Why We Have Written to Friends of the Dales

✅ KEY TAKEAWAY: The Moorland Association is formally asking for a trustee-level review of the Friends of the Dales’ "Eyes on the Skies" campaign.

Many members will already be aware of Friends of the Dales’ recent “Eyes on the Skies” campaign and its associated webinars. After reviewing the material carefully, the Moorland Association has now written formally to the charity’s Chair and Trustees to raise serious concerns about governance, educational standards and campaigning compliance.

This is not about trying to shut down discussion. Wildlife crime is a legitimate matter of public interest and it should be discussed. Our concern is different. It is about whether a charity presenting itself as an educational body has met proper standards of fairness, balance, evidence and trustee oversight when dealing with such a contentious subject.

What we are asking for

In our letter, we have asked the Friends of the Dales board to carry out a formal trustee-level review of the “Eyes on the Skies” campaign, including the webinars, petition and related messaging.

We have asked them to explain clearly what governance and approval process was followed, what editorial and compliance checks were carried out, and what records, minutes, policies or risk assessments support those decisions. We have also asked for a written outcome, together with any corrections, clarifications or preventative steps needed for the future.

Why this matters

This matters because charities have responsibilities. They are free to address controversial issues, but when they do so under the banner of education, the public should be able to expect balance, evidential caution and proper governance.

Our concern is that material presented in these webinars appears, in places, to have blurred the line between evidence and inference, between education and advocacy, and between criticism of wrongdoing and broad-brush portrayal of lawful rural workers. That is not a small issue. It goes to fairness, public confidence and community cohesion.

This is not about avoiding scrutiny

Let us be clear. The Moorland Association does not argue that wildlife crime should be ignored or minimised. Anyone involved in criminal activity should face the consequences.

But scrutiny must be fair. It must distinguish between allegation and proof, between individual wrongdoing and entire professions, and between a campaigning message and an educational one. Those distinctions matter, especially when public platforms are being used to discuss named estates, identifiable individuals or disputed interpretations.

Why we are standing up for members

Gamekeepers, estate staff and others involved in lawful moorland management are not abstract figures in a national argument. They are part of the fabric of our upland communities.

Recent evidence shows just how wide-ranging that role is. Gamekeepers are not simply managing grouse. They are educators, land managers, wildlife wardens, fire fighters and first responders. They support local shows, schools and charity events, host visits from conservation organisations and policymakers, and help members of the public in difficulty. The same evidence also shows that many are already facing threats, insults and even physical assault because of their occupation.

When public campaigning uses sweeping language about “gamekeepers” as a group, there is a real risk that lawful local people become targets for hostility. That is one reason why we believe trustees should have been especially careful about tone, moderation and the wider consequences of what was being promoted in the charity’s name.

The bigger picture

This issue is about more than one campaign. It is about the standards that should apply in public debate about the uplands.

Members know that moorland management is complex. It involves conservation, habitat work, wildfire prevention, predator control, peatland restoration, public access and rural employment. The 2025 report into grouse moor gamekeepers underlines just how much work is done year-round, and how significant the social, environmental and economic contribution of moorland management remains.

That is precisely why debate must be responsible. Strong opinions are one thing. Responsible governance is another.

What happens next

We have asked Friends of the Dales to respond substantively within 28 days. We have also asked for immediate trustee oversight of the matter and for clear corrective steps where appropriate.

Our preference is for constructive engagement and a practical resolution. But we do expect proper answers. Members should know that where MA believes standards of fairness, governance and public responsibility have fallen short, we will say so calmly, clearly and with evidence.

Why we are doing this

Our members deserve fair treatment. Rural workers should not be casually stigmatised and charities that claim to educate the public should meet proper standards.

Robust public debate about the uplands must be grounded in evidence, fairness and accountability - not one-sided campaigning dressed up as education. 

Don't Miss the Latest Moorland News

Get news of policy shifts, new research and land management changes that affect upland Britain, delivered free every week. If it matters on the moor, you'll hear it from us first.

Sign Up Free