Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Steve your method of measuring a previously cut down tree is WRONG diameter of a tree is not measured across the width of a tree cut down or not, it gives a more inaccurate result than counting rings, you are overestimating the age of a tree that was needed to be cut down to improve the heathland areas, as trees encroach to much into heathland, any up to date media including scientific papers state this. I would also think that your growth factor is wrong as well as you are taking an american value completely different environment and completely different species all together.

Your moisture comment makes no odd because peat boggy soils hold moisture and dont generally need topping up with rainfall. given that most of the felling work is at the top it won't make much difference as the plant species will take up the water given the dry condition (much like sand dunes)

Just because the lizards aren't there doesn't mean they all died, what you probably find is they moved into another suitable area.

CO2 emissions aren't really a point and case in an arguement when it is a very small impact in the environment the point in making of scotland is like you making a comment about upland soils, because the damage they do in scotland is much more damaging than removing a very small areas of trees on a common in worcestershire. Its a direct comparison.

The loss of some plants may happen yes, but you are forgetting that the grazing may encourage growth elsewhere off setting that which gets eaten.

As I said emptying the gulley of the trees means that reseeding cannot occur and more heathland plants can grow where they would be shaded out by the trees that grow there. (and the sheep and goats i mentioned was to argue your which beast could get up that slope)

The rspb would advice that but early August shows the time for breeding season ends in july but they always take a precautionary stance on the area, its prefectly safe to start felling trees at this time of the year.

TPO's are only relevant if a tree has a TPO on it where it has been specific order has been made its only added automatically in conservation areas, and SSSI's are not counted as they are under different legislation.

One major problem for the commom you have failed to mention is MAN. and by that i mean the users of the common as having walked round i've noticed the amount of man made erosion is a large problem. Large cutting made into small grassland areas near paths. Its something that needs solving and taking out trees is not going to make any difference to that

#726: -

I agree, measuring the diameter is useless for calculus in this instance. However, circumference is perfectly ok.

The circumference of this tree is 74 inches.

Trees, by species, are genetically coded to grow at about the same rate under similar conditions, therfore I am trying to get a ball park here give or take a decade or two.

The stump I took my measurements off was cut 12 inches from the ground and the shaft of the tree would have been quite parallel. I know, I should h

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6245.jpg...

ave measured the trunk lying on the ground. Netherless, these trees are too old to be cut down at all according to Francis Flanagan, regardless of what tape I used and how far I measured up the trunk.

 

Peat and boggy soils only hold moisture that that is presented to them. The construction of houses has caused some ponds and streams to dry up because of the way a large development interferes with transitional soil permiability. The trees do not have to be in close proximity to the pool, it is the site in general which will be drier and less able to allow perculating water the time to penetrate the ground.

 

Ok, climate change is real, yes?

 

The plants you are talking about were subject to SSSI protection.  which is why WCC have a sign which tells us grazing had to stop.

What species will replace these then. And whos experiment is this, its not mentioned anywhere.

 

If you were around 4000 years ago with basic tools, would you and your 30 settlers embark on a deforestation programme of 200 acres?

Given that the  population of Britain was around 250,000 people, labour would be a bit thin on the ground. Couple to this the average life expectancy of 35 years, I question the validity of the claim by WCC that 4000 years ago, settlers cut down the trees on the common. Have you tried felling a hardwood tree with an axe before? Then, to suggest that they also grubbed out the gulleys is nonsense. The reality is that the settlers would have had a clearing on the upper terrace but no more than was neccesary to support there population. This model is repeated around this time everywhere.

Time was a precious commodity, they new the ground was useless for agriculture, this would have been carried out at the nearest naturally suitable place. Then trees would have been cut but only sufficient for their needs. The deliberate and mechanised approach will meen that for the first time in its history the common will be reliant on constant management and cattle that will not be able to venture into these gullies as a management tool.

It's not a matter of precautionary stances from the RSPB, they are also very definate as to the guidlines and laws concerning tree felling. As a keen ornothologist I am sure that you are aware of these.

A wild bird is defined as ‘any bird of a kind which is resident in or a visitor to Great
Britain in a wild state. (Game birds however are not included in this definition. They
are covered by the Game Acts, which fully protect them during the close season.)
All birds, their nests and eggs, are protected by law and it is therefore an offence,
with certain exemptions, to;
· intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird
· intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or
being built
· intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird
· have in one's possession or control any wild bird, dead or alive, or any part of a
wild bird, which has been taken in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside
Act 1981 (as amended) or the Protection of Birds Act 1954
· have in one's possession or control any egg or part of an egg which has been taken
in contravention of the Act
· intentionally (or recklessly, in England and Wales only (CRoW 2000)) disturb any
wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at (or near) a nest
containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird.

Given the enourmous size of these trees, there location and proximity, dont you think something is not right here?     Why were the trees cut to the ground anyway?   Interesting, this bit of pruning IS mentioned on the signboards as removal of branches that may damage to power cables?

 

The protected status of a common is only as strong or weak as the people supposedley protecting it. This is not some back garden here.

 

It's funny, all of a sudden MAN is the problem, well its been fine for 4000 years. At this level of man made destruction, there will be nothing left soon. This supports the thinking that if loony prehistoric land grabbers did deforest then, there would be nothing left for us to see today. If things are bad now, the future looks bleak again. Liz Nether wants to open up yet more pathways and regards the site as underused. So much for the undisturbed habitat loved by many of our species.

 

 

Yes climate change is real, but being carbon neutral is difficult in all areas of life, especially if you through LCA into it.

Given where the work is happening they are not near to power lines yet and i bet when it gets to the point where they need to contact the energy company they will.

You say removal of branches near to powerlines but they could be out of date and explain different cuttings.

Cutting of trees was done to expand agricultural practice and the grazing of animals kept the tree cover down, this is why many habitats have been created and its why grazing is being reintroduced to the common to help maintain the heathland, the trees were cut back then and they are being cut now logic would dictate the creation of better ecological conditioned heathland. Change is necessary in environmental areas and this is exactly that. Let them try and bring the habitat to its former glory and see how it goes, other schemes have been successful and I reckon this one will be as well

#728: -

I believe that that the creation of unsustainable enviroments is just flying in the face of enlightenment in our fragile world. A holistic approach based on permaculture and sustainability would be kinder to the enviroment in every way. Hartlebury common has had more resources expended on it in the past few years than it has had in the past two hundred, and for what.

The carbon issue is easy here, leave it alone, what real benefit will come from this meddeling. The cost of everything in material terms to carry out these schemes will always  outweigh the supposed gains.

Two complete trees have been taken down.

Sorry, what you say is wrong, Traditionally  common land was never used for intensive farming, it usually was the bit niether the lord or the lady of the manor wanted because it was useless for virtually anything profitable.

Cutting down of trees for agricultural exspansion is a different generic. Which is why when you drive along most  rural roads , there are steep banks  along the road and strips of woodland which are untouched. The deforestation high water mark if you like, with clear fields behind. The two are very different practices. Intensive agriculturall development stopped at the shores of Hartlebury common because it was useless for general agriculture. This concept of eradication is as ridiculous as it based on the flimsiest evedence.

The common has always been about subsistance agriculture. If you look at the records for the common this is validated by the lists of commoners and their entitlements.

The common has not been the subject of deliberate deforestation on this scale at any time, if it had there would be little of it left now, change is not necessary, the species issue is not right. The rarity of the types is overblown. Can you tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that  do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.

Can you tell me why grazing is being introduced when this is in direct contradiction to WCC's policy?

Can you tell me how 33 cattle will have any impact on rampant fern and bramble since deforestation?

Can you tell me how the cattle can be disuaded from grazing on habitat previously "protected" by SSSI

Can we visit some of these "Succesful schemes together?"

 

 

 

Steve McCarron

Why did Natural England fail to intervene and, instead, encourage Longhorn's initially and even suggest increasing their numbers ?

 

 

http://www.horseytalk.net/HotOffthePress/2011/June/cattle.jpg...

Longhorn cattle not suitable for heathland grazing.Having read the Cornwall Access Forums minutes of December 2010 ,and in view of the serial archaeological damage to Tregeseal Circle, it was agreed,in the knowledge of Mr Stephen Warman (Natural England senior manager) who was present, that Longhorn cattle were,and are,not suitable for heathland grazing.

Being mindful that this was months before the recent damage to archaeology, Natural England must,I believe,justify why they failed to intervene and encouraged Longhorn's initially and went beyond that in suggesting increases in Longhorn numbers?

I would also ask why the grazing of Dartmoor ponies was encouraged throughout the year with a minimum number but NO maximum?

The above simple questions bring the competency of NE into question as the HEATH project was clearly promoted as being of benefit to tourism, and archaeology, but the decline in visitor numbers at Carnyorth(totally unrelated to the current economic climate) and the damage to our heritage is clearly of immediate concern and indicative of the project management.

The real question must however be targeted at the current and future status of Carnyorth as heathland.

NE and my own observations leave no doubt that this heathland was in good condition and thus,I believe, should only require management as prescribed in the HLS(Higher Level Stewardship)handbook BUT is,in fact,attracting added herbivore'management',with no maximum set grazing numbers of ponies, whilst management of Bracken etc(agreed as a priority and representing part of the management justification) has been tardy

My view is,and has been,that tools to depress public access are being installed in W.Penwith(for conservation not environmental reasons)and that the low accountability of the decades old ESA scheme and its consequent heathland degradation(confirmed by Mr Jim Paice, Agri Minister)is being continued through Higher Level Stewardship.(Carnyorth is a Cornish exception to this degradation).

HLS,as a scheme,has many good attributes and some good stewards but the problem in W.Penwith is the suitability of the component parts of HLS to the selected sites and the intransigence of Natural England regarding HEATH project sites.

Alternatives to grazing exist and produce 100% biodiversity over 25 years(Rob Rose,Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)without the collateral negative impacts produced by grazing and the added benefit of the possibility of job creation. NE have communicated that they are unlikely to consider HLS applications that do not include grazing thus excluding management options that could offer benefits that would avoid the problems that are currently being encountered.

The governments chief conservation adviser recently stated that conservation is unsustainable without public participation.An interesting statement in view of the actions taken in W.Penwith and the clear belief,by NE,that sustainability and exclusion are comfortable bed fellows!

Steve Yandall.
Germoe.

#716: Steve McCarron - Re: Re:

Im afraid to say steve your 150 year estimate was about 115 years out, as i said

 

the image below marks the rings of the tree with map pins so you can see the rings, i hope this clearly shows the age of the felled tree shown.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/856/dsc2085.jpg/

and yes it is the same tree

#731: - Re: Re: Re:  

 He has no idea what he is talking about and continues this "crusade" by trying to bullshit people..

#731: - Re: Re: Re:

You say, I say, dosnt matter, should not be cut down

#732: - Re: Re: Re: Re:

Campaign grows against Natural England

It's not just riders who are against it

http://horseytalk.net/HotOffthePress/Pics_Docs/Nov10/IanLiddel.jpg...

A Westcountry MP has just launched a withering attack on the conservation quango Natural England - labelling it an invention "Dr Frankenstein would be proud of".

Ian Liddell-Granger, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, has called for the body to be radically scaled back, arguing that it has been "let loose" on "many sensitive environmental issues".

He said: "Natural England cares more about weeds than the welfare of country folk. It believes that butterflies and bats come before people".

Mr Liddell-Granger, who was speaking in a Parliamentary debate he initiated, was critical of Natural England's handling of EU grants to farmers for maintaining landscapes.

He said farmers in Withypool on Exmoor were having to do "precisely what Natural England wants", despite maintaining common land for centuries.

He said: "Natural England wants more cattle to graze on the common, and has put on the frighteners. "It wants 48 cows to graze a bit of land that would barely support half that number. For generations, Withypool Common has been known as a sheep common and, in 1950, there were more than 2,000 sheep on the hill.

"There is nothing natural about Natural England. From the word go it was a cumbersome creature, cobbled together in haste.

"Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of it."

Hear. Hear.

#731: - Re: Re: Re:

So an oak tree, that I measured incorectly at the base, 22 inches Would be  say 20 inches on the trunk.

 

You are seriously trying to tell me that this oak tree is 35 years old ?

#732: - Re: Re: Re: Re:

If you carry on with your insults I swear to god I will retrieve your isp from my drive and find out where you are.

Keep it civil

#736: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  

 

And do what?

Why did Natural England fail to intervene and, instead, encourage Longhorn's initially and even suggest increasing their numbers ?

http://www.horseytalk.net/HotOffthePress/2011/June/cattle.jpg...

Longhorn cattle not suitable for heathland grazing.Having read the Cornwall Access Forums minutes of December 2010 ,and in view of the serial archaeological damage to Tregeseal Circle, it was agreed,in the knowledge of Mr Stephen Warman (Natural England senior manager) who was present, that Longhorn cattle were,and are,not suitable for heathland grazing.

Being mindful that this was months before the recent damage to archaeology, Natural England must,I believe,justify why they failed to intervene and encouraged Longhorn's initially and went beyond that in suggesting increases in Longhorn numbers?

I would also ask why the grazing of Dartmoor ponies was encouraged throughout the year with a minimum number but NO maximum?

The above simple questions bring the competency of NE into question as the HEATH project was clearly promoted as being of benefit to tourism, and archaeology, but the decline in visitor numbers at Carnyorth(totally unrelated to the current economic climate) and the damage to our heritage is clearly of immediate concern and indicative of the project management.

The real question must however be targeted at the current and future status of Carnyorth as heathland.

NE and my own observations leave no doubt that this heathland was in good condition and thus,I believe, should only require management as prescribed in the HLS(Higher Level Stewardship)handbook BUT is,in fact,attracting added herbivore'management',with no maximum set grazing numbers of ponies, whilst management of Bracken etc(agreed as a priority and representing part of the management justification) has been tardy

My view is,and has been,that tools to depress public access are being installed in W.Penwith(for conservation not environmental reasons)and that the low accountability of the decades old ESA scheme and its consequent heathland degradation(confirmed by Mr Jim Paice, Agri Minister)is being continued through Higher Level Stewardship.(Carnyorth is a Cornish exception to this degradation).

HLS,as a scheme,has many good attributes and some good stewards but the problem in W.Penwith is the suitability of the component parts of HLS to the selected sites and the intransigence of Natural England regarding HEATH project sites.

Alternatives to grazing exist and produce 100% biodiversity over 25 years(Rob Rose,Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/Centre for Ecology and Hydrology)without the collateral negative impacts produced by grazing and the added benefit of the possibility of job creation. NE have communicated that they are unlikely to consider HLS applications that do not include grazing thus excluding management options that could offer benefits that would avoid the problems that are currently being encountered.

The governments chief conservation adviser recently stated that conservation is unsustainable without public participation.An interesting statement in view of the actions taken in W.Penwith and the clear belief,by NE,that sustainability and exclusion are comfortable bed fellows!

Steve Yandall.
Germoe.

#731: - Re: Re: Re:

Why oh why oh why, did you not let me know you were going to be at the common today?

I would have been really happy to have been enlightened with your knowlege. Dont you think its good for supporters of these policies to meet objectors for this reason. I do all the time, not a problem.

 

Steve

#737: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Shake your hand!

#740: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:  

 

Nice. Look forward to that. Don't think its that easy to get ip addresses. You certainly won't have access to anyone's details or are you now an i.t expert too??

#732: - Re: Re: Re: Re:

I do not have to "Bullshit " anyone. The public of Hartlebury, Stourport, Bewdley and further beyond have always been dubious of this land conversion. I have to say, a lot of them are disgusted and very angry. This is not an isolated case, up and down the country, natural england are facing the same resistance and incresing scrutiny.

Never in my experience in conservation have I seen so much opposititon. Supporters of this scheme like to consider themselves vangaurds for ecology but they are not. They are just commercial components in a commercial venture.

There will never be cattle on hartlebury common , the public are rightly incensed. I notice that the fencing is being taken down in increasing amounts by others. This was planned before I highlighted the issues of the common so I am led to believe.

 

#735: Steve McCarron - Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes because you dont age tree by an incorrect tape measurement. You count the rings for an age this is taught by experts in the field (university lecturers, forestry workers with years of experience) and its also a done method with Forestry Commission. You can core trees whilst standing to age a tree by counting the rings. Size doesn't matter because it could have grown massively if the conditions were suitable. Ring counting to age a tree was taught to me at a young age as a way of describing the age of a tree.

I also aged the birch trees around the central path that have been removed to the right of the plantation forest they came up with an average of 25-30.
The oaks were also incidently of around 35-40 years old having aged a couple

#746: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

oh and i add we met 5 individuals when we left the common all in support of the grazing having seen the state the common has got in the past few years 5 and 25 years respectively.

http://horseytalk.net/HotOffthePress/Pics_Docs/Nov10/IanLiddel.jpg...

Ian Liddell-Granger, Conservative MP for BridgwaterA Westcountry MP has just launched a withering attack on the conservation quango Natural England - labelling it an invention "Dr Frankenstein would be proud of".

Ian Liddell-Granger, Conservative MP for Bridgwater, has called for the body to be radically scaled back, arguing that it has been "let loose" on "many sensitive environmental issues".

He said: "Natural England cares more about weeds than the welfare of country folk. It believes that butterflies and bats come before people".

Mr Liddell-Granger, who was speaking in a Parliamentary debate he initiated, was critical of Natural England's handling of EU grants to farmers for maintaining landscapes.

He said farmers in Withypool on Exmoor were having to do "precisely what Natural England wants", despite maintaining common land for centuries.

He said: "Natural England wants more cattle to graze on the common, and has put on the frighteners. "It wants 48 cows to graze a bit of land that would barely support half that number. For generations, Withypool Common has been known as a sheep common and, in 1950, there were more than 2,000 sheep on the hill.

"There is nothing natural about Natural England. From the word go it was a cumbersome creature, cobbled together in haste.

"Dr Frankenstein would have been proud of it."

Hear. Hear.

#747: - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The common has never looked so bad as it does now.

The common has not been the subject of deliberate deforestation on this scale at any time, if it had there would be little of it left now, change is not necessary, the species issue is not right. The rarity of the types is overblown. Can you tell me where else in the world vast amounts of money are spent to artificially sustain an unatural man made enviroment in favour of a few niche species that congregate there because it is an aberation? Can somebody tell what wildlife will benefit that  do not habitat there at the moment or live in the surrounding countryside.

Can you tell me why grazing is being introduced when this is in direct contradiction to WCC's policy?

Can you tell me how 33 cattle will have any impact on rampant fern and bramble since deforestation?

Can you tell me how the cattle can be disuaded from grazing on habitat previously "protected" by SSSI

Can we visit some of these "Succesful schemes together?"

 

 

#744: - Re: Bullshit

Cut