country and around 2,000 staff to boss about. No wonder they have fooled themselves into thinking that they rule the world. Natural England has become far too big for Dr Phillips's elegant, stiletto-heeled boots.

"The toxic nature of oaks is irrelevant to the debate. The site is to be lightly grazed by cattle who are not suseptable to an oaks toxin."

And from the The cattle site.com

Clinical Signs

Sudden death can occur (although poisoning generally occurs over a period days)
Constipation initially, followed by black watery diarrhoea.
Depression and loss of appetite
Straining to pass faeces and urinate is very common
Weakening, collapse and death (usually within seven days of the onset of signs)
The animals have a normal temperature in most cases
Acorns can cause birth defects if eaten in sufficient quantities by pregnant cattle Acorns contain gallotannin. In the rumen, gallotannin is broken down to gallic acid and tannic acid. Tannic acid causes ulcerations in the mouth, the oesophagus, and the rest of the intestines. It also damages the kidneys, and it is kidney failure which causes most of the death associated with acorn poisoning. Acorn poisoning will generally affect only a few animals in the herd, as acorn poisoning only occurs if animals eat large amounts of acorns (which will only occur in cattle which develop a taste for them). As tannins concentrate in milk fast-growing calves on heavy-milking dams will often be the first animals to show signs.

I know who I would rather believe

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6713.jpg?t=1310587233...

Let me elaborate a little on the role of Natural England. It is the Government's statutory adviser on landscape, biodiversity and the natural environment. Previously, that function was largely carried out by English Nature. Natural England will continue to carry out a range of important functions that support and contribute to all three key priorities outlined in the structural reform plan published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in July. Those are: to support British farming and encourage sustainable food production; to enhance the environment and biodiversity to improve quality of life; and to support a strong and sustainable green economy that is resilient to climate change.

Sustainable, green, resilient to climate change!!

I have yet to here a valid, scientific argument either for the proposals at Hartlebury common or against my claims. I suppose this is what makes unNatural England behave in the way that they do. As early as 2008, they had started to enrage the public with nonsensical plans. The best of course was to allow the sea to reclaim parts of the Norfolk Broads, flooding three villages and displacing 4000 residents.
http://www.nvcc.org.uk/2008/05/edp-natural-england-faces-anger-over-message/

Since then, their attitude has been very much us and them. They do not take kindly to critisism. That is why the meetings for hartlebury common were deliberatley subverted.

The biggest Question that I want answering is this;

Can anyone tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that  do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.

All this at tax payers expense

Natural England and English Heritage are wrecking Penwith Moors (Cornwall) and the ancient archeological remains thereon. with a similarly unnecessary plan, again with little or no public consulatation ! The Moors haven't been grazed in living memory, but NE + EH are funding (at taxpayers' expense) a herd of Texas Longhorned cattle to graze the moors and these cattle are using the ancient standing stones as scratching posts damaging and dislodging them from where they have sat for several thousand years ! Despite an active campaign by the Save Penwith Moors group neither agency is prepared to listen, or even discuss local concerns over the damage being caused by the cattle. There is an almost daily toll of new damage being discovered, but the two agencies involved have apparently decided to just keep their heads down and hope that local and international protest will somehow just go away ! Good luck with your campaign .... you are going to need it !

Natural 'England" is initiating, and forcing, destructive schemes like this all over the UK, threatening unique habitats and archaeological sites, enclosing previously open land, actively discouraging public access to open access land, and paying scant regard to the law, or to public concern, as they force their ill-informed will through. There is another agenda at work here, and one that has little to do with agri-environmental conservation.

#818: - Re: Changes 

 Well Said If we all thought like you the country would be in a much better state.

Steve,
look at the detail of the Aarhus Convention and the hearing you got.I have found NO evidence of the UK(NE/DEFRA)complying with the pillars regarding participation/consultation.The 1992 Rio conference was a World overview but each party has looked to parochial compliance with no view of local impact on World biodiversity.At a cost,in the UK, of up to £3m per 1000hc over 10 yrs our efforts are contributing to World degradation(money being the denominator of material damage).I might add that Dr Phillips(head of NE) salary does little to exemplify personal environmental responsibility.NE have become the arbiters of life and death and what the public will and will not have access to with no accountabilities(in fact every failure,like ESA heathland,justifies further investment and intervention instead of a review of NE's competence).NE frequently support trade offs whereby 'glamour rarities'are encouraged at a cost to the wider environment but 'ignore'any science which reduces rural investment(ELS/HLS)but would achieve the same result.Challenges achieve accountability.Keep challenging with the support of Save Penwith Moors.

#801: Steve McCarron - More from Ian Liddell Grainger MP 

 

i asked all to stop work to call for reveiw by eu commisiners and realated offices damaging an existing common is not allowed all species have equal rights nesting bird insects flys ect...TONY REYNOLDS

Some points to consider;grazing as the 'lead'tool in NE's 'armoury'is capable,under the right circumstances, of producing the result NE target BUT research clearly indicates that expert management is required to achieve that result or degradation will occur(as in the National Nature Reserve,run by NE,on the Lizard,below Goonhilly).The imposition,nationwide,of a 'one trick pony'that NE cannot guarantee the results of on their own reserve and within a regime wherein NE have had 30% cutbacks but the stewardship landmass has expanded leaves the 'tool'compromised and NE's competence in question.Farmers/stewards are being asked to farm a new crop-our environment-without the necessary support structures to ensure results.NE know that they have a responsibility toward the public,esp.the legally enshrined rights of the disabled.They also know that grazing is an exclusive option that denies their responsibilities under that act on public access land(wherever feasible)but choose to ignore it(as in the HEATH Project Cornwall).A case exists wherein the Heritage Lottery Fund trustees and NE excluded two key contractual clauses(which were normally included)that would normally insist on "public agreement" and disabled access to achieve agreement to funding.Why would this be????Is it indicative of an agenda targeting exclusion??Is it indicative of an agricultural agenda to match population growth???Mr Jim Paice(agri minister)in a letter to myself stated that agri/env schemes could be sculpted to local needs.NE in a similar letter wrote that they would find it hard to agree to funding schemes that excluded grazing.One dept two agendas!

#823: T.R - eu law

I agree Tony. I do not think that initiating deliberate unatural eco bias to artificially create an unsustainable enviroment is in the interests of any natural enviroment and the species therein. All this coupled to a so called green agenda.

Have a look at this lot! http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/about_us/ourpeople/executives/default.aspx

The wording of their brief is patronising to peoples intelligence.

"Guy joined Natural England as a founding member of Natural England’s Executive Board in June 2006. He is responsible for the standards, consistency and quality of our customer care, our partnerships and our internal and external communications. He is also responsible for the delivery of Natural England’s marine programme and our work to engage people in the natural environment and enhance access to it."

As If  people are not capable of engaging with nature without this pandering.