90% of Dartmoor Ponies to be culled under order from Natural England???

[myotis]

If anyone is following this rather odd story. Odd, because Dartmoor ponies have an important (vital) role in helping to achieve Natural England's biodiversity aims for Dartmoor.

Here is a statement from Natural England in response to the current media coverage. Unnecessary spoiler alert: it isn't true.

Grazing on Dartmoor – Setting the record straight on Natural England's role

This blog was updated on 16th June Recent media coverage has suggested that Natural England has recommended a cull of ponies on Dartmoor. This is categorically not true, nor is it true to suggest any scheme has been designed with …

naturalengland.blog.gov.uk

 

[Box Brownie]

The news item I saw yesterday seemed too infer/suggest that sheep & cattle grazing, which is the money earner for the farmers, are considered to commercially valuable to reduce their numbers = the non commercial livestock is under scrutiny.

 

[myotis]

The news item I saw yesterday seemed too infer/suggest that sheep & cattle grazing, which is the money earner for the farmers, are considered to commercially valuable to reduce their numbers = the non commercial livestock is under scrutiny.

I suspect this is where the story becomes more nuanced and needs a deeper investigation than I am willing to give it.

As I understand it, the main problem on Dartmoor is Mollinia, and pony (and cattle) grazing is one of the best ways of controlling Mollinia. Natural England are actively encouraging pony grazing.

Sheep grazing encourages Mollinia growth, so while I don't know what advice has come from Natural England, I suspect it would be sheep grazing they would like to see reduced - not that they have the powers to order any sort of livestock cull.

But I assume the Countryside Stewardship payments will have grazing conditions. I'm not that familiar with the details of agri-environment schemes, especially the new ones.

From what I heard on the TV, the Countryside Stewardship contract isn't distinguishing between "good" grazing (pony and cattle) and "bad" grazing (sheep). But the contracts are drawn up by DEFRA, Natural England only advises, and you can understand why DEFRA might want to let the farmers decide how they met grazing targets, even if this wasn't in the best interests of biodiversity.

 

[Tringa]

There were a few postings on Facebook yesterday with lots of outrage about how, allegedly, Keir Starmer was going to have Dartmoor ponies culled from those who had not looked any further than the clickbait headline.

Dave

 

[myotis]

There were a few postings on Facebook yesterday with lots of outrage about how, allegedly, Keir Starmer was going to have Dartmoor ponies culled from those who had not looked any further than the clickbait headline.

Dave

Facebook also had a post on how Starmer had bowed to Conservative Party pressure and reversed "his" decision to cull the Dartmoor ponies.

Facebook is a cesspit of rage and misinformation.

I joined years ago because a course I was on used Facebook to give support, and actually found it useful, e.g it seems the only way to keep track of our local bus "random" timetable changes is through the village Facebook page

It didn't seem too bad at first, but now it's full of lies and bile goading people to rage. Probably my fault, as I started reading the occasional "unbelievable" post because I couldn't believe it, and now they make up the majority of what I get.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

It didn't seem too bad at first, but now it's full of lies and bile goading people to rage.

Perhaps we could have a "rage tax" on the carriers.

If we set it at £1 per ten words, or part thereof, it might even fund the necessary improvements to our NHS, at least until the carriers avoided paying it by barring such behaviour.

 

[Tringa]

Facebook also had a post on how Starmer had bowed to Conservative Party pressure and reversed "his" decision to cull the Dartmoor ponies.

Facebook is a cesspit of rage and misinformation.

I joined years ago because a course I was on used Facebook to give support, and actually found it useful, e.g it seems the only way to keep track of our local bus "random" timetable changes is through the village Facebook page

It didn't seem too bad at first, but now it's full of lies and bile goading people to rage. Probably my fault, as I started reading the occasional "unbelievable" post because I couldn't believe it, and now they make up the majority of what I get.

I saw that too. Quite a few saying things like, "how many more U turns from the PM?"

The page where I saw it was, if the title is to be believed, from Kemi Badenoch.

Fortunately, there were others who said its not a U turn because the alleged decision was never made, but I assume others will not read far enough to see anything other than the title.

Dave

 

[myotis]

I saw that too. Quite a few saying things like, "how many more U turns from the PM?"

The page where I saw it was, if the title is to be believed, from Kemi Badenoch.

Fortunately, there were others who said its not a U turn because the alleged decision was never made, but I assume others will not read far enough to see anything other than the title.

Dave

Yes I saw these as well, but trying to introduce some actual evidence into these discussions is futile.

The problem today is that we are trying to rebuff opinions based on deeply ingrained "beliefs" based on untruths and misrepresentations absorbed over multiple years.

Trying to argue against a "belief" with facts and evidence, when that belief was never based on facts and evidence in the first place, turns out to be futile.

Of course, science also relies on "beliefs", but these beliefs are based on evidence and analysis, so unlike beliefs based on just "knowing you are right" scientists can more easily change their beliefs as and when the evidence changes.

However, we are wandering away from the original topic and dangerously moving towards discussing politics !

 

[myotis]

Well according to Fred Thomas MP, it was the last government, in 2024, that added Dartmoor Ponies to the Dartmoor agri-environment scheme grazing quotas.

Before then, Ponies had been excluded from the quotas. It looks as if the current government is now looking at excluding them again.

I'm guessing that as the rollover to the current agri-environment scheme was delayed a couple of years, this is the first time the implications of that change have come to light.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Of course, science also relies on "beliefs", but these beliefs are based on evidence and analysis,

The difference between science and belief, I was taught, is that scientists attempt to disprove every theory while belief is about protecting theory.

Over the last sixty years this appears to have changed with scientists protecting theories instead of doing their best to disprove them.

 

[ancient_mariner]

The difference between science and belief, I was taught, is that scientists attempt to disprove every theory while belief is about protecting theory.

Over the last sixty years this appears to have changed with scientists protecting theories instead of doing their best to disprove them.

I'm not sure if that's the conclusion from our last conversation about theoretical science, but in general few are interested in disproving or defending theories. Doing that won't find cures for cancer, make a vaccine to Ebola, slow global warming or prevent aeroplanes crashing. Instead we would rather take what we have evidence to support and get on with doing something useful with it.

Sorry if that comes over a bit sharp, science must be practical as well as theoretical.

 

[Jannyfox]

This is quite a long running issue that seems to have been picked up very suddenly by every media outlet there is. Probably because it whips the public into a frenzy which in turn drives engagement with and therefore revenue for those outlets. That's the way media works now
A longer running issue is 'is Dartmoor under or over grazed?' It's actually both, but in different areas
I'm not an expert so stay well away from the arguments

 

[myotis]

The difference between science and belief, I was taught, is that scientists attempt to disprove every theory while belief is about protecting theory.

That might be the difference between science and "faith" but scientists still need to decide what theories they "believe" are more "likely" (based on evidence and analysis) to be more correct than any competing theories.

Scientists don't "constantly" try to disprove theories. That would be counterproductive, e.g. you don't want to plough time, money and effort trying to disprove things that have only a tiny probability of being incorrect. or rather, incorrect enough to matter. e.g. the earth is round .

But, with ongoing research, scientists are constantly creating more questions than they are finding answers, and part of this is to raise questions on how correct some of those tiny probabilities of being wrong theories actually are. At this point, the work needed to challenge currently accepted scientific beliefs will begin.

What, seems to be missed by many people about science is that scientists constantly disagree with each other over how to interpret the evidence and analysis.

So that based on the same data, one scientist will believe one particular answer/explanation is the most likely, while another will believe a different answer/explanation is more likely. This is one of the reasons I talk about 'beliefs" when it comes to science.

Over the last sixty years this appears to have changed with scientists protecting theories instead of doing their best to disprove them.

There have always been scientists who protect a pet theory, but I don't recognise this as a fair generalisation.

 

[myotis]

This is quite a long running issue that seems to have been picked up very suddenly by every media outlet there is. Probably because it whips the public into a frenzy which in turn drives engagement with and therefore revenue for those outlets. That's the way media works now
A longer running issue is 'is Dartmoor under or over grazed?' It's actually both, but in different areas
I'm not an expert so stay well away from the arguments

Natural England, are giving different grazing advice, for different parts of the moor.

 

[Jannyfox]

Natural England, are giving different grazing advice, for different parts of the moor.

Not Natural England but just a sweeping statement I hear time and time again

 

[myotis]

Not Natural England but just a sweeping statement I hear time and time again

I was supporting your comment, "It's actually both, but in different areas"

 

[myotis]

It's turning out (surprise, surprise) to be tricky sorting out what is actually going on with this

Here is a post, which appears authoritative, with extracts from the current agreements on Dartmoor that show the grazing quotas have always included the ponies, with individual quotas for each different grazing animal, and that these vary across the moor.

It doesn't really explain what has now changed, but the suggestion from elsewhere is that the new grazing quota now lumps all grazing animals together. Which continues to make no sense to me, so I'm still looking :-(

It's a longish read, but probably worth it.

Ponies, Dartmoor and fake news

There’s been a deluge of misinformation recently about ponies on Dartmoor. Dartmoor Nature Alliance’s Tony Whitehead looks at the origins and potential impacts of the current “pony campaigning". He starts by looking at the origins of agri-environment schemes, which are central to this “debate”...

www.dartmoornature.org.uk

 

[myotis]

I think I will have to stop after this, as it seems the agri-environment, schemes are a little complex, and I'm pretty confident this is only part of the story, The problem is that searching for Dartmoor specific information, so far isn't proving very successful :-(

But here is a relevant extract from what would appear to be key guidance (updated March 2026)

CUP14: Shepherding livestock on moorland (remove stock for a minimum of 8 months)

What you must do to get paid for this CSHT action and advice on how to do it.

www.gov.uk

CUP14: Shepherding livestock on moorland (remove stock for a minimum of 8 months)​

Duration​

10 years

How much you’ll be paid​

£48 per hectare (ha) per year

Action’s aim​

This action’s aim is that livestock grazing on moorland is managed to avoid affecting features that are sensitive to damage from grazing, wherever possible.


You must also either:

• remove all livestock (except resident ponies) from land entered into this action for at least 8 consecutive calendar months
• follow a stocking calendar which may include a map of livestock exclusion areas (as agreed with your Natural England adviser)

‘Resident ponies’ means ponies which are traditionally kept on the moorland, such as Dartmoor or Exmoor ponies.


EDIT: well I have been browsing through the various payments available as part of the Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier (CSHT) schemes for Dartmoor, and it isn't at all obvious what the basis is for the issue.

Of all the payment schemes I've looked at, ponies (and sometimes cattle) are excluded from the grazing requirements or there is more money available for grazing ponies and cattle than for grazing sheep. Which is how I expected it to be, but given the furore, I must be missing something.

 

[Jannyfox]

It's turning out (surprise, surprise) to be tricky sorting out what is actually going on with this

Exactly this
My social media is full of this, all to whip people, most of whom have no clue, into outrage. I've found it impossible to work out what's real and what isn't. The only thing that is clear is that the ponies are being used by everyone with an agenda to bash, but that's the way of the world now

 

[myotis]

Exactly this
My social media is full of this, all to whip people, most of whom have no clue, into outrage. I've found it impossible to work out what's real and what isn't. The only thing that is clear is that the ponies are being used by everyone with an agenda to bash, but that's the way of the world now

Unfortunately, I fully agree with you.

One post I saw claimed that destroying our ponies was part of a larger EU plot, which also included the 100 million pound HS2 bat bridge, all evidence that Natural England should be shut down. But his rant was as wide-ranging as it was irrational.

As an aside, and I've posted this before, neither Natural England, nor the HS2 bat consultants played any part in the HS2 decision to build this notorious bat bridge, and I'm afraid, if there is any underpinning plot going on, I see it as one against anything related to nature conservation and environmental protection.

 

[ancient_mariner]

One post I saw claimed that destroying our ponies was part of a larger EU plot, which also included the 100 million pound HS2 bat bridge, all evidence that Natural England should be shut down. But his rant was as wide-ranging as it was irrational.

As an aside, and I've posted this before, neither Natural England, nor the HS2 bat consultants played any part in the HS2 decision to build this notorious bat bridge, and I'm afraid, if there is any underpinning plot going on, I see it as one against anything related to nature conservation and environmental protection.

I suspect the same source as tried to spread stories about Starmer and rent boys - it's so cheap and easy now to poison public discourse, why wouldn't you do it if your aim was a general decay of western society? Unfortunately some seem to grasp it as though it were truth and run with it, not seeing the falsehood for what it is.

 

[myotis]

I suspect the same source as tried to spread stories about Starmer and rent boys - it's so cheap and easy now to poison public discourse, why wouldn't you do it if your aim was a general decay of western society? Unfortunately some seem to grasp it as though it were truth and run with it, not seeing the falsehood for what it is.

You do wonder at times, how we have got here, especially as the individuals and organisations that seem to be targeted are unlikely to be having a major influence on what is wrong with the world. They are just easy targets for people's frustrations, and this is being exploited by those who want to disrupt society for personal gain.

 

[ancient_mariner]

You do wonder at times, how we have got here, especially as the individuals and organisations that seem to be targeted are unlikely to be having a major influence on what is wrong with the world. They are just easy targets for people's frustrations, and this is being exploited by those who want to disrupt society for personal gain.

It's too obvious, the comments and accusations made are too resistant to logic or discussion while often being based on very tenuous information and here-say.

 

[myotis]

OK,

Apparently the change has been that previously, ponies were always treated separately (but still had grazing quotas), but now "in some cases" the cattle and ponies are being treated as equivalents.

There is an explanation linked below. But they don't make it clear that cattle and ponies aren't always treated as equivalents.

I only know this because I actually read through some of the grant application instructions this morning, and on some, the ponies are lumped in with cattle and with some they are not.

Claims of Dartmoor pony cull reignite row over how to save Britain’s moorlands

Semi-wild ponies are valuable for habitat restoration, yet policy changes may threaten their survival.

theconversation.com

In terms of biodiversity, and depending on the circumstances, it may not matter whether it's cattle or ponies, and different types of grants are available for different parts of the moor.

It's probably worthwhile reiterating that landowners sign up to these schemes voluntarily, and the public money is being spent to help finance farming in an environmentally/ecologically friendly manner.

1.1 Higher Tier environmental priorities

The main priority for Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier is to protect and enhance the naturalenvironment, in particular:

• biodiversity (the diversity of wildlife)
• water quality.

Other outcomes supported are:
• woodland improvement
• flood management
• the historic environment
• landscape character
• genetic conservation
• educational access
• climate change adaptation and mitigation.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5f6b20d88fa8f55f363aebaa/CS_Higher_Tier_v2.0.pdf

 

[Tringa]

Yes I saw these as well, but trying to introduce some actual evidence into these discussions is futile.

The problem today is that we are trying to rebuff opinions based on deeply ingrained "beliefs" based on untruths and misrepresentations absorbed over multiple years.

Trying to argue against a "belief" with facts and evidence, when that belief was never based on facts and evidence in the first place, turns out to be futile.

Of course, science also relies on "beliefs", but these beliefs are based on evidence and analysis, so unlike beliefs based on just "knowing you are right" scientists can more easily change their beliefs as and when the evidence changes.

However, we are wandering away from the original topic and dangerously moving towards discussing politics !

I'm reminded of something I read from the Australian philosopher, Patrick Stokes. He said when he has new students he says that they have probably heard, 'everyone in entitled to their opinion', and then says, "You are not entilted to your opinion, you are only entitled to what you can argue for"

Dave

 

[myotis]

I'm reminded of something I read from the Australian philosopher, Patrick Stokes. He said when he has new students he says that they have probably heard, 'everyone in entitled to their opinion', and then says, "You are not entilted to your opinion, you are only entitled to what you can argue for"

Dave

I used to say something similar to my students. When completing assignments, I was happy for them to promote any opinion they wanted to, but it had to come with a credible supporting argument.

At the core of all university teaching is critical thinking and independent thought, supported by sound argument, regardless of discipline.

That is of course why graduates are more likely to be left wing than right wing

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

That is of course why graduates are more likely to be left wing than right wing

Years ago, I listened to a radio debate, possibly "Any Questions".

I cannot recall the subject of the debate but at one point, someone made a similar comment, to which another speaker responded with something like: "Aye, they're all good socialists, until the boss offers them more money because of their piece of paper!"

Not anything like so true nowadays, of course, if it ever was.

 

[myotis]

Years ago, I listened to a radio debate, possibly "Any Questions".

I cannot recall the subject of the debate but at one point, someone made a similar comment, to which another speaker responded with something like: "Aye, they're all good socialists, until the boss offers them more money because of their piece of paper!"

Not anything like so true nowadays, of course, if it ever was.

I don't think I understand what "...their piece of paper means"

But regardless, I think there is a difference between following a specific left-wing or right-wing ideology and having a left-wing leaning vs a right-wing leaning.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I don't think I understand what "...their piece of paper means"

But regardless, I think there is a difference between following a specific left-wing or right-wing ideology and having a left-wing leaning vs a right-wing leaning.

Their degrees. The implication is that you should be paid the same regardless of education - which if you're doing the same job no better than someone without a degree is fair. OTOH if a graduate can do a better job than a non-graduate then they're worth a higher wage.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Their degrees. The implication is that you should be paid the same regardless of education - which if you're doing the same job no better than someone without a degree is fair. OTOH if a graduate can do a better job than a non-graduate then they're worth a higher wage.

This is a principle that "true socialists" often take issue with and of course, it's a cornerstone of capitalism.

Unfortunately, the true adherents on both sides are usually unwilling to understand, let alone accept, each other's opinions.

 

[myotis]

Their degrees. The implication is that you should be paid the same regardless of education - which if you're doing the same job no better than someone without a degree is fair. OTOH if a graduate can do a better job than a non-graduate then they're worth a higher wage.

I have only ever employed people with degrees (or postgraduate qualifications), and having only a first degree, a masters or a PhD is a pretty blunt tool in predicting how good they will be at their job, and how much they are worth paying.

But, in principle, if someone has shown the staying power and discipline to complete an apprenticeship, a degree, a masters or a PhD, (or other formal training) I think it should carry some weight at the interview stage, which might include a higher starting salary.

But equally someone without the bit of paper (or a lesser bit of paper), but with relevant experience, could also be offered a higher starting salary.

Thereafter, it was entirely down to how well someone did the job.

 

[Eucris]

Personally I think qualifications are overrated. I went to the local secondary modern school and left with a CSE in sums. I learnt more in the real world than I ever did in a classroom.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Personally I think qualifications are overrated. I went to the local secondary modern school and left with a CSE in sums. I learnt more in the real world than I ever did in a classroom.

That's more or less true for me as well - left with 'O' level Chemistry and Biology B and C grades. Also got a U for maths and GCSE grade 3 (IIRC) for English. The last person I recruited to work for me has a PhD and she's super-bright, worth every penny they pay her. It would probably be near impossible for me to do the same again as I did back then, taking my degree part-time on 1 day/week.