George Monbiot raises some legitimate concerns about the management of parts of our national parks (Here’s a novel idea: protecting wildlife in our national parks, 28 February) but to write off all 15 of them entirely is nonsense.
Monbiot says: “Much of the land in our national parks is systematically burned.” But they are more than just moorlands; they contain one-third of England’s public forest estate. Northumberland contains some of the cleanest rivers in England; the New Forest includes a special area of conservation, an EU designation, that encompasses almost 30,000 hectares; and the Pembrokeshire coast some of the most biodiverse coastal habitats.
In 2017 it was reported that two populations of leek-coloured hawkweed, a plant previously thought to be globally extinct, have been discovered in the Peak District national park.
As the article highlights, our national parks are unlike those in countries where areas of wilderness have been put aside. There are around 120,000 people living within the boundaries of the South Downs national parks alone.
Campaign for National Parks recognises that while our parks are beautiful, more could and should be done to make sure the ecosystems within them are healthier and that some species are better protected. The parks are important for cultural heritage and recreational opportunities as well as their wildlife and landscapes.
Around 100 million people visit and benefit from our national parks each year. Monbiot’s conclusion that the parks are for the few rather than the many is, therefore, overly simplistic.
Fiona Howie
Chief executive, Campaign for National Parks
Monbiot clearly does not like national parks, burning or sheep. But his arguments are flawed. Areas such as Dartmoor had a much richer range of wildlife (birds and mammals) when the moors were subject to far greater human activity (including burning) than now – from tinners, stonecutters, peatcutters and others, over hundreds of years. The demise of wildlife must surely, in part, be due to loss of habitat in lowland Britain and on migratory routes beyond.
Nor does Monbiot understand that sheep are the best conservators of our cultural heritage and that Dartmoor has one of the finest cultural landscapes in the world, with physical evidence, accessible in an afternoon, of 6,000 years of human presence over every part of its moorland. Microscopic charcoal in peat tells us that the tradition of burning (swaling) superfluous vegetation in order to improve grazing quality of the sward is probably 8,000 years old. Due to de-stocking of the commons by prescriptions of Natural England since the mid-1990s, we already have a form of rewilding with vegetation (gorse and molinia grass) obscuring thousands of acres of cultural heritage, and impeding access for farmers and ramblers.
Monbiot talks of “burning libraries” – in fact, access to our “library” of cultural heritage on Dartmoor is gravely diminished as a result of current policies. Nature and culture must be balanced if we are to fully appreciate and learn from our millennia of human experience in Britain – new thinking of how to manage an eco-cultural zone such as Dartmoor is urgently needed.
Tom Greeves
Chairman, The Dartmoor Society
It is unfortunate that Monbiot omitted the scientific papers explaining that grouse moor management preserves and enhances these globally important heather-dominated habitats; conservation work funded by shoots managing moors for heather, harriers and other wildlife. Sustaining this management requires a clear understanding of how the ecosystem responds.
So we should clarify that the Langholm Moor Demonstration study has indicated that grouse numbers will not increase, from low levels to the levels required to run a shoot, while there is a high predation pressure, much of it caused by birds of prey. It seems likely that there will be a different response when maintaining higher numbers of grouse alongside birds of prey in favourable conservation status.
This latter issue is being addressed by Defra’s hen harrier recovery plan, which seeks to increase the numbers of these ground nesting birds alongside the shoots which provide their habitat, food and protection from foxes.
Andrew Gilruth
Director of Communications, Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust
Monbiot’s diatribe against all those involved in nurturing our moorlands is behind the curve, unjust and oversimplifies complex conservation issues.
Controlled restoration burning is a vital tool for land managers in the ongoing improvement of England’s unique upland ecology and plays an integral role in safeguarding the future of England’s upland peatlands and blanket bogs. The process of burning allows for vegetation management and can help speed up restoration while also providing wildfire breaks, and is embedded in the countryside stewardship scheme promoted by Defra. A huge effort is under way by land managers to ensure that new peatland restoration best-practice guidelines are adopted on blanket bog nationwide.
As for Monbiot’s assertion that “you can either have a rich ecosystem or grouse shooting but not both”, that claim does not hold true. Research shows that keepered moorland managed for red grouse safeguards protected habitats and is best for red-listed birds such as curlew and lapwing, which are up to five times more abundant on grouse moors (covering 30% of northern national parks in England) and are three times more likely to fledge their chicks because of legitimate predator control. Black grouse in England only exist on the edges of moorland managed for red grouse and nowhere else – yet they used to be common in every county.
Maps showing confirmed incidents of bird-of-prey crime show it is an issue across the UK, and the incredible recovery of populations like red kites and buzzards is a huge success. The statistics in the latest RSPB bird crime report show there has been a marked drop in confirmed incidents of raptor persecution over the last five years. This is the progress we all want to see. Where there are crime incident hotspots, additional resource is being invested to stamp it out.
Amanda Anderson
Director of Moorland Association
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com