Veterinaising young trees - Pollards with standards

[AHPP]

Is there a benefit in it? If yes, why wouldn’t the land owner pay for it himself? If no, why am I paying for something that has no benefit?

[Paul in the woods]

8 minutes ago, AHPP said:

Is there a benefit in it? If yes, why wouldn’t the land owner pay for it himself? If no, why am I paying for something that has no benefit?

Because it benefits the whole of society and may actually cost the land owner money with the loss of timber?

[AHPP]

If that was the case, the whole of society that wants to benefit from that particular acreage of biodiversity will voluntarily pay for it. The premise that it is necessary is bollocks though. Nature needs no help from from a few artistic cutters. They're only trees. They live, they die, bits fall off them, some last, some don't. You can look at them, sit under them, string hammocks from them, build with them, burn them, whatever takes your fancy. If one dies or gets cut down, they generally grow back or some others will somewhere. Pretending that this is necessary work makes you as deluded as the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. 

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B

 

Alternatively, if people who own land aren't making enough on the swings to absorb the losses from the roundabouts, why are people who don't own land being forced to subsidise their lack of business acumen? They've got a monopoly over one of the only resources that actually means anything and they're being paid to fuck it up.

Edited February 9, 2018 by AHPP

[the village idiot]

22 minutes ago, AHPP said:

They've got a monopoly over one of the only resources that actually means anything and they're being paid to fuck it up.

One man's fooking up is another man's attempt to help.

 

I am personally delighted that some of my tax money is going towards experiments like this.

 

Business as usual humans are currently driving a global mass extinction of biodiversity. Current forestry practices are contributing to this.

 

You personally may not wish to contribute to any attempts to try out alternative techniques but a lot of us do.

 

Constantly evolving truly sustainable woodland management techniques is surely the best way forward. Experiments are crucial to help keep us on a good course.

 

 

[Treeation]

21 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

One man's fooking up is another man's attempt to help.

 

I am personally delighted that some of my tax money is going towards experiments like this.

 

Business as usual humans are currently driving a global mass extinction of biodiversity. Current forestry practices are contributing to this.

 

You personally may not wish to contribute to any attempts to try out alternative techniques but a lot of us do.

 

Constantly evolving truly sustainable woodland management techniques is surely the best way forward. Experiments are crucial to help keep us on a good course.

 

 

Spot on! well said that man!.............

[Treeation]

1 hour ago, AHPP said:

If that was the case, the whole of society that wants to benefit from that particular acreage of biodiversity will voluntarily pay for it. The premise that it is necessary is bollocks though. Nature needs no help from from a few artistic cutters. They're only trees. They live, they die, bits fall off them, some last, some don't. You can look at them, sit under them, string hammocks from them, build with them, burn them, whatever takes your fancy. If one dies or gets cut down, they generally grow back or some others will somewhere. Pretending that this is necessary work makes you as deluded as the hairdressers and telephone sanitisers. 

http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrinchan_Ark_Fleet_Ship_B

 

Alternatively, if people who own land aren't making enough on the swings to absorb the losses from the roundabouts, why are people who don't own land being forced to subsidise their lack of business acumen? They've got a monopoly over one of the only resources that actually means anything and they're being paid to fuck it up.

And just for the record, EWGS does not longer exist, I had a few small payments to kickstart the project a few years back...I now do this out of my own pocket because I enjoy it and I think is wothwhile thing to do........So you dont need to get to upset about "your money being spent"

[Alinicoll]

Thanks for sharing this with us.

 

It's good to see some ongoing documentation of your project, I look forward to seeing more in the future.

 

Loving the ring-bark pollard idea. Is that something you came up with? I might use that idea myself. It would be interesting to see how second and third cuts go using that technique. Is that something you're planning to do?

[AHPP]

34 minutes ago, the village idiot said:

One man's fooking up is another man's attempt to help.

 

I am personally delighted that some of my tax money is going towards experiments like this.

 

Business as usual humans are currently driving a global mass extinction of biodiversity. Current forestry practices are contributing to this.

 

You personally may not wish to contribute to any attempts to try out alternative techniques but a lot of us do.

 

Constantly evolving truly sustainable woodland management techniques is surely the best way forward. Experiments are crucial to help keep us on a good course.

 

 

You may personally be. I'm personally not. If so many of you really do want to to contribute to these experiments, your voluntary contributions should cover the cost without the need to force mine.

Of course experiments are fine. I'm happy for people to experiment with whatever they like. You could call it R&D. The experimenter can then reap the rewards. They volunteer to take the risk of losing time/resources for the potential benefit.

The point I make is a general one, not specific to tree cutting. Perhaps I would rather this or some other land is used for a poison factory and I declare there is a sufficient interest in poisoning that everybody should be forced to contribute to poison research. You might not like poisoning but you're going to be forced to pay for it anyway.

[sean]

8 minutes ago, AHPP said:

You may personally be. I'm personally not. If so many of you really do want to to contribute to these experiments, your voluntary contributions should cover the cost without the need to force mine.

Of course experiments are fine. I'm happy for people to experiment with whatever they like. You could call it R&D. The experimenter can then reap the rewards. They volunteer to take the risk of losing time/resources for the potential benefit.

The point I make is a general one, not specific to tree cutting. Perhaps I would rather this or some other land is used for a poison factory and I declare there is a sufficient interest in poisoning that everybody should be forced to contribute to poison research. You might not like poisoning but you're going to be forced to pay for it anyway.

I’m sure plenty of tax money has gone towards poisoning the environment over many years. 

[AHPP]

5 minutes ago, sean said:

I’m sure plenty of tax money has gone towards poisoning the environment over many years. 

Are you or would you be happy about that?