Nice though the result was, it's still well worth examining the response of the Countryside Alliance (I hope I spelled that correctly). Here it is again, with my comments ...
But the Countryside Alliance - which campaigns on behalf of field sports
[not the countryside - field sports] - said it was "bitterly disappointed" by the decision since it believed the proposed research
[proposed destruction, more accurately] had been "sensible and proportionate".
"Wild animal management is an essential part of the countryside that is largely misunderstood by those in towns, cities and, apparently, Whitehall," the organisation's campaign director, Tim Bonner, said.
[As opposed to the Alliance largely misunderstanding everyone's opinion (and an awful lot of real research), including a lot of those who live in the country.]
"This study
[What study? I think he means the collected opinions of some gamekeepers. That's not a study] was explicitly non-lethal and right for the countryside
[i.e. Alliance] as a whole. That the government has chosen to ignore rural people
[i.e. the Alliance] in favour of a large and vocal special interest group
[i.e. just about every other interested party] shows ministers are now willing to give in to whoever shouts the loudest.
[Oh bugger! We lost another one!]"
The Countryside Alliance, an organisation which is anything but an alliance and certainly does not represent the majority opinion (or even interest) of rural dwellers, will continue to scream and stamp its feet because its toys have been taken away, and will continue to claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that only the Alliance point of view truly represents the necessities of rural life.
They'll be back. Meanwhile, here's an interesting site ...
http://www.realca.co.uk/
Mike
