🚀 go-pugleaf

In his article Tim Channon (who's alternative Email address 
tchannon@cix.compulink.co.uk- suggests that he might be an ex civil servant
or perhaps an active Lib.dem.) does an excellent job of setting up a false
premise and then knocking it down. I see from his other contributions he
likes displaying his intelectual reasoning powers . Please look up this
thread I'd value someone who would research the history on this subject
(use http://www.dejanews.com if you missed previous articles ! ! or I'll
send them if you wish) and make some valid contributions. I appreciate the
chance of continuing the discussion ! !

In article <845202496snx@black.demon.co.uk>,
tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (Tim Channon) wrote:

>> **Note : - Fairly long article in Monday 7/10/96 Independent Newspaper -
>> page 5 - on the Rusland Beeches which discusses the presence of unusual
>> bats that also have protection orders. These inhabit the most dangerous
>> trees (those with the most rotten wood) and could help protect the Beeches
>> from the axe. Also photo taken with fish eye lens which looks to me as
>> though the trees are falling inwards and hence a bit decrepit ! !
>
>I saw that picture and regardless of the non rectilinear lens what struck me 
>was that they are not what I understand as large Beeches. (which incidentally
>don't stand up too well to high winds - we lost quite a few around here)
>
The Photo only included a few of the beeches - see Don McPhee's photo in
the Guardian for a more complimentary picture (Sat 21/ 9/ 96 ) -  there are
some very large ones amongst them, and was taken from a field opposite so
that the road is over the wall / fence. They have survived all the gales
without losing any (very few branches - a few were lost into the wood as
the result of the very heavy snow in Feb 96 (3ft). Which is why we are
upset at being told they are dangerous.

>An explanation about the fence is also due - so much for public access.
>
>And lastly the article mentions that there were 120 trees which if it's true
>and the remaining number is less than half that, seems to put a somewhat
>different complextion on things.

Why?

Originally about 120 were planted. In the past fifty years approx 64 have
been cut down mainly in 1984/5 after the last inspection by Derek Patch .
None have ever fallen down but always been felled for "Safety" reasons. The
remaining trees make a beautiful show and except for one or two are safe
and the local people want them to stay.
>
>
>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.
>As I read it, those responsible for the landmark are not suggesting destroying
>it but are simply managing it by replanting.

What most people are interest in is allowing for these trees to grow old in
their own way so that people can experience what happens to trees as the
age and die with all the attractive wild life that develops around rotting
trees. We are not interested in an avenue of trees as such. If one wanted
an avenue there are far better places that on one side of a narrow windy
lane.

>If the subject or it's purpose are changed the trust has been broken.
>
>The opposition seems to be mostly based on heart. It focuses on the trees.
<snip>
The argumnt revolves around some very unsound statements about  what trees
are dangerous. eg a number of trees are away from the road and leaning into
the wood. If these trees are judged to be dangerous then millions of our
trees all over Britain in such forests as Epping forest would be classed as
the same, and logically would suffer the same fate. Result no ancient trees
to be found anywhere. 

We have an experienced Forester advising us who has had a lot of experience
saving trees like these throughout the north of England. Further more the
Book "The Body Language of Trees" which was publiched by the AAIS and the
Forestry Commission clearly advises against the kind of survey that was
made my Derek Patch, the Director of the AAIS.

To quote from the preface (previous article dated 9/10/96 )

It is fitting, therefore, that it should be published  in the DepartmentUs
series RResearch for Amenity TreesS which aims to promote high standards of
amenity tree care by ensuring that research results are readily available
to practitioners.

>I notice quite a lot of splitting where the landmark is mentioned, then a
>jump to the trees.
>If they want to change the rules, perhaps they should be doing that instead
>of complaining about the trust doing their job.

I don't understand; the Lake District National Park Authority took on the
job of preserving the trees as best they could, not the avenue.
>
>"You can't see the avenue for the trees."

Quite, there never was an avenue ( meaning trees on either side of a
straight road),  we like the trees!
>
>  TC. 
>    E-mail: tchannon@black.demon.co.uk or tchannon@cix.compulink.co.uk
>                                    
Geoff Dellow