The future of Dartmoor’s wild pony population has in recent weeks come under intense scrutiny. A running battle is being fought between regulators, conservationists, politicians and campaigners across traditional and social media, with the ponies caught in the crossfire. The debate – as these often do – has generated more heat than light, so the Countryside Alliance decided to uncover what is really happening.
The basic claim behind recent media stories is that Natural England, the government’s environmental advisor, has set out a policy that risks resulting in a cull of the semi-wild pony population on Dartmoor. Unsurprisingly, that news provoked public outrage. Responding last week, Natural England claimed:
“Natural England has not recommended a cull of Dartmoor ponies. We do not have the power to order a cull, and we have not advised one.”
If that were all there was to say, it would be the end of the matter; Natural England would have been unfairly maligned, and hysteria whipped up to no purpose. Closer inspection, however, reveals that it is not.
Natural England’s basic contention is that Dartmoor is being over-grazed, harming biodiversity across the landscape. That may be true, although there are suggestions that the scientific evidence may not be so clear-cut. Regardless, its proposed solution has been to require graziers to reduce animal stocking densities across the land by an average of around 75% if they are to continue to qualify for Environmental Land Management Scheme (ELMS) funding. ELMS, which replaced direct payments as the principal agricultural subsidy mechanism following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU Common Agricultural Policy, is a major component of farmers’ income.
However, Natural England also decided that Dartmoor ponies must be included when calculating stocking densities, along with the cattle and sheep that are being grazed commercially. Given that the commercial income those livestock generate represents the other main component of graziers’ income, the threat to Dartmoor ponies arises because graziers may be forced to reduce their number to meet the new thresholds and continue qualifying for ELMS money. If they instead cut numbers of grazing sheep and cattle, they would lose out on that commercial income and potentially put the economic viability of their work at risk.
This means it is technically true that Natural England has not ordered a cull of Dartmoor ponies, but if instead it is creating conditions that make a cull inevitable, the result would be the same. Just as the law makes no meaningful distinction between doing something and causing it to be done, Natural England cannot simply shrug its shoulders and disclaim responsibility. Indeed, in its 2023 report the independent Fursdon Review of Protected Site Management on Dartmoor said in terms:
“Dartmoor’s pony population is invaluable for conservation grazing and genetically important… Ponies and cattle should not be linked for the calculation of stocking rates and NE should not take actions likely to result in a reduction in their numbers.”
The report also recognised the importance of cattle to conservation grazing, and sheep to biodiversity and cultural heritage; it characterised over-grazing as a localised issue affecting parts of the moor rather than a problem across the whole area. Despite claiming fully to support the Review, nowhere in Natural England’s response to the recent coverage did it acknowledge, much less refute, its explicit recommendation against including ponies in stocking density calculations or taking any other actions that would produce a reduction in the number of ponies on Dartmoor.
The Countryside Alliance is firmly of the view that the semi-wild pony population on Dartmoor, which has existed there longer than England has existed as a country, is a vital element of our natural heritage and must be protected. So must the livelihoods of all those grazing livestock on the moor.
Natural England must think again. If it refuses to do so, the government must overrule it.
N.B. Since this article was written Natural England has extensively updated its response. One addition reads:
“Natural England’s position is consistent with the broad conclusions of the independent Fursdon Review: that Dartmoor’s ecosystems are in decline and require whole-system, collaborative management of grazing to recover nature while sustaining farming. Claims that Natural England is acting against the review rely on selective quotations about pony numbers, but the review itself emphasises balanced, evidence-based grazing across all livestock and the need for urgent change, not exemption for any one species.”
Another reads:
"Including ponies in calculations of grazing animals means that ponies will be properly recognised within agri-environment payment schemes.”
It remains the case, however, that the Fursdon Review explicitly rejected including ponies in stocking density calculations and suggested doing so might threaten pony numbers; this was a bald statement in its report, not a selective quotation. Recognition of pony grazing within ELMS would be welcome but must not come at the expense of grazier’s overall income. Otherwise the future of grazing on Dartmoor by ponies or livestock, which the statement now recognises as playing an important role in promoting biodiversity, could yet be put at risk.