*******************
I live within the suffocating boundaries of a national park, the towns and villages were here thousands of years before some twerp from London came along with a map and a pencil to decide where said boundary should be. The landscape the indigenous people created with their stone walls and deforestation isn't going to change much whether it is preserved in aspic or not. The only people who benefit from the protected status are the ones being paid vast salaries for doing the 'protecting', the fact is that we can't afford these Authorities, it is an added layer of bureaucracy that stifles growth and forces the people to leave only to be replaced by the NIMBY types who love to say they live in a national park, retirees from elsewhere in the main.
International human rights observers call it "soft eviction" or "voluntary resettlement", in other words "thank you for protecting this landscape for millennia but you can leave because we are here now"
40% of England is a protected area, how much of this land do we need? How many poor people ever visit? How many of them understand that the land isn't "National", it is owned by private individuals who struggle to scrape a living off it.
A full review of the legislation and the boundaries of these areas is required, inhabited communities should be ring-fenced with enough space to grow for a few hundred years.
Or better still scrap the designations and just preserve the wildernesses and snowy peaks so that the walkers and climbers, the elite, can say they did this or that in a national park when they get back to their nice jobs and pubs..
'via Blog this'
