Natural England's Double Standards: How FOI Disclosures Expose Institutional Bias Against Moorland Gamekeepers

In recent years Natural England have portrayed traditional moorland management techniques as reckless and claimed controlled burning ‘threatens peatland habitats and increases wildfire risk’.

Through selective evidence presentation and carefully choreographed policy announcements, the agency has systematically undermined experience built up generation after generation whilst presenting its own approach as unimpeachably scientific.

Freedom of Information requests by the Moorland Association however reveal what many suspected: Natural England's confident public pronouncements mask profound internal uncertainty, unresolved policy contradictions and institutional reluctance to acknowledge the practical expertise of those who actually manage these landscapes daily.

The gap represents a fundamental breach of trust with devastating consequences for rural livelihoods and moorland communities whose survival depends on grouse moor management.

Publicly, Natural England speaks with unwavering confidence about peatland wildfire risk and the dangers of traditional burning. Behind closed doors, the picture is starkly different.

Internal emails released under FOI reveal staff wrestling with fundamental questions about their own wildfire policies, acknowledging significant evidence gaps and admitting current guidance may not reflect operational realities.

Staff raise concerns that peatland fires behave differently from generic vegetation fires, that rigid thresholds may be inappropriate and that leaving smouldering peat fires unmanaged can cause precisely the ecological damage the agency claims to prevent.

Yet whilst gamekeepers raising identical concerns are dismissed as self-interested, Natural England's own staff making the same observations are quietly acknowledged internally whilst external messaging remains unchanged. Meanwhile, real families face unemployment, rural businesses collapse and entire communities dependent on moorland management confront an uncertain future based on policies the agency privately admits are contested and evolving.

When gamekeepers point out that peatland fires require specialist knowledge and that decades of practical experience should inform policy, they're accused of resisting change and prioritising profit. When Natural England staff raise precisely the same concerns, they're treated as thoughtful professionals.

This double standard doesn't just poison debate—it destroys livelihoods. FOI disclosures reveal staff questioning whether policies adequately balance conservation with safety, whether wildfire thresholds suit peatland contexts and whether overseas evidence applies to UK moorlands. These are exactly the questions gamekeepers have asked for years whilst watching their profession vilified and their communities threatened.

The difference? When gamekeepers ask them, restrictive policies proceed regardless. When Natural England staff ask them, it's legitimate policy development requiring careful consideration.

The FOI revelations raise a troubling question: has Natural England abandoned scientific impartiality in favour of predetermined policy objectives that align suspiciously well with anti-grouse shooting campaigners?

The pattern is striking. External activist groups have long demanded restrictions on moorland burning and grouse moor management, often making claims that go well beyond what evidence supports.

Rather than maintaining rigorous scientific standards, Natural England's public messaging consistently amplifies activist narratives whilst its own staff privately acknowledge the complexity and uncertainty those narratives ignore.

When an agency's public position aligns more closely with campaigning organisations than with its own internal expertise, questions about institutional independence become inevitable. It raises the question: has Natural England been captured by actors with malign intent against grouse moors?

The agency's willingness to present contested science as settled whilst systematically excluding practical expertise that contradicts activist preferences suggests this isn't simply poor communication—it's institutional bias with devastating real-world consequences.

FOI material shows staff are well aware of significant caveats: limited UK-specific data, substantial monitoring gaps and acknowledged uncertainties. None of this appears in public pronouncements, which consistently convey confidence that the science is settled.

When a gamekeeper observes that controlled burning reduces catastrophic wildfire risk, they're told evidence doesn't support this. Yet FOI disclosures show Natural England staff internally acknowledging that unmanaged peat fires cause extensive damage and that relationships between management practices and wildfire outcomes are complex.

The evidence hasn't changed. What's changed is whether presenting it honestly serves Natural England's institutional agenda or threatens the livelihoods of moorland families whose expertise contradicts that agenda.

Natural England's approach damages not just individual gamekeepers but entire rural communities. Moorland management supports networks of families, businesses and traditions built over generations. When the agency publicly demonises these communities whilst privately acknowledging uncertainty about its own positions, it inflicts reputational and economic damage on people whose only crime is possessing inconvenient expertise.

Most perniciously, it destroys trust. If FOI requests reveal agencies don't believe their own public messaging, why should communities threatened by resulting policies accept restrictions on their livelihoods?

What FOI disclosures reveal is an agency that manufactures public certainty whilst harbouring private doubt, applies different credibility standards depending on whether concerns align with institutional preferences and systematically denigrates expertise contradicting activist-aligned narratives.

Gamekeepers don't demand Natural England abandon conservation. They ask for policies grounded in honest evidence assessment, recognition that practical experience constitutes legitimate knowledge and acknowledgment that reasonable people can disagree without being branded environmentally destructive.

FOI disclosures show Natural England's staff understand this internally. The scandal is that this understanding disappears when addressing the public—conveniently aligning with anti-grouse shooting campaigners whilst devastating moorland communities.

Until Natural England demonstrates it hasn't been captured by activists with ideological agendas against grouse moors, until it shows gamekeepers the same respect it extends to its own staff, trust will remain broken and rural livelihoods will continue suffering from policies built on manufactured certainty rather than scientific honesty.

The evidence exists in Natural England's own words. The question is whether the agency values truth enough to acknowledge it before more families lose their livelihoods to activist-captured policymaking.