What to do with 200+ MASSIVE stumps?

[MattyF]

  On 19/03/2023 at 23:49, monkeybusiness said:

I’m not sure about the confusion and hostility over this request - the op has stated it was a FC stipulated clearfell (I suspect Phytopthera due to the presence of Larch - oak is also a host species).
Lapsed pollard stumps with the harvestable timber removed could easily still be 6ft plus tall, particularly when growing on a slope. These stumps would still potentially be hosting phytopthera and it makes sense for the FC to insist on their removal and destruction to cleanse the site for replanting (even though the whole enterprise is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted, but that’s not the op’s fault)…

Expand  

None of those things where mentioned or stated , no location , no real user name and again in my opinion if the forestry commission had recommended the removal of 300+ year old coppice and ancient pollards they need prosecuting… as you have stated the horse as already bolted and I seriously doubt that was the case any way and no where had the OP stated it , something just does not add up… if a contractor can’t fell a tree in the pic to near ground level they need sacking.. also his quip on that’s not what he requested an answer too didn’t help with any hostility from my view…. I’m not a mind reader and if you want to go destroying any ancient trees for good a bit of back ground would be nice. 

[doobin]

  On 19/03/2023 at 23:49, monkeybusiness said:

I’m not sure about the confusion and hostility over this request - the op has stated it was a FC stipulated clearfell (I suspect Phytopthera due to the presence of Larch - oak is also a host species).
Lapsed pollard stumps with the harvestable timber removed could easily still be 6ft plus tall, particularly when growing on a slope. These stumps would still potentially be hosting phytopthera and it makes sense for the FC to insist on their removal and destruction to cleanse the site for replanting (even though the whole enterprise is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted, but that’s not the op’s fault)…

Expand  

All well and good, but apparently they couldn't find a big enough bar to fell the trees at ground level.... I'm sticking with dodgy/cowboy.

[Whoppa Choppa]

  On 17/03/2023 at 20:49, Mick Dempsey said:

Expand  

Aww bless. Mick the 🤣

[Whoppa Choppa]

  On 19/03/2023 at 23:49, monkeybusiness said:

I’m not sure about the confusion and hostility over this request - the op has stated it was a FC stipulated clearfell (I suspect Phytopthera due to the presence of Larch - oak is also a host species).
Lapsed pollard stumps with the harvestable timber removed could easily still be 6ft plus tall, particularly when growing on a slope. These stumps would still potentially be hosting phytopthera and it makes sense for the FC to insist on their removal and destruction to cleanse the site for replanting (even though the whole enterprise is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted, but that’s not the op’s fault)…

Expand  

 Ace. Someone's awake. 👍

[Mark Bolam]

Is it FC land?

[oldwoodcutter]

Seems like that may have to remain one of civilisation’s great unanswered questions  .  .  .  

[Stubby]

  On 24/03/2023 at 22:59, oldwoodcutter said:

Seems like that may have to remain one of civilisation’s great unanswered questions  .  .  .  

Expand  

In a few years time David Attenborough will do a documentary about it . 

[dan blocker]

Wants a blank canvas🤔 development site🤔

[Whoppa Choppa]

  

 

 

[Whoppa Choppa]

  On 19/03/2023 at 23:49, monkeybusiness said:

I’m not sure about the confusion and hostility over this request - the op has stated it was a FC stipulated clearfell (I suspect Phytopthera due to the presence of Larch - oak is also a host species).
Lapsed pollard stumps with the harvestable timber removed could easily still be 6ft plus tall, particularly when growing on a slope. These stumps would still potentially be hosting phytopthera and it makes sense for the FC to insist on their removal and destruction to cleanse the site for replanting (even though the whole enterprise is a case of closing the door after the horse has bolted, but that’s not the op’s fault)…

Expand  

 

Some clarification, since AHPP has decided, based on an obviously very long lived grudge, and also misquoted me on the recent replanting thread I posted.

 

Lots of comments on here about cowboy / bs / can't be right / vandalism etc.

 

The facts:

 

Not a PAWS site - one post made that assumption with zero knowledge of the site.

 

90% of the trees and stumps were actually sweet chestnut, not oak. That is entirely my mistake and happy to admit it. Interestingly no-one noticed the difference when I posted the picture for scale so ID police were obviously not here!

 

The whole site is under a SPHN. The FC have confirmed in numerous site meetings (and after deadline extensions) that the stumps are included in the SPHN conditions and must be removed one way or another. If the ground is too steep, they are looking into approving eco-plugs. The only other option is constant removal / spraying of regrowth for ever. That would be a sentence from hell if ever there was one. Plus, would you want to plant / beat-up / weed and maintain a new plantation with that lot in your way when you could have removed them?!

 

I found my circa 5th post and it wasn't terribly rude by modern standards. There was plenty of two-way traffic in that respect. 

 

Not sure why AHPP decided now was the moment to bugger up the other thread.

 

Cheers.