Dartmoor’s Grazing Dilemma
Dartmoor has a way of looking older than the arguments made about it. To visitors, on a typical grey day, the moor seems carved out of the weather; granite tors jut out of the ground like teeth and ponies duck from the wind. It is beautiful but its not gentle or neat and that’s not because it’s untouched. Dartmoor’s beauty is rough-edged, half-wild and half-worked, shaped by hooves, hands, boots, rain, and time.
There is a long-running debate on Dartmoor over grazing but the issues are bigger than a disagreement over livestock numbers. It is really a debate about what Dartmoor is, how it’s changing, for better and worse, and what kind of future it should have. To farmers and commoners, peoples who hold ancient legal rights to use land and its natural resources, grazing animals are part of their life and the moor’s soul. To conservationists, grazing is one of the pressures stopping fragile habitats from improving. But it may surprise you that this debate is not the issue, in fact both groups have near identical interests. Instead the issue is the incredibly complicated, and the focus now is reassembling the myriad of fragmented authorities who manage Dartmoor.
The truth: Dartmoor is both a farmed landscape and a protected one, neither side of that identity can simply be washed away, but what can be, and must be washed away, is the idea that this is “farming versus nature” or “farming versus conservation” or even “old vs new”, the moor is not a court room and the story extends far beyond High Court rulings. Dartmoor is woven together with many threads that fray, tighten and snap when pulled: Farming, wildlife, public access, government, local authority, peatland, law, money, history and local history all stitched together. The land management has been torn wide open and now it’s down to authorities like the Dartmoor Land Use Management Group (DLUMG)to figure out how the whole thing can hold.
Most famously, the tension reached the High Court in March 2026, when environmental campaigners group Wild Justice won part of its case against the Dartmoor Commoners’ Council, that ‘part’ was, however, small. Tom Usher, CEO of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, a 140 year old charity with volunteers working to manage and restore Dartmoor’s beauty, said this when asked how Wild Justice’s case had shaped the debate:
“The Wild Justice case was significant because it intensified public and legal scrutiny of how grazing and commons management operate on Dartmoor. It also reflected a growing national expectation that protected landscapes should deliver stronger outcomes for nature recovery. At the same time, the case risked reinforcing divisions and simplifying what is actually a very complex landscape management issue. Dartmoor cannot be understood purely through the lens of a court case. The future of the moor depends on building trust, improving evidence and creating workable solutions, not just legal arguments. It is important to note too that WJ lost their case. 7 of the 8 issues they asked for judicial ruling on were rejected by the courts.”
So, the ruling did not end the story. It left Dartmoor where it has been for years: caught between disagreements and fractured management on how to recover important nature and sustain a precious rural culture. Bob Elliot, CEO of Wild Justice, was contacted for comment, he found I’d learn most from the statement posted on their website.
“The High Court has ruled that Dartmoor commons have been mismanaged by Dartmoor Commoners’ Council (DCC), which did nothing to assess or prevent overgrazing resulting in the deterioration of important wildlife areas.” – Wild Justice
“In a judgment handed down today, the High Court ruled that DCC has failed in its legal duty under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 (DCA) to assess the number of animals which should be allowed to graze on Dartmoor.” – Wild Justice
Frankly, Wild Justice’s win seems hollow. 7 out of 8 claims were rejected and yet, this High Court case is the most prolific and covered part of a storied history that the public should understand.
Money behind the moor
Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) is an agri-environment scheme that pays farmers and commoners to manage land in ways that should support environmental goals. In theory, it is where farming and conservation meet. On Dartmoor, they collided.
Natural England, the UK government's official adviser for the natural environment, concluded in the 2023 Fursdon Review that protected sites were in too poor condition to support extensions without significant changes in management and reductions. This came after Natural England attempted to reduce livestock grazing numbers to meet environmental targets, sparking outcry from farmers who felt their livelihoods were threatened. To Natural England, this was about legal duties and habitat recovery. To many commoners and farmers, it felt like ground shifting beneath their feet.
From the outside, it’s easy to say ‘reduce grazing pressure’ but there is a human cost. The Fursdon Review states that farming on Dartmoor is extremely marginal, and records that average total farm business income for Less Favoured Area grazing livestock farms fell from £42,000 in 2021/22 to £25,400 in 2022/23. Behind the figures there are early mornings, lambing sessions, feed bills, weather risks and families wondering whether the next generation can keep going. If conservation policy is written without that consideration, it’s shutting the door on farmers and commoners. If farming carries on without ecological recovery, the moor’s protected habitats will continue to decline. Dartmoor is asking for both survival stories to be heard – but they’re not.
Too many hands on the same gate
You might be wondering, what is the Fursdon Review? That is a loaded and storied question.
Part of Dartmoor’s problem is that the responsibility of the land is spread across over a dozen authorities. Firstly, the Fursdon Review was convened by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) after the conflict between Natural England and farmers and commoners, the review, chaired by David Fursdon, Fursdon is His Majesty’s Lord-Lieutenant of Devon and was appointed by the Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs to chair the independent review panel addressing the management of protected sites and farming on Dartmoor. It is this review that found there was a troubling breakdown in trust between groups, evidence was contested and decision-making had not always felt transparent.
I asked Tom Usher his thoughts on the Fursdon Review’s assessment that land management has been unclear and ineffective:
“The Fursdon Review highlighted genuine concerns about how protected site management has operated on Dartmoor over many years. One of its key findings was that communication, governance and shared understanding between organisations had broken down, leading to mistrust and uncertainty.
I think many people involved with Dartmoor — from farmers to conservation bodies to community groups — would recognise that assessment to some extent. The review was valuable because it moved the conversation away from blame and towards the need for better coordination, clearer objectives and more collaborative working.”
So how then, with this assessment of what needs to happen, is management still struggling to cooperate? Well look at the sheer number of authorities: Natural England who advise on protected sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) condition; The Dartmoor Commoners’ Council who regulate commoner’s grazing rights; DEFRA who control farming policy and funding; The Dartmoor National Park Authority who have duties around conservation, heritage, and public enjoyment; The Duchy of Cornwall owns the Forest of Dartmoor and around them are farmers, commoners, conservation groups and charities, access groups and local communities. This is simply arcane, the shared responsibility was not working, while it might if the groups cooperated, this is a fog on decision making and improvement. Everyone can feel unheard.
The Dartmoor Land Use Management Group, known as DLUMG, was created after the Fursdon Review to bring these interests together. DEFRA said the group would develop a land-use framework and land-use plan for Dartmoor and oversee the government’s recommendations after the review. The DLUMG has representatives connected to Natural England, DNPA, Devon Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Historic England, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Dartmoor Preservation Association. Usher said one of the most positive things about DLUMG is that it has created “a space where people who have often disagreed strongly can sit around the same table and work constructively together.”
Personally, I was almost lost just trying to piece the sheer number of responsibilities and organisations and authorities and groups and communities and interest together, no wonder there has been a struggle to work toward a shared goal. But this image matters, and the public aren’t aware, a dysfunctional management of one of Devon and Cornwall’s beloved gems who argued over the moor now share a table. It is not dramatic in the way a court case is dramatic, but it is more important. Dartmoor’s future won’t be saved by one headline moment. It will be shaped through boring meetings, boring maps, scientific evidence, compromises and the slow work of listening.
A moor that is working, wounded and watched
95,000 hectares, 46,000 hectares of moorland, 36,000 hectares of registered common land – Dartmoor National Park is truly humungous. They are places where generations of commoners have turned out sheep, cattle and ponies, building a way of life around weather, animals and shared rights. They are also places with public access rights, places where generations of Devonians and visitors from all around England and the globe have come to appreciate Dartmoor’s natural beauty. Of those 95,000 hectares, 26,161.45 are SSSI land (Site of Special Scientific Interest), with only 6.62% in favourable condition, 47.42% unfavourable recovering, 38.18% unfavourable no change and 7.77% unfavourable declining according to the Fursdon Review. Natural England later said all of Dartmoor’s SSSIs are in unfavourable condition, in some cases due to overgrazing, under-grazing in others, as well as cases like excessive burning, peat cutting and drainage.
The word ‘overgrazing’ can land like a verdict. But the issue is more nuanced, in High Court, the judge came to a nuanced decision that grazing is a part of Dartmoor as is conservation, Natural England, the Fursdon Review, and Tom Usher also came to the same conclusion. ‘Overgrazing’ suggests too many animals, too much damage, too much pressure. Sometimes that may be true. On Dartmoor the picture is varied and uneven. Some places may have been grazed too hard. Others may be under-grazed, leaving vegetation to change in ways that harm habitats and increase wildfire risk. Natural England itself said viable farming businesses are key to sustainable management and that focusing on one issue, like overgrazing, will not work. Now consider that people’s ways of life and culture and identity and livelihoods hang in this tenuous balance.
Tom Usher put the dilemma clearly in our interview:
“At its heart, the debate is about how we restore and protect Dartmoor’s internationally important habitats while also sustaining the hill farming communities and commoning culture that have shaped the landscape for centuries,” “Too often the discussion becomes polarised into ‘farming versus nature’, when in reality Dartmoor depends on both. The challenge is finding the right type, timing and intensity of grazing in different places, based on evidence and local knowledge.”
That is far more insightful and eloquent than I could have put it. It is a deeply human answer. It recognises that Dartmoor is not a machine, it can’t be fixed by turning one dial down and another up, it is a living landscape, living things are not simple.
Why this matters beyond Dartmoor
To young readers, this must sound like a boring rural argument over a park they visited as children. Maybe the importance of that will be something they recognise, maybe it won’t.
However, there are questions asked by this that reach far beyond one National Park. How should land be managed when it is expected to do everything at once? Who gets listened to when science, law, tradition, and economics collide? What happens when protecting nature also means changing the lives of people who have managed that land for generations?
In a survey I conducted for the sake of this article among my peers, only 9 out of 22 respondents, that being the relative size of my whole class, said they would read an article nature. At first, I thought I’d made a terrible mistake, I’d chosen a project that no one would care for, but then I realised that the result is honest. 17 out 22 said they had an interest in nature and 14 out 22 said they used social media for news. It was obvious to me that people cared about nature, but they still needed a reason to stop scrolling. This is a reason. Dartmoor is a reason. Dartmoor grazing is not just a story, the moor is not just a scenery, but a place where national arguments and national interests for and about food, climate, wildlife, public money, and rural identity become real.
Tom explained to me how Dartmoor’s disputes and this new, nuanced approach to the moor, could potentially have a wider national impact:
“Dartmoor is being watched closely because it raises wider national questions about how protected landscapes should be managed in the future. The combination of the Fursdon Review, legal challenge and collaborative response through the DLUMG could become an important example of how difficult environmental conflicts are approached elsewhere.
What is encouraging is the growing recognition that these issues are rarely black and white. Productive farming, nature recovery, cultural heritage, climate resilience and public access all need to coexist. That requires nuanced, place-based solutions rather than simplistic narratives.”
The moor does not need easy villains
When I first discovered this story, prior to my extensive research, I gravitated to the notion that there were 2 sides, a conflict and a winner or a righteous defendant or a hero or something. In fact the easiest version of this story would be to choose a side and sharpen it, like some unnamed publishers. Farmers damaging nature. Conservationists attacking tradition. Public bodies hiding behind process. Each version is a small part of the truth, too small. The hard truth is that the moor needs this group of people who can’t agree to keep working together, side by side. Grazing may need to fall in some places and continue in others, people who can’t accept that need to, they need to make concessions for one another. Natural England should continue to be clear about its evidence. The Commoners’ Council need to assess stocking levels appropriately. Conservation groups need to understand that communing is not an obstacle, but part of Dartmoor’s history, culture and management. Farmers need fair funding and clear, shared objectives if they are being asked to deliver public benefits.
Dartmoor is marked, faded, loved, argued over, cherished, you can’t paint over it, because it’s impossible to replace. Usher’s final statement eloquently returned to trust:
“The most important change is rebuilding trust and shared purpose between the organisations and communities involved in managing Dartmoor,” he said. “Without that, even the best technical solutions will struggle.”
He said Dartmoor also needs “clear objectives, stable funding and management systems that are transparent, evidence-led and capable of adapting over time.”
Then came the line that stayed with me most: “Dartmoor is one of the UK’s most important cultural landscapes, and its future depends on recognising that people and nature are not separate interests there;they are deeply interconnected.”
It may seem impossible, but that is the Dartmoor Dilemma in its most simple form. The moor is not asking whether farming or nature should win. It is asking whether people can be patient, honest and cooperative enough to let both survive.
Special thank you to Tom Usher who, when all other sources ignored or refused our contact, offered every insight and piece of help he could.