Pollards, the forgotten art-discussion

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I am still waiting for the really "crafty" types to add, they are bound to have some little gems of information, certain aspects of wood that they seek etc?

 

when was spalted wood first used? i bet it was desirable a long long time ago

Edited December 23, 2009 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[Lee Winger]

I still think ancient forester ''accepted'' more, rather than actually new/understood more. IMO we know more these days regarding biology than we ever have...........

 

The sooner we get back to nature and ignorance the better imo, naivety is is a great thing!!

[Lee Winger]

What's changed, most of us on here still do.

 

The difference being he Arthur circa Stone age-40 years ago, relied/depended on his trees, these days we have that hive of wickedness the multinational institution to fall back onto ie B&Q Tescos [if we want]

[paradise]

hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

 

As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

 

As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

 

Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

[Lee Winger]

hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

 

As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

 

As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

 

Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

 

 

How about ''culturally selfish'' I like the sound of that.............

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

hamadryad I don't think you're the first to suggest that decay may have beneficial effects on a tree - I've heard in proposed in terms of removing wood so that the tree no longer has to expend energy to support/protect it. I can't for the life of me remember who suggested it though. It sounds like the kind of thing Alan Rayner might say, though I'm not sure it was him.

 

As for re-jigging the theory of evolution, I think you need to know the current theory (which isn't purely darwinistic) very well before you suggest changes to it. Also, you need to read around it too, because things you are suggesting may have been proposed in the past and been dismissed because the science didn't match up.

 

As a quick aside, I think Dawkins chose a terrible, inappropriate term when he referred to the 'selfish gene'. 'Selfish' is a moral term that we attach to human behaviour, and genes do not have moral behaviour, any more than yeast has moral behaviour. If you read his book this is obvious, but Dawkins is a bit too much of a scientist sometimes and didn't see that plenty of people either wouldn't read it or wouldn't understand it and would draw incorrect implications from the term 'selfish'. 'Self-optimising genes' would have been better (if less catchy) but even that is not correct because it appears to attribute intentions to genes, and of course genes don't have intentions any more than they have morals. The apparent self-optimisation is a product of reproductive processes that are, at their basic level, simply chemical reactions.

 

Sorry, that's a rant I've done a few times recently and may not be directly related to the thread. I just get frustrated that so many people attribute moral behaviours to genes. It's outright nonsense.

 

Not at all that was all good stuff, probably the best reply post thus far. Your right to, but i am not trying to change a theory? i am just discussing that the pollard is a viable technique, should be more valued, that people have more skills than are credited to them by the academics etc and that trees pollard themselves with the help of fungi at their core.

 

with regards to benificial fungi, ted green, rayner, Fay, Body they all have talked of it, but i cant read everything under the sun, it would take a life time, though i am working on it. However much of my observational thinking may well have been observed by others, but until someone puts a link or resource up here to say so i dont know, if that makes sense.

 

I would love to sit and read the entire collection of rayner, dawkins and all on genes etc, but i must stp doing exactly that, i look into too much and get too little of a lot of stuff!

 

so hence i am sticking to ancient trees and their relationships with fungi, in particular the major rotters, I am also trying to do a degree which doesnt leave much time for "personal" reading, and that kills me, as instead i have to read about nursery practice and healtha nd saftey regs etc rather than fungi eco system dynamics!

 

you should go over to the inclusional thread with this, i am interested in what your saying of that there is no doubt.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

can i just ask, does everyone agree that we need as humans to change our thinking?

 

dont read between the lines! as it states!

[Lee Winger]

can i just ask, does everyone agree that we need as humans to change our thinking?

 

dont read between the lines! as it states!

 

 

Yes yes and yes............

[Stephen Blair]

howdy, i am glad you have a sense of humour, i think you need to realise that most of us arent against a pollarding, i think you should spend some time looking through monkeyd's threads over the last couple of years, i have only been on here for just over a year and i have had my eyes opened to diferent techniques, but i do have a mortgage to pay and if i dont do it someone else will, i certainly wont jepordise my reputation thats for sure. but the trouble with a private contractor doing monoliths, pollarding, very light reductions etc. our customers have a budget and there is the insurance side of things, i can guarantee to take the sail effect out a big sycamore if i pollard it but not if i trim 5 feet off it all the way round, and who wants a rotting stem in their back garden attracting bugs and fungis. i have spent a lot of time wondering why why why, now i am quite content on because it just is, i dont have the IQ to take in half the stuff anyway.

[geoff]

English oak,amongst other species,was the backbone of early industrial revolution,as before then timber was grown and cut for boatbuilding,land transport and building.

Coppice and pollard provided for the many structural forms now replaced by plastics,metals and concrete.

As the comercial viability of timber declines due to 'new materials' and timber imports,these old 'working trees' are left to their own devices.

It is my wish that they(coppice & pollard) were still worked and the produce used.