Selling in 2.5m lengths

[Stubby]

8 hours ago, spuddog0507 said:

Yes look at it, it was thought of by some prick who has never been near any wildfowl or been wildfowling, been out pigeon shooting on a laid barley field today, we have shot god knows how many shells between us, now this very same land we will be shooting Greys and Pinks over it in the next 3 or 4 wks but by law we should be using steel ?? whats the difference ? there isnt one,

The only slight difference it could make is if you were to " prick " a bird and if fly on back to the for shore then die effectively depositing lead shot it was carrying . A bit of a stretch I agree .  

[arboriculturist]

11 hours ago, ESS said:

So does it have to go through woodsure ? 

I know nothing about the new regs, however i fail to see how a system that is accepted by the rest of the timber supply chains.i.e felling licence etc could not be considered acceptable by the wood fuel supply chain.

Deffra, with Woodsure came up with ever tighter regulations that they propose all Firewood merchants will adhere to before to long. 

It has been decided whereas although a felling licence demonstrated that timber is legally felled, it does not demonstrate that it has been harvested sustainably, which is why now to meet their criteria they insist on evidence on woodland management plans for the sites where timber sourced.

This is one reason they are not keen on Arb. arinsings and Firewood merchants who accept them from various tree surgeons.

Their  proposals are to tighten up the whole shooting match - period.

'Got you over a barrel' comes to mind.

[ESS]

59 minutes ago, arboriculturist said:

Deffra, with Woodsure came up with ever tighter regulations that they propose all Firewood merchants will adhere to before to long. 

It has been decided whereas although a felling licence demonstrated that timber is legally felled, it does not demonstrate that it has been harvested sustainably, which is why now to meet their criteria they insist on evidence on woodland management plans for the sites where timber sourced.

This is one reason they are not keen on Arb. arinsings and Firewood merchants who accept them from various tree surgeons.

Their  proposals are to tighten up the whole shooting match - period.

'Got you over a barrel' comes to mind.

Hmm, not sure about being held over a barrel. To introduce that would be introducing double standards on the same harvesting site .,the industry is not going to accept that. 

There may be an impact on those producing firewood from rings etc from arb work,  but those that have lengths will have a way round it.

Hardwood thinnings,..a sustainable crop under licence , and ADB is going to be around for a good few years now, most of which will enter the supply chain.

Those working or part working on the black economy might have to clean their act up a bit, but apart from that things will go on.

[arboriculturist]

1 hour ago, ESS said:

Hmm, not sure about being held over a barrel. To introduce that would be introducing double standards on the same harvesting site .,the industry is not going to accept that. 

There may be an impact on those producing firewood from rings etc from arb work,  but those that have lengths will have a way round it.

Hardwood thinnings,..a sustainable crop under licence , and ADB is going to be around for a good few years now, most of which will enter the supply chain.

Those working or part working on the black economy might have to clean their act up a bit, but apart from that things will go on.

Double standards it may be, but to gain the Certification, which by the way,  is now planned to cover all firewood sales, basically you will have to follow their rules.

 

The "Industry" said that 20% MC was an ill founded MC level and 25% MC achieved the same level of PM emissions  as 20% MC when forced drying, additional infrastructure, additional transportation etc. are factored in. Unfortunately the 'Industry' is 10's of thousands of small scale producers who have not the time, money or energy to contest the legislation. There is know Industry body I know of who are interested in taking the Government to task.

Remember the 'discussions' that informed the legislators were held between DEFFRA and the big players who all force dry their timber.

I fully support the original HETAS 25% MC threshold, that is a sensible level that we all can attain, but I am powerless to influence the legislators  decision of a maximum 20% MC. 

 

[ESS]

1 hour ago, arboriculturist said:

Double standards it may be, but to gain the Certification, which by the way,  is now planned to cover all firewood sales, basically you will have to follow their rules.

 

The "Industry" said that 20% MC was an ill founded MC level and 25% MC achieved the same level of PM emissions  as 20% MC when forced drying, additional infrastructure, additional transportation etc. are factored in. Unfortunately the 'Industry' is 10's of thousands of small scale producers who have not the time, money or energy to contest the legislation. There is know Industry body I know of who are interested in taking the Government to task.

Remember the 'discussions' that informed the legislators were held between DEFFRA and the big players who all force dry their timber.

I fully support the original HETAS 25% MC threshold, that is a sensible level that we all can attain, but I am powerless to influence the legislators  decision of a maximum 20% MC. 

 

Well no, the industry is the forest industry that supplies the roundwood.

How would it be accepted that timber from the same site could be accepted into the sawmilling supply chain but not into the firewood chain , it simply wont stand up.

Very few sites are harvested purely for firewood, apart from perhaps hardwood thinnings , which would still come under felling licence., and obviously ADB sites that are pretty widespread at the moment. 

 

[arboriculturist]

12 minutes ago, ESS said:

Well no, the industry is the forest industry that supplies the roundwood.

How would it be accepted that timber from the same site could be accepted into the sawmilling supply chain but not into the firewood chain , it simply wont stand up.

Very few sites are harvested purely for firewood, apart from perhaps hardwood thinnings , which would still come under felling licence., and obviously ADB sites that are pretty widespread at the moment. 

 

I take your point, however this is related to the Firewood Industry, that is what the legislation applies to that is now regulated by Woodsure.

 

 The sawmilling supply chain is another matter with different legislation.

 

I didn't draft the legislation, I am merely reiteration the information I have been given, right or wrong that is for the individual to decide and challenge if they so wish.

 

Perhaps you have had meeting and have more current information than myself, as the last meeting I had was nearly 2 weeks ago.

 

The feeling I got was the matter is not up for discussion and the legislation is coming into force at the current documented timescales.