Maybe the UK should plant more....

[Khriss]

3 minutes ago, Big J said:

That would be nice. It would help if developers stopped building on floodplains though.

Same motivation, the money !!!! Frankly tho, timber cropping has a long  future whereas the flat pack crap housing will only be good fr a couple of decades when the mortgage is paid on it. K

[Big J]

21 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

That’s a very long answer.
In brief, it’s greed.
But I appreciate the effort and thought in your previous posts,
So let me get back to you this evening.
(Got some high end broadleaf to move today)

I was promised a full explanation of what is wrong with commercial forestry. Still waiting! 🤣 😝

[Rough Hewn]

I was promised a full explanation of what is wrong with commercial forestry. Still waiting! 🤣 [emoji13]

I’ll get there [emoji6][emoji106]

[Rough Hewn]

Ok let’s start at the end user.

I get told regularly after explaining the provenance, that no one gives a shit it’s all about price.
This J is the crux of the issue.
It’s NOT about money.
It’s a lack of knowledge and understanding.
IF.....
We educated all children on the importance of the natural world.
IF...
We valued the natural world above our own greed.

We need a real change in thinking.

We need a change in people’s motivations...

What happened to ideaology?

We are the ones who can shape the future of our industry.

Genuinely, I believe this is achievable.

And you’ll be a part of it J.
[emoji106]

[Rough Hewn]

What’s wrong with forestry....
It’s madness.
It’s about economic benefit for the few not the many.
Most forests in the uk are privately owned.
Lots of big estates.
It’s a tax loophole for inheritance.
You can pass on £millions without paying any tax.
🤷🏽‍♂️

[Big J]

1 minute ago, Rough Hewn said:

What’s wrong with forestry....
It’s madness.
It’s about economic benefit for the few not the many.
Most forests in the uk are privately owned.
Lots of big estates.
It’s a tax loophole for inheritance.
You can pass on £millions without paying any tax.
🤷🏽‍♂️

 

I don't disagree with any of that. 

 

Your issue is with the unequal distribution of wealth in the UK, not commercial forestry. I completely agree that these are huge issues. Land is not held in public ownership, nor is it held for public benefit. At least in Scotland you do have the right to roam. 

 

Most European countries have the right to roam in forest, and for the most part, have more equittable woodland ownership. 

 

Anyway, you've not answered my question, as you'd focused on the issue of quickly grown, commercial crops earlier, and now you've switched to land ownership. 

 

😊

[difflock]

There will always be an unequal distribution of accumulated wealth, as opposed to pissed up against the wall ephermal wealth, because some individuals will focus on the longterm acquisition of property, as opposed to short-term pleasures.

And I wish the right to roam fanatics would consider the wear and tear their indulgant pleasure causes, nevermind the litter and shit left behind, for the "well they can afford it" landowner to clear up.

Never mind the Scottish nutter trekking horses through third party owned ground as a money making business, with zero consideration or compensation to the landowner.

There are at least 2 sides to every story and too many humans in too small a space is unsustainable.

Someone needs to own ground to actually care to look after it, though sadly some owners will exploit the ground they own, but more certainly people will trash property they do not own or be responsible for.

Tough!

 

Edited December 22, 2020 by difflock

[Big J]

5 minutes ago, difflock said:

There will always be an unequal distribution of accumulated wealth, as opposed to pissed up against the wall ephermal wealth, because some individuals will focus on the longterm acquisition of property, as opposed to short-term pleasures.

And I wish the right to roam fanatics would consider the wear and tear their indulgant pleasure causes, nevermind the litter and shit left behind, for the "well they can afford it" landowner to clear up.

Never mind the Scottish nutter trekking horses through third party owned ground as a money making business, with zero consideration or compensation to the landowner.

There are at least 2 sides to every story.

Too many humans in too small a space is unsustainable.

Someone needs to own ground to actually care to look after it, though sadly some owners will exploit the ground they own, but more certainly people will trash property they do not own or be responsible for.

Tough!

 

 

This is a British problem. Why can the rest of Europe manage to access and enjoy the outdoors without trashing it? Littering and vandalism is a depressingly British phenomenon.

 

I agree that a small minority of the public take the piss, but on the flip side, if landowners were more amenable to respectful access rights, there would be less of an 'us and them' mentality and a lot more respect would be shown by everyone. 

 

That said, I still maintain that the death penalty for littering wouldn't be excessive. Perhaps not for the first offence, but it's got to be considered as a reasonable punishment

[Rough Hewn]

 
I don't disagree with any of that. 
 
Your issue is with the unequal distribution of wealth in the UK, not commercial forestry. I completely agree that these are huge issues. Land is not held in public ownership, nor is it held for public benefit. At least in Scotland you do have the right to roam. 
 
Most European countries have the right to roam in forest, and for the most part, have more equittable woodland ownership. 
 
Anyway, you've not answered my question, as you'd focused on the issue of quickly grown, commercial crops earlier, and now you've switched to land ownership. 
 
[emoji4]

That’s one aspect.
Of many.
Look at my first post.

As for species selection, etc
That reflects the end user/market demands.
Change the market, change the forests.
If we could see the impact our work has on the future, long after we are gone.

Responsibility is a heavy weight to bear.
That’s why it’s easier to ignore and carry on regardless.

[Big J]

Just now, Rough Hewn said:

That’s one aspect.
Of many.
Look at my first post.

As for species selection, etc
That reflects the end user/market demands.
Change the market, change the forests.
If we could see the impact our work has on the future, long after we are gone.

Responsibility is a heavy weight to bear.
That’s why it’s easier to ignore and carry on regardless.
 

 

Ok, land ownership issues aside, here are the issues with broadleaf production in this country:

 

• Grey squirrels. They completely decimate crops, require expensive and often unpopular control measures
• Much more expensive to establish. More waste (tubes and stakes) compared to conifer.
• Growth rates are extremely slow
• Mostly cannot be mechanically harvested, so expensive and dangerous to convert from standing trees to usable milling material
• Horrendously inconsistent quality. Shake, rot and staining is a far more prevalent issue in hardwood
• Extremely limited market. How much hardwood is actually used on a day to day basis? 
• Broadleaf production is of a much higher quality on the continent, without the issues of squirrels or having to constantly intervene with pruning, respacing, thinning in order to have a chance at a good tree. Can usually be mechanically harvested at a younger age. I visited a hardwood sawmill near my uncle's in Germany 7-8 years ago and they were able to sell kiln dried beech of excellent quality for a lower price than I could produce fresh sawn here.
• The fuelwood has a limited market as mostly unsuitable for chip production. Log production contributes to what is a largely polluting form of home heating (considering the fact that most customers don't know how to use stoves correctly, or have open fires).

 

On the flipside, consider the benefits of conifer (leaving eucalyptus aside for a moment):

 

• Grows consistently and quickly
• Grows on sites where broadleaf production would be impossible (thinking of moorland)
• Mechanically harvestable at all stages, reducing costs by 1/2 - 2/3 and improving safety
• Much broader application possibilities. Construction, fencing, cladding, pallets, paper, tetra packs, furniture, fuelwood etc
• Biodiversity in mature stands (especially douglas and larch) equal to or exceeding equivilent age broadleaf. 
• On a personal note, a mature conifer stand is something I find to be far more pleasant than a broadleaf woodland. Give me 120ft douglas and an understory any day.

 

I can go on if you want