"Wild and Open"

The Eastern Moors Partnership (EMP) has sent in a report to Sheffield City Council that has not, so far, been discussed within the council - not by elected members anyway. This follows the public meetings held during August at which the Sheffield Moors (Houndkirk, Burbage and Hathersage Moors) were brought into the discussions. No decision had been take by the council at that time to hand this large area of land to EMP nor has yet been. The way the Sheffield Moors were brought into the consultation was not satisfactory as I've said before so it's been necessary to watch pretty carefully the way the issue goes from here. I've already asked the South West Community Assembly to be involved in any discussions about the eventual fate of the Sheffield Moors. It’s necessary to remember that EMP are not and cannot be totally detached and dispassionate about this. Like most organizations they wish to embed themselves in the fabric of society and the way conservation organizations do this is by acquiring land and making their management of it appear indispensable. Statements they make should always be read with this in mind and accompanied by a measure of scepticism.

The report sent to SCC from the EMP refers to the ‘guiding management principles’ that they have introduced for the Eastern Moors Estate (not the Sheffield Moors as yet) and the very first of these is:

1 The wild and open nature of the site should not be compromised

Immediately something has to be questioned. If you ask ten people what ‘wild and open’ means you’ll probably get 10 different answers. That’s lucky for the managers because they can interpret it any way they like. Does it mean anything or not? ‘Wild and Open’? Can land that has for generations been managed as a grouse moor be described as wild and open? It may be open but it’s certainly not wild and never will be as long as it continues to be look like an artificial grouse moor just perfectly designed for a shooting party. Neither will it even look wild if trees are actively discouraged by a grazing scheme. So ‘wild’ and ‘open’ are actually contradictory. It can be one thing or it can be the other.

The authors rely on the fact that very few people look critically at their statements and quite a fair proportion of the public will themselves refer to these moors as a wilderness. Ignorance is bliss. Usually these problems of perception are skated over by those who manage. Once you go into discussing the real nature of the land you risk encouraging calls for nature to be allowed to go its own way and the whole edifice of assumptions that have been fostered by present conservation policy is undermined. So with this in mind what should we make of "wild and open"? How calculated is this? The words "should not be compromised" attached to the phrase "wild and open" that is so meaningless is a typical tactic of the political managerial class. The second half of the sentence gives an impression of decisiveness but we don't know what they are being decisive about.

This is why any plans must be closely scrutinised and, partly, why the letter to Nick Clegg has been written.