National Trust High Peak consultation

Mark 16 Comments

Rumour has it that the NT are under considerable pressure from shooting interests to back down from their much-welcomed and much-heralded proposed position on grouse shooting, heather burning and raptor persecution in the High Peak.

I hope the rumours are wrong – they often are.

The National Trust doesn’t currently have much to shout about in its nature conservation work.  If they were to bend to pressure then I would suggest that some of its current supporters, not huge numbers but some, would lose patience completely.  There are plenty of places for us to send our hard-earned money and supporting the NT doesn’t come cheap.

[registration_form]

16 Replies to “National Trust High Peak consultation”

  1. It is sad but not surprising to hear that shooting interests are putting pressure on NT in this regard. Hopefully, enough NT members (and potential members!) who care about the health of the uplands and the wildlife they (should) support will write to them and give them sufficient reason to stiffen their backbone and apply the new position fully and wholeheartedly.

  2. It was inevitable and it is a line in the sand. There is only one way for NT to go – simply to hold the line it has taken which is right at every level. It is a very clear chance for Helen Ghosh, the new DG, to demonstrate where she stands.

    The National Trust needs to remember two things: that trust is more easily lost than gained and that giving way might be fine for a single shooting tenant but will actually do shooting (as well as the Trust) as a whole more harm than good.

  4. The NT will cave in, I think I mentioned how many “shooting” types were getting voted into positions of power at the NT on here before….don’t hold your breath for the NT you’ll only be let down, it’s one issue I pray I’m wrong on!

  5. Wouldn,t it have been better for the shooting industry to put pressure on the tennant shooters on a national trust site in a national park not to break the law in the first place, then not throw large sums of money at getting criminals off

  6. I think and hope I am right that Dame Helen is probably made of sterner stuff than lots of others in high ranking jobs,we could well find Dame Helen is what the Peak District has needed for many years,hope we all support her until we have any reason not to.

  7. Mark – Thanks for raising this. No, NT membership doesn’t come cheap, nor does visiting their houses and properties if you’re not a member (though it’s generally well worth it!).
    Reading this makes me nervous when I remember how the NT had rather hidden their HP consultation away so that many of their members didn’t know about it; see the comment by Jonathan Wallace about fifth down on your blog last November:
    https://markavery.info/2012/11/29/support-national-tru/#comments

    Interesting very loosely related piece in the Indie today about NGOs with large memberships and what stance they may be / should be taking:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/better-to-break-the-law-than-break-the-climate-8480416.html

  8. National Trust membership is not cheap but averaged over the year it does give some very cheap days out and the Cafes are quite good value. I do think most members are there for those days out and are not ‘supporters’ in the sense you may mean. I suspect as a result whatever the outcome of this process they are unlikely to lose many members.

    1. Bob – probably not many, I agree. But NT is, I guess, on a bit of a treadmill of recruitment. The poor summer, Olympics and Jubilee won’t have helped their income last year. Any loss of longbterm members is to be avoided if possible.

  9. “Rumour has it”

    “Shooting interests” being as they are they were bound to huff and puff about the NT’s position on these matters in the High Peak. So there wouldn’t be anything unexpected in that. If you are hoping for “rumour” to be wrong – and for shooting interests to lie down and plead to be walked all over (readers should mentally substitute a more satisfyingly lurid expression) – now that would be surprising!

    I hope NT sticks to its position on this.

    In the meantime, if the mysterious rumour could be fleshed-out with some names we could pile some opprobrium in the appropriate places – otherwise, I don’t think it helps much to threaten the NT with the withdrawal method on the grounds of what it might or might not do about what we don’t yet know about.

  10. I’m not in the least bit surprised about the rumours, the shooting lobby are very good at getting their own way ( in a different context we’d call them bullies). I do however hope that the NT hold firm on this one. As Mike says what part of the proposals do the shooters dislike as the plans are really just what all upland moorland management should be —— best practice. But then the grouse lobby has always always preferred self interest to best practice, as I say bullies.

  11. Going back before the ban on fox hunting came in, the NT tried to ban it or hunting with dogs on their land, the hunting and shooting organisations claimed the NT had been infiltrated by anti,s and urged as many of their members to join so they could eventually gain control of the board and protect their god given hunting rights. it would be interesting to know the make up of the board these days. I seem to re call that new members at the time had to say if they were into fieldsports or not

    1. Following the conviction of two members of the Heythrop Hunt for illegal hunting, the NT have stated that the hunt will be denied access to two of it’s estates in the Cotswolds. A NT spokesman said “whilst the illegal activity in this case did not take place on land we own, we consider it to be a serious breach of trust. The conviction has given us major cause for concern and how the hunt runs it’s activities” Perhaps a helpful indication of the Trust’s view?

Comments are closed.