Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Some points to consider;grazing as the 'lead'tool in NE's 'armoury'is capable,under the right circumstances, of producing the result NE target BUT research clearly indicates that expert management is required to achieve that result or degradation will occur(as in the National Nature Reserve,run by NE,on the Lizard,below Goonhilly).The imposition,nationwide,of a 'one trick pony'that NE cannot guarantee the results of on their own reserve and within a regime wherein NE have had 30% cutbacks but the stewardship landmass has expanded leaves the 'tool'compromised and NE's competence in question.Farmers/stewards are being asked to farm a new crop-our environment-without the necessary support structures to ensure results.NE know that they have a responsibility toward the public,esp.the legally enshrined rights of the disabled.They also know that grazing is an exclusive option that denies their responsibilities under that act on public access land(wherever feasible)but choose to ignore it(as in the HEATH Project Cornwall).A case exists wherein the Heritage Lottery Fund trustees and NE excluded two key contractual clauses(which were normally included)that would normally insist on "public agreement" and disabled access to achieve agreement to funding.Why would this be????Is it indicative of an agenda targeting exclusion??Is it indicative of an agricultural agenda to match population growth???Mr Jim Paice(agri minister)in a letter to myself stated that agri/env schemes could be sculpted to local needs.NE in a similar letter wrote that they would find it hard to agree to funding schemes that excluded grazing.One dept two agendas!