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.

Don't Get me started on SNH.

 

I've recently submitted a new planting proposal for 61ha MB/MC with about 25ha native planting on hill ground. Its on the edge of a SSSI but included within the SSSI boundary. SNH have stated that they will object to the proposals stating the site is in favourable condition (photos below) And no they haven't looked at the site since being made aware of our proposals.

They have made reference to aerial photos. They have clarified that no designated species have been recorded in our planting area.

The planting area accounts for 3% of the SSSI and full of bracken, rank heather and now non native regeneration as its no longer being grazed.

 

They have no idea of land management or economics revolving around it

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.

It's also that the beech leaves are one of the slowest to degrade and they have allelopathic properties that prevent other species germinating (why you shouldn't put beech leaves in your compost bin).

 

But you can't base biodiversity just on what's obvious in front of you. Beech actually supports more insect life than several native hardwoods and is one of the top species of all trees in the UK for lichen varieties. This is what I was trying to get at that you have to look at the specific situation and environment and not just a black and white/native or non native approach.

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.

The problem is there seems to be UKIP style attitude to woodland management at the moment, where all native trees should automatically be preferred to non-native whatever the situation. Just because it's not native doesn't mean it doesn't provide greater environmental and social benefits, beech is a good example of this.

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

Windhager with the fancy mesa mixing system is very good. We are using the same amount of wood to heat the house to very comfortable temperature that we did to over heat one room and open the doors to partly heat.

We are using 50cm logs and log nuggets from a 110 branch logger and it works.

I've been looking for chainsaw mitts in the UK as I am looking to get further protection from HAVS in addition to heated handles (warmer fingers, less tight grip required than gloves).

Have come across these from the US... anyone importing them? - they look well made.

ELVEX - Chain Saw Pro-Mitts, Large

Used to have a cracking pair when i was cutting for the FC back in the 1990's - very similar.

Nice bit of kit

Have they not heard, it is the end of firewood

Firstly yes pine marten have proved very successful in Ireland perhaps it may be Ithe case in Scotland too. They would be a cheaper long-term option than trapping.

Secondly both pine marten and reds can thrive in broad leaves, it is just that Grey's are better than reds at living in this woodland type. I see reds and also marten in beech, oak woodland regularly (marten less so).

Thirdly the short-term answer would be to control here's greys, we are really talking eco system services when it comes to reds and grey control and hardwood timber. The payback for owning and managing woodland is timber, not a great return so yes funding is justified as it would be a contribution to costs and not just pocketed as single farm payment is, for a lot less.

I think this bill will be passed on to the tax payer. Whereas the asset-rich land-owners will get pest control done at other peoples expense.

 

What happens after the cull? I reckon the grey squirrel population will increase again. They've been successful for a reason I imagine.

And the tax paying public benefit from woodlands, wider biodiversity, carbon s storage, flood alleviation, tourism. Even more so north of the border with the right to roam, camp etc.

The integrated controlling of greys for red conservation and protection of hardwood timber resource is a benefit for the wider rural economy. Must be done right though.

TGB, bear in mind that very few of our red squirrels are actually natives but were reintroduced many times from the continent by man in the past 100yrs. Similarly with foxes. So yes, massively reducing greys and paying to reintroduce reds might work seeing as it has worked before.

One question would be why reds died out a 100 or so years ago. Possibly fragmented woodland and very low level of suitable woodland to maintain reds?

Grey control is expensive especially where there are both grey and red in the same region. Pine smarten definitely help control greys as has been seen in Ireland and parts of Scotland.

Seeing as the woodland sector gets the drips off the farming gravy train a few million quid is next to nothing.

Perhaps Kd?

If the kiln is not insulated the temperature inside the kiln will struggle to get high enough to collect significant moisture and release it from the kiln.

Kilning in the summer would seem a waste of time as you still need to store the kilned wood in a dry spot, and double handling etc.

Busiest week ever. Suddenly word has got around that my logs really are dry! Think they've tried the rest and now coming to me.

Anywhere near dunoon? My old girl has had some supposed kilned spruce and it is rubbish

6 acres of first thinning SS sounds like not a lot of timber, how much are you expecting to get out of it?

 

Would imagine only a couple of days work so when factor in cost of low loader, site visits, have to make sure you cover your costs

 

You can get pallet and some 3.1s out of first thinning but for the volume i'd put it all through as chip. I don't think many of the big boys would be interested in small volumes of SS so would take any offers given on here:thumbup:

6 acres = 2.3ha

1st thinning racks at 14-18m centres plus matrix = Approx 60m3 per ha so 140t or thereabouts, 5-6 loads of timber.

I would definitely limit products in such a small volume, else you will be left with part loads that will never be picked up.

Steepness, distance from haulage point all add to cost as do proximity of roads, power lines, phone lines, badger setts (the last 3 might be a show stopper this time of year).

For hand cutters £19/t to roadside absolute minimum - any difficulties and the price has to rise. My starting point would be £24/t as that should keep the job cash positive for the woodland owner.