Ancient Woodland

[JLA Arborists]

It would be a shame to lose any mature and most defiantly an ancient woodland.

 

I live in the national forest, which has increased the tree cover from 6% to over 20% with the use of over 8 million trees over the last 20yrs.

 

Don't get me wrong it is good but will still take 50+ years for the trees to get to a decent size.

[woodyguy]

50 years to a decent size and 400 years before it has the biodiversity of a proper wood.

You can plant plantations but you can't make a wood, you can only continue it.

The national forest is a good idea if it transforms waste land and set aside to grow trees. But lets not kid ourselves that any of this replaces a single acre of the magnificent richness of ancient Oak wood.

[coppiceer]

So, what are we going to do about it?

 

90% of the people on here depend on trees and woodlands for their lively hood.

 

As a group we should be getting together with Natural England and the likes and start a campaign in the same way that happened when the same government knumpties wanted to sell of the woodlands.

 

Anyone know about any petitions being organised?

[woodyguy]

38 degrees did the forest bit well and got it changed. not sure that they are into the subtleties of plantation vs ancient forest. might be worth a try.

[arbogrunt]

Sad that we have such people in posts like this in Government. Of course, its all about making money out of building houses in former woodland at the end of the day....how about leave the ancient woodland and plant thousands more trees anyway?

[Bren.]

Stated government policy on Ancient Woodland, is that it should be preserved from damage/development unless "in the public interest".

Never quite worked out who the public is in these cases, as most development that occurs "in the public interest" seems to be massively opposed by said public. Perhaps you only qualify as a member of the "public" if you make a large donation to the right election campaign.

Just saying.

Could be completely wrong.

They might have our best interests at heart.

Or they could be a bunch of bribe taking, back scratching, self obsessed, self important, bastards.

I haven't quite decided yet.

[Chris Watson]

I think the government largely forgets not just the ecological but historical significance of many of our ancient woodlands.

 

They think they are forward thinking in their ideas, and that planting more trees is an adequate replacement when it simply is not.

 

These woodland have developed over hundreds of years and the trees and the fauna and flora that are associated with them make for a complex ecosystem. This habitat is something that cant simply be replaced by planting new trees.

 

If are ancient woodlands arnt fragmented enough and under threat from developers now this. Jeez.

[TGB]

Well said Brooklandsbob. PMs...

Sorry. That should have been MPs.

[skyhuck]

How old is "ancient"??

 

I was under the impression that we only had a tiny parts of our truly "ancient" woodlands remming.

[David Humphries]

How old is "ancient"??

 

Any piece of woodland that has had continuous tree cover since at least 1600

 

 

 

.