Nevertheless a debate has begun to happen in spite of them and an increasing number of those who take the time to think about wildlife and landscape are questioning the national priorities from Natural England and the policies of the NGOs and landscape managers in councils and wildlife charities. Increasingly questions have been asked about their addiction to farm subsidies and livestock grazing.
The links below give some indication of the independent thinking going on that rarely or never gets into the media largely dominated by the farming industry and landowning interests.
It's worthwhile reading down in the first two articles linked below to get a flavour of real debate in the comments from the public.
"Why Are Britain's Conservation Groups So Lacking In Ambition"
"Why Britain's Barren Uplands Have Farming Subsidies To Blame"
The two articles linked next are from a rigorous study of the way our landscape is being managed.
"The Moral Corruption of Higher Level Stewardship"
"What Is Re-wilding?"
An article that tries to give a different view (with comments below)
The view of a sheep farmer
The view of a local resident.
Recently a new debate has begun, started by a group calling themselves Ecomodernists. They have their critics. The article by Chris Smaje is particularly recommended. Links below:
A criticism of Ecomodernism by Chris Smaje
Article in New Yorker
Lots more on this if you search for 'ecomodernism.' Not a nice word. And a warning is needed that among the proponents are some who will be an automatic turn-off for many people (Owen Paterson and his father-in-law Viscount Ridley).
More links on the way that grouse shooting has determined the look and quality of the U.K. landscape, its present character, its limited range of wildlife, and impact on other aspects of our environment.