It seems that SWT are planning to put the cattle, now in the pasture land, onto the moor shortly along with nine others making 15 in all. Now this is entirely contrary to what we've been told -those of us who have attended their RAG meetings, making a mockery of the consultation, yet again. It is however consistent with what we have come to expect from SWT. Those who have taken the trouble in their own time to engage themselves with the process of contributing to the alleged consultation are largely ignored when it comes to the decisions which matter most. Cattle on the moor at this time of year are likely to cause even more damage to the network of soft paths as was acknowledged when the original decision was taken to graze cattle from April/May to September. It is also contrary to the clear commitment in the management plan. It’s hard to escape the obvious conclusion that this is being done now to suit the convenience of the grazier rather than for what is good for the land and for the site. The links between the conservation economy and the farming economy are strong. It’s worth wondering what the situation would be regarding subsidy payments from the Rural Payments Agency if there had been no cattle grazing on the moor this year. Do inspectors from the RPA check these things? And if public money, however misguidedly, is being put to this purpose how is the situation justified when cutbacks in other areas are hurting? This blog now understands that the same farmer who puts his sheep and cattle on Blacka is being used for grazing the whole of Burbage and Houndkirk and the Hathersage Moors (owned by SCC) and also the North Lees Estate (owned by PDNPA). That is a huge swathe of public land and it would be interesting to know the subsidy he is receiving from the public purse for getting his sheep to stop trees growing on the moors. This is farming that makes no real value profit but simply puts a few sheep on the moor ostensibly for some conservation benefit – a benefit some of us strongly dispute. Historically these old shooting estates were burned and grazed to create a lawn of low heather liked by grouse so that there would be a plentiful supply of game birds for the wealthy who came up for the shooting. 
No shooting now takes place so there’s no reason that the land should continue to be grazed in this way unless conservationists think that the boring heather monoculture is better for wildlife than a richer mix of vegetation (which it isn’t). So what is the point of all this grazing? Certainly it can’t be explained as being good for the rural economy if only one farmer, living in Bradfield, remote from the site, is benefiting.
This grazing arrangement has been described to me recently as ‘agricultural tenancies’ by a council officer, the words suggesting somehow that several farmers are living on farms with the council as their landlord. This is clearly not the case. There is something defensive about the reaction when one asks about this of the conservationists, council officers and other land management professionals. It was at the end of March this year that the previous ‘tenant’ was ejected. He did not live on the site either. He had an Environmental Stewardship Grant giving him some £400,000 plus for putting a few sheep on the Sheffield Moors and getting prosecuted twice for mistreating his sheep – animals that were often to be seen wandering in and out of the speeding commuter traffic on the main road. Perhaps he avoided prison because he had money to pay his fine by courtesy of Unnatural England.
Now that ‘tenancy’ has been taken up by the National Trust to help out SCC who were then without a ‘tenant’ - as we were told when attending the consultations in August. But now we learn that the new tenant is not the NT itself but a sublet arrangement and the farmer is the same one who puts animals on Blacka. Regular readers may remember me asking questions about the sheep and cattle on Blacka last winter. Incidentally this morning there were sheep again on the main road.
No shooting now takes place so there’s no reason that the land should continue to be grazed in this way unless conservationists think that the boring heather monoculture is better for wildlife than a richer mix of vegetation (which it isn’t). So what is the point of all this grazing? Certainly it can’t be explained as being good for the rural economy if only one farmer, living in Bradfield, remote from the site, is benefiting.This grazing arrangement has been described to me recently as ‘agricultural tenancies’ by a council officer, the words suggesting somehow that several farmers are living on farms with the council as their landlord. This is clearly not the case. There is something defensive about the reaction when one asks about this of the conservationists, council officers and other land management professionals. It was at the end of March this year that the previous ‘tenant’ was ejected. He did not live on the site either. He had an Environmental Stewardship Grant giving him some £400,000 plus for putting a few sheep on the Sheffield Moors and getting prosecuted twice for mistreating his sheep – animals that were often to be seen wandering in and out of the speeding commuter traffic on the main road. Perhaps he avoided prison because he had money to pay his fine by courtesy of Unnatural England.
Now that ‘tenancy’ has been taken up by the National Trust to help out SCC who were then without a ‘tenant’ - as we were told when attending the consultations in August. But now we learn that the new tenant is not the NT itself but a sublet arrangement and the farmer is the same one who puts animals on Blacka. Regular readers may remember me asking questions about the sheep and cattle on Blacka last winter. Incidentally this morning there were sheep again on the main road.
No comments:
Post a Comment