🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <32404948.5F27@compuserve.com>,
LDNPA <100063.3401@compuserve.com> wrote:

>The Lake District National Park Authority has produced a leaflet setting out
>the facts with regard the Rusland Beeches.  It is being sent to all who write
>letters of objection to the proposals to fell the trees.
>
>The Rusland Beeches - the facts behind the decision to fell.
<very large snip>
>10. The National Park then sought the views of English Nature,
>    Cumbria Broadleaves, The Forestry Authority, Cumbria Wildlife
>    Trust, The Parish Council and The Friends of the Lake District.  All
>    responded with regret that any of the trees needed to be felled, but
>    agreement that this should be done on the advice of the AAIS,
>    because of the danger to public safety.
<very large snip>
>Guy Weller, LDNPA, Septenber 1996

The above is a very ambiguous  and misleading statement 
 "All responded with regret that any of the trees needed to be felled"
is a clear statement but what does

'but agreement that this should be done"
What does "this" mean?

Everyone including Save the Rusland Beeches campaign agree that _some_
trees need to be felled !  !

As to the actual words used in three of the letters ( I have not seen the
other three): -

Letter to LDNPA dated 1st April 1996 from IH Slater,Blackwell,Bowness LA23
3JR tel (015394) 45286
"English Nature would not object to the felling of part or all of the beech
avenue in line with the recommendations of the AAIS report. Beech is not a
native to this part of England being a southern species naturally found
south of the line from The Walsh across to South Wales. The species is
therefore not a natural component of these woodlands and the regeneration
of the trees within the adjacent site does lead to some reduction in the
'natural' state of the wood."

There is  _no mention_ of the issue of danger to the public whatsoever



Letter to LDNPA dated 30 April 1996 from Peter Bullard,Brockhole,
Windermere, LA23 1LJ   tel (015394)48280
"It is always regrettable when any tree or trees become dangerous and
therefore need to be felled. In this case the issues relate more to
landscape than nature conservation as beech is not native to South
Lakeland. Cumbria Wildlife Trust has no objections to the trees being
felled if necessary for safety reasons."

Letter to LDNPA dated 8th May from The Friends of the Lake District, NO3,
Yard 77 Highgate Kendal LA9 4ED(01539) 720788
"Members acknowledged that the safety of the public using the adjacent road
must be an overriding consideration and therefore the felling of the 26
most dangerous trees could not be opposed. In terms of the remaining trees,
it was appreciated that there could be no guarantees as to the
effectiveness of tree surgery work in prolonging the life of the  beeches
and that the work itself could reduce their amenity value. Whilst it would
clearly be desirable to minimise the impact of tree felling in view of the
local importance of the beech as a well-loved landscape feature, we realise
that this may not be a practical option. When the Friends took on the lease
of the Rusland Beeches back in the 1950s, some trees were felled and others
had tree surgery work, so even at that stage it was appreciated that the
condition  of the Beeches was beginning to deteriorate. Therefore, albeit
reluctantly, members accept that the felling of all the beech trees is the
most sensible option at this stage."

 In my posting of 8/9/96  "Threat to the Rusland Beeches"  I made the
statement : -

"Next posting regarding the ridiculous purist view of the 'Friends of the
Lake District' who support the above action."

This I understand provoked Ian Brodie into acting irresponsibly in what I
must assume was the heat of the moment.

I realise this whole issue is complex and full of immeasurable
suppositions. There are few facts around, but what there are in abundance
are feelings about things that matter to a lot of people.

I believe my statement above could have been stated in a less provocative
manner. On reflection I regret using the term ridiculous because everyone
is entitled to their view and I may be wrong about the degree that the
"purists" influenced the committee's support of the LDNPA.

It is clear from the letter sent to the LDNPA by the Friends of the Lake
District on the 8th May 1996 quoted in part above that  the committee
members of the Friends believed that whether or not the beech is indigenous
to Yew barrow Woods is an important issue. 

"Members also felt that the issue of whether beech is indigenous to the
area is not as clear cut as might be thought - one member drawing attention
to Peterken's argument that "beech might have colonised much further north
during the past two thousand years had agricultural practices not
intervened."
'
"Strong views were expressed concerning the negative impact of beech in
this area . . ."

Apparently beech can "take over" other trees because it blankets out the
growth of other seedlings. If this is important then I see no problem with
removing undesirable saplings from time to time to prevent this in .

However I object strongly to applying this argument to The Rusland Beeches
and I find it hard to believe that it did not affect the decision by The
Friends to support the LDNPA.

If Ian Brodie insists that "purists" were not present, I accept this and
apologise.

Geoff Dellow