I took the time to read the article last night and I can see at least part of both sides as argued in this thread.
I get that its a somewhat rare landform, for Britian,...but I didn't see any language to suggest its actually unique, like a Grand Canyon, etc. The basic jist of the article was "hey this is really neat, we should study this more to see how this sand continues to move given its not held down in one place by the local foilage like most other dunes in the area" But I don't see how that's any different to a golf course enthusiast who comes upon same piece of property and comes to the conclusion "this is really neat, we should put a golf course here and enjoy mother natures handiwork"
To me this begs the question....What is intrinsically different about one of use of a landform vs another? Because something is naturally occuring does that mean it should get a free pass?
Do we just throw in the towel and not build flood control systems in the form of canals, dikes, dams, because mother nature has the right of way? Isn't that water just as "oppressed" as those sand dunes now are due to mankind's intervention.
Do we also choose not to kill bacterial and viral diseases because its mother nature and she was there 1st. We should just sit back and let it have its way right?
Do we throw away all our light bulbs, torches, street lamps, etc because mother nature wants it to be dark during the night? Aren't we oppresively interfering by artificially lighting things up at night?
At what point do we draw the line?
And seeing how Donald Trumps financial motives are being called to the carpet, how about the financial motives of the SNH? Do they not also rely on grants and otherwise from the government? Do they not benefit from putting together reports and studies that puts future money in thier pocket in the form of further research? Are they beyond such monetery motivations in these cases?
I'm also surprised that no one else has yet to mention that every single contributor to this paper, despite claims of such otherwise are in some way or another tied to the SNH or were tied to it. Even of the two independent reviewers, one used to belong to the SNH and the other guy who submitted the paperwork belonged to the organization that eventually evolved into the SNH. In fact the entire paper itself was initiated and funded by the SNH.
And then after all that, the SNH has the gall to put this disclaimer on the submission?
"The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage"
I'm finding very little scientific integrity in the article based on the fact that the fox was guarding the hen house!!