Says Steve Yandall

From what I can gather the core problem is that HLS shows partiality to certain regimes and weights choices through financial enticement.The whole conservation agenda works through 10 year cycles thus immediately excluding the CHO/ITE research on 25 year cycles.In favouring grazing HLS excludes the opportunity to create employment and maintain traditional skills whilst exposing the next,critical,10 years to a fragile reliance on narrow husbandry choices with no resources to guide,monitor and account for inexperienced money driven stewards.Resilience?I think not. Sounds like the same situation as ESA?????

The history of manual environments leads conservators to believe that traditional methods will match current demands but fails to account for the non traditional impacts of the last 100 years.Two World Wars,ground and air pollution,industrialised agriculture,greater leisure time and access to recreation,climate change and a reduction in land mass.It also fails to account for public exclusion resulting in conflict and ultimately questioning the very funding that fuels the conservation industry. Innovation is ABSOLUTELY necessary, but infrequently considered, but only after conservators question their own impact on our environment.

Money is the global measure of environmental degradation and, in adopting a money lead 'cure', conservators are actually adding to global degradation whilst creating a placebo to convince the public of 'salvation'.

The only salvation will be population control and effective legislation and enforcement,to limit commerces huge global impact.

The key indicators of our future lie in the huge resources going into GM crops,laboratory produced meat and the creation of invented life forms at University College.Mankinds production of a false nature is indicative of a vision of humans going beyond the natural carrying capacity of our planet to maintain the lifestyles of a very few that benefit from extending consumerism.

YES.Conservation is a placebo and in challenging it we challenge huge international forces(Bilderburg etc)that demand the public be cuckolded into believing that action can be taken to remedy a problem only a reduction in human numbers could actually achieve.

Has no one questioned why conservationists carry on 'gardening' whilst the real issues are not tackled?Habitat recreation etc CANNOT work whilst whole phyla are being exterminated by commercial pollution(if there is no population there can be no repopulation) or constant demands for food and housing displace nature.Insect numbers are in exponential decline and thus Nightingale/Cuckoo declines become indicators.

We are on the edge and conservationists 'garden' whilst our Planet 'burns'.

Says Craig Weatherhill

'Conservation' used to mean 'safeguarding the environment, and protecting it for future generations to enjoy'. In that regard, I am a conservationist, always have been, always will be. A couple of decades ago, the word 'conservationist', when applied to Greenpeace and other such groups, was always spoken by newsreaders, politicians, officials and media commentators with a lip-curl, as though it were synonymous with 'crank'.

That was before profiteers and empire-builders saw it as a handy band-wagon to jump onto and seize control of the steering.

Like other words we can all think of, 'conservation' has now been misapplied to mean: 'the practice of monkeying around the environment to suit someone's pocket and indefensible agenda'.