We naively thought we were getting somewhere when we got the 2006 consulation facilitated by Icarus to agree that Blacka should have only minimal intervention. Perhaps the conservation industry people in attendance calculated that it would not be long before that was forgotten.
The truth is that organisations like SRWT are incapable of leaving things alone for long. Their whole ethos centres around intervention, intervention, intervention; except, it seems, never where we would prefer it. Mainly in fact where it brings in funding. They have the eyes of hawks where it comes to spotting opportunities to draw in public money usually unaccountable and in the form of grants passed down from other unaccountable bodies who've got hold of a sizeable parcel of tax revenue.
The tree felling at the weekend is part of this pattern. Nature cannot be trusted so managers are needed to exert draconian discipline. Trees should grow only where they are told and only those species offcially sanctioned. This land here is OK as long as you are the trees we like. But any trees over this side must be subject to instant retribution. All points to the deception of the so-called wildlife agenda. Wildness is the antitheseis of this kind of management. For them management is about killing and destruction of wild and feral organisms.
Looks like over a hundred years old.
On SRWT's website their 'commitment' to public engagement has led them to publish their current work programme. We've looked at it and can't say we like much of it. But we expect it to be honest.We know the way they work. Anything we see as urgent can't be done unless it's gone through their work programme process. So why do they saunter over the other day with a chain saw and destroy trees in an activity that's not in their work programme?
Perhaps it's because they suggested it to their 'conservation group' and nobody protested. The same 'conservation group' that is constituted of anonymous people too frightened to be identified and whose deliberations are kept secret.