Letter in Sheffield Telegraph

I hope it is clear that anyone reading posts on this blog is welcome to contribute comments and especially if their views differ from those of the writer. One of the aims of this blog and the linked website was to stimulate discusssion about Blacka Moor and similar issues relating to countryside management. The writer (anonymous) of the letter in this week's Sheffield Telegraph is not bold enough to do this even though he knows this blog and refers to it. In order to rescue him from a potentially dishonourable situation therefore I hereby reproduce his letter in full.

I shall of course take the opportunity to comment on the content in due course. He can then respond using the comments facility and a reasonable discussion may follow.

MINORITY MUST NOT RULE ON BLACKA MOOR

Much of the recent debate and the material on the Friends of Blackamoor website and Blog relate to the perceived conflict between the conservation managers and those who wish to access the Moor. I think we need to remember that the existing management plan for Blacka – produced by a conservation organisation in consultation with many access and recreation organisations and individuals - and its proposed revision is about much more than the conservation of the wildlife habitats of the Moor.
Most obviously it is about providing access to Blacka. All of our access rights are being compromised to a greater degree by scrub, bracken and bramble encroachment than by the cattle which could go at least some way to suppressing that encroachment. To give just one example I used to picnic with my young children on a small sunny clearing by a small stream. In fact I have a photograph of my son at five days old laying on the grass there in dappled sunlight with his sister and brother.
This son was 15 on Wednesday. There is little grass there now and definitely no sunlight. To do nothing more than some occasional scrub bashing is to compromise the opportunities for Sheffield people and others to benefit from, and appreciate the place that is Blacka.
The plan is also about enhancing the landscape. At its simplest this means the views of and from the Moor. I no longer have my favourite view because of the changes to the woodland/moorland interface, in essence as a result of scrub encroachment.
Others of my views are being changed through the march of bracken across the site. I am grateful for the Wildlife Trusts aims of controlling the spread of scrub and bracken, and not just because I recognise that this will enhance the wildlife habitats, but also because this will help retain the open landscape and the landscape dominated by heather, that makes Blacka what it is, and gives us the views of the city and the surrounding landscape from the moor.
The plan is also about community awareness and involvement. I find it quite astounding that given the hostile environment within which it has to work, the Trust continues to welcome community participation in its management planning process.
Without this participation we lose the opportunity for the plan to reflect our needs as local people visiting the site. We should feel privileged to be invited to be involved rather than antagonistic when the Trust on balance takes decisions that upset some of us.
From what I understand there are a small minority of people who are anti the idea of cattle grazing. (I understand that there were a large number of signatures on a petition. However there are only a handful of people who feel strongly enough to turn up to a meeting.)
We should not be letting this minority dictate a style of management – essentially nonintervention which is the only practical alternative approach - which will compromise not only the wildlife habitats of the moor but also our access to the site and the way we use it, the landscape, and the ability of the Trust to do its job. We should also not be tolerating this minority hijacking management planning meetings.
The supportive majority now have little ability to influence the revision of the management plan because they have either been excluded from the meetings because they cant bear the hostility and the lack of progress, or because the meetings centre on one aspect –the pros and cons of cattle grazing – rather than being allowed to concentrate on moving forward with real and practical issues.