Says Steve Yandall

What good sense Sandra Smith promotes in her article.

I would like to add that Natural England are full of quite 'natural' contradictions in that they adopt an intractable stance toward non grazing(knowing full well that alternatives exist) whilst Jim Paice believes that individual schemes could be tailored to local requirements and that NE itself have written that grazing is not a prerequisite of any scheme WITHOUT turning that into a reality.Peter Bowden of NE however wrote that NE would find it difficult to consider schemes without an element of grazing.

NE claim 'science' without proclaiming it to be selective or skewed which,in fact,it is. NE 'science' in reality is a husbandry system that is TOTALLY reliant on good stewardship and carries huge risks through poor stewardship resulting in over and under grazing.Thus there is a real risk of biodegradation and huge financial waste because NE are not equipped to offer support to inexperienced stewards.NE are not equipped to monitor and NE's history shows them as being unwilling to enforce activity.In typical 'Euroaccountability' fashion however I was recently privy to a letter from Europe which leaves NE the judge of their own activities!!!

The environment is a NEW crop(made reliant on a grazing agenda) that has been 'invented' to strip central funds from Europe that are 'ring fenced' and thus only accessible by agenda 'cow towing'.

Whilst the above points are important there are really two issues to consider;

1. whether Public Inquiries and the fraternal 'brotherhood' that present 'expertise' on behalf of central agendas are guilty of a conflict of interest and a failure of best practice in placing too high a reliance on conservation(at the expense of our environment) and failing to establish equality within the expertise and veracity of witnesses?
2. whether the British/European 'conservation' agenda is so reliant on suspending nature,thus committing us to managing what should be natural environments,at a huge cost to successional natural control and global environments?Zoos?

In failing to be flexible NE show a huge disregard for their global impact as their real agenda is financially costly and that can only be supported by international material damage(money) and that is the key point that robs NE of credibility as 'conservators'.

Jim Paice offered flexibility,NE offered empty words but, in reality, to guarantee sustainability we need a mixture of succession,suspension and light suspension/light succession.Without giving nature itself some autonomy NE are merely promoting the growth of an industry and not resolving problems millenia in the making.In alienating the public by denying environmental benefits NE fail to recognise that they risk their funding base!!!

In W.Penwith NE have misinformed,broken several laws,used selective science,'lost' two colonies of Marsupella profunda(in SAC's and this is an internationally endangered species) !!!!Experts?

In the words of Nick Clegg in St Stephen a few days ago"the proliferation of these damn Labour driven QUANGO's is a disgrace"! The proliferation of central unaccountability is even more disgraceful!

Our land mass is shrinking through industrial building and house building.Sea levels are rising.Agricultural intensity grows as our shores become home to more and more people.So what is the real reason behind excluding us?

We are the last bastion of accountability and without us the powerful have free rein.