Flawed Vision: New Eyes Needed

According to Marcel Proust

    The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes

 According to Michaelangelo:

    The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it

SRWT's Vision for Blacka Moor in its draft management plan is about as flawed, misleading and uninspiring as you could hope never to find. Quotes in red, my response in italics.

A feeling of wildness, with minimal interference; there will be as little management as possible, but as much as required to realise the vision. This emasculates the original vision rendering it meaningless. Yet it's the number one item in the vision. The change from ‘wild’ to a ‘feeling of wildness’ intentionally moves this important strong and dictionary defined meaning to something woolly and subjective giving any manager carte blanche to do what he/she wishes because he feels like it. And ‘realise the vision’ in this document is seen for what it is - constant intervention. Another corruption of language. And minimal seems to be anything short of constructing a trunk road across the moor.  
A natural site (managed in a way that minimises chemical inputs and the use of noise-generating machinery and vehicles) Does that really mean that SWT practice in the last 12 years has been abandoned? i.e. SRWT and their graziers and contractors will not be using tractors, chain saws and Asulam spray??Will the grazier not be using a vehicle in the sheep enclosure where over the years of SWT’s management grass and soil has been systematically compacted and tyre tracks are always visible? 
Worth going to: For people of all ages and backgrounds. But they shouldn't be ‘recruited' and then propagandized by those (like SRWT) with ulterior motives. 
With a wealth of habitats supporting a richness of wildlife: At least maintained, or preferably improved from what is there now. Inserted to support those who can't leave anything alone. There is no consensus about what ‘improvement’ means. Nature knows best. 
Habitats and wildlife which are appropriate to the area What is ‘appropriate’ in this context? And who decides? Far too subjective. Natural forces should decide what is appropriate. Not more management please. 
Where the archaeology and history is conserved: Where our heritage/historic features are conserved What does this mean? Does it mean that the landscape with its woods and fields etc are to be kept or returned to what they looked like 100 years ago, or 500 or 1000?. How much of the minimal interference will be used up on this? Which heritage and which historic period? This should not be used as an excuse to stop natural processes, only to prevent human interventions and exploitation. And interpreted appropriately to enhance understanding. More signs, more propaganda, more intrusions, more interference. Order a new photocopier. 
With signage at points of entry with web address and reference to the Grave's legacy. This needs detailed discussion with those who know the site well. There is already too much clutter of supposed ‘educational' interpretation. Some of the signage is little better than propaganda since it deals with matters that are challenged by some groups. There are already plaques put in by Dore Village Society and the involvement of Friends of Blacka Moor following much discussion at the RAG. Does the writer know that?