I am campaigning for Shelter 4 Sheep. Animals are left out in appalling weather conditions and they have nowhere to go to get relief. farmers should be made to provide adequate dwellings for shelter. It is important because animals deserve better. No animal should have to endure days and nights out in the freezing, icy winds, rain, snow, frost! Why do people think animals do not want somewhere nice to retreat to in bad weather? Why do they think they do not want a place to go out of the cold? Animal welfare rules state shelter MUST be provided, and it seldom is. I've even had an official from a council come out to look at some sheep in a field with nothing more than a water trough, and tell me `Yes adequade shelter has been provided, there are hedges all round the field` that is not good enough! Shelter needs to be also a building, a dwelling to go into, to get out of the chilly winds, the wet rain, the freezing cold snow! I have seen sheep die infront of my eyes due to farmers failing to provide shelter for them, due to farmers failing to provide veterinary care for their stock. It is cruel it is evil. Then you get the crowd who say, " They wouldn't have buildings in the wild." That's as maybe but what they would have had is trees to go under, Bracken, foliage, bushes, all the things Humans take from them, to put them in a field surrounded by an electric fence. Also the one's who say - " They have very thick fleeces, they are hardy animals." Yes they have thick fleeces, but they still deserve a place to go to get out of the wet and cold. Would you sleep well if you had stood out in the pouring rain all day, nowhere dry to sit down, nowhere to go to get away from it, you had to endure it until it stops, then you do not always get sun to dry the ground immediately or dry your coat. Would you sleep well and feel ok if you had to stand out all day and night in blizzards of freezing snow? Then only have wet, frozen ground to sit or lie on? No. You would be very ill and most likely die.

Grouse moor owners receive many millions of pounds in subsidies from EU and UK. This is public money and is given on the premise that landowners do something to benefit the public. The poor management of these moors has been a contributory factor in increasing flood risk and in dramatically reducing raptor numbers in the UK. These moors are run for financial profit, are used by and benefit only a very few rich people who choose the killing of grouse as a pastime. There is absolutely no justification for public funding of these estates and I ask that you sign this petition to end it.

A planning application was submitted to Highland Council to construct an 18-hole international golf course on Coul Links, Sutherland but the applicant is not Trump Golf. The target lies within Loch Fleet Site of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Area for birds & international Ramsar wetland, which is predominantly estuary. Coul Links is one of very few expanses of undeveloped & largely unspoilt sand dunes remaining in Scotland, & its special wildlife & landforms are protected by those UK & European legal designations & international treaty. Development would be at odds with Highland Council’s environmental policies. The government’s conservation agency, which objected, describes SSSIs as “areas of land & water that Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) considers to best represent our natural heritage - its diversity of plants, animals & habitats, rocks & landforms, or a combination of such natural features. They are the essential building blocks of Scotland's protected areas for nature conservation … It is an offence for any person to intentionally or recklessly damage the protected natural features of an SSSI." Trump got official approval to destroy Foveran Links SSSI after exaggerating economic benefits, much shenanigans & Scottish Government intervention. That site will probably be denotified as SSSI (confirmed Dec 2020). The present speculator is Coul Links Ltd. led by Mike Keiser, President of Bandon Dunes Golf Resort, Oregon, Trump Golf’s main global rival, & entrepreneur Todd Warnock who similarly claims 'I can make this environment better'. From Oct 2015, press articles publicised proposals for the golf course. Developers blithely spoke of perceived advantages to golf & economy, ignored conservation designations but mentioned new nature trails & wildlife ‘information’. Development propaganda has not informed the public what wildlife, habitat, landforms & amenity will be destroyed & degraded. Exhibitions in Aug 2016 & Oct 2017, to elicit public votes of support, paid scant attention to wildlife & presented flawed ecology. The former relegated a habitat survey to just a tiny cryptic map at Scottie dog eye level. The less truth people know the less insensitive the plans appear. Golf course construction would be an unnatural catastrophe. It would mean excavating, recontouring, burying wet slacks, reseeding with introduced grasses, addition of plastic membranes, irrigating & intensively mowing 40.5 ha, habitat fragmentation, under-grazing & eradication of (valuable grazers & browsers) rabbits & deer, fertilising & herbiciding (& run-off), with substantial collateral damage, immediate & insidious, & bulk habitat & species translocation of 4.5 ha. dune heath, with insects & rare lichens, & 100 rare dune juniper, with displacements on receptor areas, contrary to government's 'A Habitats Translocation Policy for Britain' (2003) recently relaxed. Size & connectivity of habitats are ecologically critical, affecting species populations, diversity, interaction & survivability. Construction traffic, borrow pits & sand-moving would disturb & damage the geomorphology, hydrology (water quality & seasonality), low-nutrient profiles (on which plants rely) & habitat biodiversity over a much wider area. Fine irregular patterns of topography, micro-habitats & vegetation mosaics, like dry hummocks & wet slacks, would be destroyed, displacing specialised, scarce, rare & vulnerable plants & insects. Human disturbance would reduce bird populations in surviving habitats. Dunes naturally have cycles of erosion & deposition. Plans include greens & fairways constructed near foredune crests & a burn outlet, eliminating important species & weakening natural sea defences regardless of risks. This would probably necessitate adding a culvert & an artificial expanse of boulder rip rap, leading to beach narrowing (part National Nature Reserve) & coastal erosion nearby, the judgement of leading geomorphologist Dr Jim Hansom of Glasgow University. Compromise from 'invasive' species, the result of management neglect & rejected SNH grant aid (£230,000 since 2010), & regenerating North American lodgepole pines (misidentified by golf's ecologists as Scots pines), is being grossly exaggerated to excuse 'remediating' so much natural vegetation with manicured mediocrity. Naturalness is a key criterion in SSSI selection. Bracken, gorse, tall herbs & rank grassland support more wildlife than lawns: https://butterfly-conservation.org/files/habitat-bracken-for-butterflies.pdf. Fonseca's seed-fly, thought endemic to Sutherland dunes, requires 'weeds'. Claims about biodiversity net gain from moving fragile habitats & species, controlling Scots Pine, rare & native at Coul, & cessation of duck shooting are ludicrous. Threatened habitats outside the SSSI, in a golf 'remediation' area, are of comparable biodiversity, including Fonseca's Seed-fly, Baltic Rush, Rough Horsetail, Moonwort, Skullcap, Butterwort, Fragrant, Frog & Creeping Lady's-tresses Orchids, Small Blue butterfly & plants at their northern UK limits, like Restharrow & abundant Rock-rose, the food-plant of scarce Northern Brown Argus butterfly. The developers talk of 'sensitivity', 'minimalism', ‘naturalness’, 'utmost care' & the high repute of its designers, but Oregon track record conflicts: https://oregoncoastalliance.org/bandon-dunesbiota-bulldoze-roads  Leading dune ecologist Dr Tom Dargie describes the developer’s surveys & Environmental Statement as ‘unfit for purpose’. He judges the site worthy of (European) Special Area of Conservation (SAC) status, which would have prevented such development being considered.  There is a superfluity of coastal golf courses in Scotland, many undersubscribed, some closing, mostly eroding. The environmentally responsible option is to avoid development within such special, rare & fragile habitats.

This is important because the UK is one of the least wooded countries within the whole of Europe. The country was completly covered in trees when the first people arrived. Now only 13% of our land area is wooded. Woodland is the naturally occuring habitat for this country. Fields, wildflowers, breakland and heathland although great for wildlife are habitats that arose in the abscense of our woodlands. Without woodlands on our east coast the land is being lost to the sea due to erosion. Without woodlands in our uplands the soil and wildlife are suffering amd floods downstream in our urban areas are rife. Most of the UK' indigenous biodiversity resides in our wooded areas because that is the natural habitat they would have had in this country before the great clearances of the forests. Surely for a country which is naturally of woodland habitat it is the duty of the Government to make sure there is plenty of this rich habitat left and that it expands. -Woodlands hold our greatest biodiversity. -Woodlands act as a windbreak (when enough of them) so should reduce effects of wind on urban areas. -They are brilliant places for people to escape to. -Trees help give us clean air and beautify the landscape. -They slow down and in some cases prevent soil erosion. -Trees help to prevent flooding by slowing down the process of water falling as rain getting to the sea. I believe if this cannot be done then the east coast of the country should at least be focused on. We loose meters of land a year to the North sea on the Holderness coast due to soil erosion. Houses cant be built on the cliffs, its a danger for people to be there. With the addition of trees the soil wound be bound together, it would be less saturated and as a result erosion would be a fraction of the rate it is now.

These pellets kill hedgehogs, birds, amphibians and pets and poison children if eaten. Hedeghogs eat the slugs and die. Cats and dogs have been killed eating these pellets. Children can also be harmed if they eat the pellets. Hedgehogs are likely to be extinct within 15 years. Slug pellets only kill 10% of slugs and there are slug pellets available that only kill slugs. Hedgehogs are a natural predator of the slugs. We need to do all we can to prevent their extinction.

This is pollution of a most destructive kind. Once it goes down the drain and ends up in the ocean it causes untold damage to organisms ranging from plankton to birds and sea mammals. Waitrose recently announced that they are going to stop stocking ANY products with microbeads in them. All other supermarkets should follow their great example and, not only stop using them in their own products, but stop stocking them all together.

This is pollution of a most destructive kind. Once it goes down the drain and ends up in the ocean it causes untold damage to organisms ranging from plankton to birds and sea mammals. Waitrose recently announced that they are going to stop stocking ANY products with microbeads in them. All other supermarkets should follow their great example and, not only stop using them in their own products, but stop stocking them all together.

This is pollution of a most destructive kind. Once it goes down the drain and ends up in the ocean it causes untold damage to organisms ranging from plankton to birds and sea mammals. Waitrose recently announced that they are going to stop stocking ANY products with microbeads in them. All other supermarkets should follow their great example and, not only stop using them in their own products, but stop stocking them all together.

Bees are endangered within our area and provide many positives for the community.

Intensive poultry and egg farming units are cropping up all over Brecon & Radnorshire. These units should have no place in our beautiful countryside, and we would urge farmers to diversify in more ethical and environmentally friendly ways. Plans have been submitted to Powys County Council for sheds crammed with 16,000 chickens to lay free range eggs. These will join 12,000 birds already housed elsewhere on the farm. We don’t want to see this happen. There are several reasons why: - - Lorry traffic on the narrow roads will increase significantly. The access road is dangerously narrow in parts. This is extremely unsafe and will add to noise and pollution in the area. - Ammonia from these units will cause unpleasant odours and impact on the neighbouring farms and residencies, some of which rely on tourism for income and could be badly affected. - The environment could suffer with nitrogen from the shed's ventilation shafts damaging surrounding flora and fauna. - Waste from these units threatens to contaminate the water system and harm wildlife in our local area. - The new farm buildings will severely affect the visual landscape of the area. We want to support a thriving local farming industry. We will support anyone who wants to diversify their farming mix to ensure a more sustainable future – but not if the price is irreparable damage to our beautiful part of the world. Please add your signature to this petition to try and stop yet another intensive poultry shed in Powys.

Palm oil production has destroyed vast areas of forest in countries including Indonesia, which is home to orangutans, the Rainforest foundation UK says palm oil companies are now planning to expand into the rainforests of the Congo basin in Africa, home to lowland gorillas and other threatened primates. Palm oil companies are also partly responsible for the recent devastating forest fires in Sumatra, which caused pollution episodes in Malaysia and Singapore.

Chris Packham is a much loved and respected naturalist and presenter, who campaigns for wildlife and conservation. The Countryside Alliance and other organisations are calling for the BBC to sack him, in other words silence him, for speaking out in his campaigns. We think his campaigns for wildlife are justified, as they are based on scientific evidence, and he keeps his campaigning and role at the BBC separate.