HS2 threat to 27 ancient woods and more could be in the line of construction fire.

[Paul Barton]

paul, do you think this destruction of vital ancient woodlan, 27+ sites is right and just?

 

No Tony I don't. This thread just reminded me (and tommer obviously) of another thread a while ago where there were a lot of comments about protestors being bunny huggers etc...and lots of gung-ho tree surgeons showing off about felling trees in front of protestors.

 

For my tuppence worth, I do think we need to seriously upgrade our railway system and move away from constant widening of the motorway network. Our railway network is pitiful compared to many European countries. This will inevitably mean sacrificing pockets of the current 'natural' environment. I don't know alot about the specifics of HS2 but it would be good to see the consultation resulting in the avoidance of blasting straight through ancient woodland sites.

[armybloke]

I don't know alot about the specifics of HS2 but it would be good to see the consultation resulting in the avoidance of blasting straight through ancient woodland sites.

 

Here, here Paul. The planners need to take another look at the route for avoidance . We do need an upgrade in our transport system (without comparing ours to the high quality of our european neighbours) by petition rather than digging in and disputing the actual need. Signing the petition to prevent the sale of our woodlands to the private sector worked!

[eddiegts]

I do also feel that this is a waste of money and also a real crime to destroy the ancient woodlands. But I dont think it will be stoped. also if they plant 1000s of trees in time (lots of time) would this not become ancient woodlands?? maybe I am well off here.

I will sign up :-)

[mrtree]

Ancient trees and Ancient Woodlands are not same. Also if you remove the existing sources of biological diversity will this diversity be able to ever reinhabit the trees as they age?

 

I remember Neville Fay once mentioned the discovery of an insect once thought extinct. The insects were found in some old, decaying trees, that where being managed. The requirements of the insect are such that no amount of planting will provide them habitiat within at least a century.

 

As for the rail line I look at it as something that is required (now). If people want this than perhaps we have to give up other things (such as nature). Until society can rein in their wants we will have continuous battle of nature vs. expansion. Ultimately we must reduce birth rates (the world over) and control per capita consumption.

[Sam Thompson]

I do also feel that this is a waste of money and also a real crime to destroy the ancient woodlands. But I dont think it will be stoped. also if they plant 1000s of trees in time (lots of time) would this not become ancient woodlands?? maybe I am well off here.

I will sign up :-)

 

 

Don't build the railway, just plant all the trees and keep the ancients!

[tommer9]

paul, do you think this destruction of vital ancient woodlan, 27+ sites is right and just?

 

Tony I think you may have totally missed the point of my post:confused1:

[porky]

Road, and presumably now rail planners as well, have always routed through woodland, heathland, SSSIs etc as its cheaper and gets less hassle from the farming lobby.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

The complexity of the ancient forest flora and fauna has taken many many hundreds of years to biuld, soils that are home to a continuous habitat of saproxlic materials that have been maturing for centuries cannot be replaced, neither can the organisms there in.

 

bio diversity relies on a succsession principal, pioneers come in to new sites and lead the way, then gradualy the habitats become more and more complex in thier make up and biological capacity.

 

Think of the ancient woodlands as genetic factories that act as a sink and source of further colonisation into new sites that are developing now. Do we want to see the flora and fauna of U.k woodlands go the same ways as industry here has? lose the factories and lose the business, in this case thast business is LIFE, and we have a responsibility to protect it, to nurture the nature that we are directly and indirectly excluding from our world.

 

This is a serious issue, and we should not be so flippant about the nature of the threat posed.

[tommer9]

Im not sure if you are referring to me with your comment ragrding flippancy Tony, but in case you are, then I have tpo say I couldnt agree with you more.

Unfortunately I find the hypocrisy of arborists and self proclaimed tree care officionados who then boast about having forcibly removed road protesters as abhorrent. There was a thread quite a while back where more than one member pretty much boasted about the eviction of these people, who in that thread were denegrated, referred to in all levels of derogation and generally portrayed as scum of the earth. I find this Thatcherite, luddite and wholly short-sighted attitude stomach turning, and USUALLY portrayed by ignorant bigots, who are little above the intellectual level and psycological prowess of pond scum.

I am sorry to have derailed your thread in this manner, but my feelings on this are possibly as strong as your feelings (which i share to a large degree, as, i am sure, do others) on the issue raised in this thread.

I will not mention it again, as i think my feelings are now fully evident.

[mrtree]

I do not think you can be Thatcherite and Luddite at the same time.