ben_inthewoods

Try the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC) where there is freedom to roam in all woods. Not really a big issue, even in more populated urban/peri urban woodlands. We just live with it.

Try the Hackney end of Matlock for a whole series of tree named pubs.

Looking forward to the new commercial version.

I don't disagree that SNH with the site designation rules and some automotrons can make you year your hair out. I have had a similar experience with new woodland next door to an SPA/SSSI which took several years to get permission and cost £'000's in time to state the bleeding obvious. However some local SNH staff in my patch now are extremely pragmatic and see the bigger picture. Best of luck with your woodland expansion plans.

I think that you will find that some in SNH are far less wedded to native and non native than they used to be and are more interested in structure and adaptive resilience, particularly when it comes to woodland, ash and Chalara, dothistroma etc and climate change have forced the issue. However, specific lichen 'assemblages' need light levels that beech dominated woodland cannot provide and I expect as in the site I am involved with (Lower Findhorn Gorge) the loch lommond site will perhaps have similar issues. Why not read the site condition info for the SSSI in question on SNHi? This will perhaps clarify the decision making process used in this case.

Beech is the worst example of this. It is heavily shade bearing leading to a monoculture of beech!

One man's worthless scrub is another man's Atlantic Oakwood with high biodiversity values. I am not sure if everyone in SNH would consider it a cock up except a communication and PR problem. I understand that the main criticism was focused on the visual impact for tourism. I agree that the management strategy needs to take into account future access and operations and therefore removal of some of the standing dead wood should be considered before it gets too problematic to deal with (too dead to climb or fell), but large standing dead wood is valuable in this situation. I have found some SNH staff to really challenge the preconceptions that I and I know others often share. Granted there are many in the organisation that leave you tearing your hair out with impractical requests, but it is a big organisation. I reckon that if the 'non natives' were sycamore and not beech they would not be removed.

Oh no I don't believe I am going to jump to the defence of SNH, but here goes. I look after a similar SSSI woodland where we are removing beech as they are shading out and killing from the bottom up light demanding native woodland (oak, hazel, ash) crucially the beech are also casting to much shade for specific lichen. To regenerate the native woodland type we are removing 90% of the mature beech, winching out of a gorge using IRATA qualified arborists, we are also planting locally collected oak and hazel to get a new cohort of native woodland. What would happen to the native woodland if no intervention? A shade bearing beech monoculture in time. We all experience poor impractical SNH bods once in a while, but I am not sure that this is such a big deal at loch lommond.

If there was big demand for softwood logs would there not be a firewood plant v close to a large softwood timber processor, picking up the low quality logs? The large firewood log market in high pop areas could surely be met by large lowland forests closer to the market? Haulage of loose m3 logs would be more bulky than unprocessed round wood? Sorry for being negative, but milling, kilning is probably more profitable than softwood firewood.

I'm trying to ring Northern Arb Supplies ref some chainsaw boots. The main number (0114 278 9090) is unavailable. Anyone got an alternative contact number?

Weed wipe with glyphosate or spraying with same is an alternative but not as selective as asulox. Knapsack rate for asulox in a knapsack only gives you 3.5l/ha when you really need 7-14l/ha for bracken. You could double dose, but this is not legal, so instead a BASIS guy recommended to me to twice spray the site in the same day. A lot of hassle. Therefore bracken basher may be more attractive.

My take is that FSC certification for small processors MUST be refined in a similar way to the proposals for small woodland owners. The cost per m3 is well out of line with the risk of damage to woodlands or the brand. At present if you manage a wood under FSC you cannot sell firewood or sawn timber as FSC certified without going through a separte Chain of Custody process. As has been said this is a very bad state of affairs and seriously undermines the 'localism' ethos of the FSC. Grown in Britain may be simpler and assist producers, but there are a few things to consider: Grown in Britain and the Union flag is somewhat toxic to some in Scotland and Wales (not for me, but i am not a Nationalist more an Internationalist!), but it would put some customers off, however churlish that is. Is GiB a robust enough standard to make is worthwhile? I am not too sure and would need persuading that it is not just a Little Red Tractor equivalent. Certification over load is an issue - too many standards of various flavours undermind the value of certification and consumer confidence. Perhaps an wholesale swap from FSC to PEFC might also be an option? Not an easy one to crack!

Interesting comments on a bat surveyors website: "Bat surveys We are licenced to survey for bats by Natural England and have held site-specific licenses issued by Natural Resources Wales and Northern Ireland Environment Agency. All our team are proficient in bat habitat appraisal and ultrasound bat-survey techniques, including the use of automated systems. We also have an in-house arboreal climbing team, and our Principal Ecologist is the author of Bat Tree Habitat Key; a comprehensive guide to bat tree-roosting ecology. Many bat surveys expend significant time and effort over repeat visits in the employment of ultrasound methods focusing on features, visible from the ground, which appear superficially suitable for occupation by roosting bats. Climb-and-inspect surveys can tell immediately whether a cavity holds bats (or evidence of recent occupation), and we have the expertise to be able to make a reasoned analysis as whether a feature is suitable to hold bats even if it is unoccupied on the day of survey. Thus a high proportion of potential roost features may be discounted from further survey, with a consequential cost saving to our clients, and survey effort refined to ensure that unoccupied, but potentially suitable, roost features are safeguarded or given adequate compensation." my feeling is that being too prescriptive is going to result in net losses in bio diversity by making the cost of pre operation survey too high to warrant thinning. I hope that I am proved wrong. I thought the existing FC guidance struck a pragmatic balance.

Perhaps paradoxically such a standard will be a disincentive for woodland owners/ foresters to retain potential bat friendly trees given the additional cost of survey, management. Perhaps more bat habitat can be created by being less prescriptive (more carrot, less stick)? How much recent consultation and liaison has occurred with say ConFor, FCA, RFS, RSFS?

MESA is me getting the name wrong it is a MES (Modular Energy System) that makes the heating controls much more efficient (pdf attached). It controls the buffer tank, solar inputs (we don't have solar) and mixing of hot and warm water to make the batch burn last a lot longer. Makes the heating system more controllable and automated - more like boiler that has a constant fuel supply (oil, gas, hoppered pellet or wood chip). I am sure that ETA do a similar system to make the most out of a batch burning system. MESplus.pdf