🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <WsKNgGAh$9YyEwA5@thopkins.demon.co.uk>, Theo Hopkins
<thopkins@thopkins.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <845202496snx@black.demon.co.uk>, Tim Channon
><tchannon@black.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>(CUT)
>>It occurs to me that the beeches are not specimen trees, but are a collective
>>and it's the collective forming a landmark which is the item in trust.
>>Such a landmark, where the trees were planted at the same time, is obviously
>>a transient thing which cannot exist contiguously forever.
>
>
>Trees have many other values than visual value.
>
>The Earth Summit at Rio in 1992 discussed forests.
>
>In the ("Non legally binding") statements that came out of the forest
>confernces was this one, signed by the UK, and re-signed by the UK at
>the Helsinki Confrence on the Sustainability of European Forests, June
>93:
>
>*...Forests should be sustained for their economic, ecoloical, social
>cultural and spiritual values.*
>
>That 3500 folk signed a petition to save the beeches and there is an
>ongoing campaign to save them shows the beeches have cultural and social
>values.
>
>Although old trees come from seedlings, it is clear that many people
>find spiritual qualities in existing old trees.
>
>However, the most important value of these trees is their ecological
>values.
>
>Due to traditional management in the UK where woods were nearly all
>managed for productive timber and fuelwood, few trees ever reached their
>biological maturity, rotted, fell and decayed. Coniferisation of
>broadleaf woods and land development of between 1918 and 1986 wiped out
>about half our recent natural broadleaf forests compounding this.
>(Estimated coversion is 53 percent plus, private communication, English
>Nature).
>
>Forest are _not_ just about trees. 
>
>Old and rotting trees are essential habitat for many birds and small
>mammals and bugs and beetles and fungi and algae and lichen. The UK has
>a dearth of old, rotten, fallen and decaying trees.The Forest Authority
>itself recognises this in their new forest guidelines, presently under
>consultation, as do a large number of conservation and forestry bodies
>in the new *Ancient Trees Inititive* which is headed up by English
>Nature.
>
>From the point of view of consevation, that these trees are old and
>rotten is the very reason for preserving them, rather than destroying
>them. The National Park have got it very, very wrong.
>
>While anyone can plant new trees, and many good people do plant new
>trees, no one can plant what is most needed now...200 year old trees.
>
>
>
>
>Theo Hopkins
>
>To a fungi, a forest is merely lunch.
Sorry mate but I think you're wrong about needing 200 year old trees.
We actually need a whole mixed age population, not a few grandparent
trees and millions of feathered whips in plastic tubes.  It's neglect
that creates the situation and determined government and council
activity that corrects it.  I agree much else of what most people say on
the subject though.  It's a good job some care but, to be frank, (as
opposed to Les?) most people don't care at all.  It will always be the
few trying to hold a bridge against the many who forgot what it was made
of years ago.  Seriously, I am advocating mixed age forests and on-going
- as opposed to splodge - planting.  On this basis I can say that a wood
is a valuable resource and so is an urban avenue.  Leave the trees to go
rotten in too many numbers and the profits go west along with the motive
to look after the wood in the first place.

Regards
-- 
Les Ballard         Les@gates.demon.co.uk


c/o BM: Gates of Annwn
London WC1N 3XX   U.K.       44+(0)1708 670431

No copyright statement is attached as the author is litigious.

Turnpike evaluation. For Turnpike information, mailto:info@turnpike.com