The Impact of Human leisure activity in woods

[Whatisheatnow]

Re ocp's mention of the EU putting £57 bn of EU taxpayers money into questionable agricultural practices, in a way that is correct but EU funds are made up of each nation's contributions. This means that funds paid to British farmers are completely recycled British taxpayer funds that are diverted from health, education, etc. Even in Ireland which is supposed to be a net beneficiary of EU money the payments to farmers are 90% recycled Irish taxpayer money. The EU just provides a smokescreen to hide these transfers from the population of each country as they would not be politically accepted if this truth were to be plainly stated. Also farm accounts put no monetary cost on the loss of habitat and biodiversity, thus allowing the monoculture to spread and habitat destruction to be ignored.

[splodger]

I don't know about everyone else's feelings, but I never bought our wood to make a return on it, or to have someone else tell me what to do, by my filling in of forms, I bought it purely selfishly to have some stress free me time

my dad bought our patch over 20 years ago - mostly for the timber initially. he bought well as it's now worth substantially more than he paid - but the value to us will always be greater than any amount of pound notes

[oldclaypaws]

I never expected any financial return from my wood, get a great deal of inexpressible satisfaction from it and am trying hard to not only to enjoy it but nudge it in the direction of being a more varied, biodiverse and little gem of a more natural ancient wood. It does slightly suck though that we are largely on our own whereas others who own agricultural chunks of the countryside get a fat cheque every year for soaking the soil in nitrates, spraying herbicides and digging up hedges. I could for example sell more logs and timber, but am deliberately leaving increasing amounts to rot as deadwood. Surely deadwood is invaluable, and if leaving rather than selling it, that is putting real ecological value into the wood? Thats a positive choice which goes unrewarded other than personal pride.

I'm not asking to be visited by box ticking bureaucrats filling out forms and paying by the bluebell, but those who are conscientious enough to plant for biodiversity, put up bat boxes, control threatening species such as grey squirrels, remove non natives, leave deadwood etc, do so for their own satisfaction without any recognition or ability to recoup any expenditure (unless you let in the general public, who then spoil it).

Currently I could clear fell my oaks, some of which have been there for 400 years and I worry the next owner might just do that. The FC were happy for me to do that if I wanted. Surely, when a large oak supports 400 species of insects, there should be some incentive to not fell, rather than putting cash before ecology. We criticise the Brazilians for felling the Amazon, but there's not much of our native forests left either, we are dominated by intensive farming. Farmers are paid for 'set aside' to do nothing with their fields, shouldn't we get an annual allowance for best ecological practice, and have a proactive support network to educate us, give us free batboxes and native saplings, and incentives if doing everything right? Others are paid for damaging practices, we're paid little or nothing for doing the right thing. At the very least we should be able to offset the costs of maintaining a wood properly against tax as we are protecting a precious resource with little or no income?

[wrekin]

Ancient Woodlands are a special case because they're not replaceable. But to be blunt, I think that how you manage a plantation is up to you since it's an artificial environment. Even from a biodiversity point of view, it's hard to avoid being more diverse than grazed pasture or an oil-seed rape field so we're still "ahead" of that whatever we do.

One of the dimensions of the Scottish Hutting thread http://www.swog.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1087 was the "social" benefits of encouraging more people to be involved in woods. Even in narrow terms, having more people that care about woods because of their personal involvement and will vote to protect Ancient Woodlands is a non-trivial benefit.

The recent Woodlands.co.uk blog about all this was interesting to see: http://www.woodlands.co.uk/blog/woodlan ... or-change/ If they do succeed, then that may change the rest of the UK too, with "a cabin in the woods" being seen as something positive, rather than viewed negatively by this coalition of paranoid planning officers and woodland puritanism.

[oldclaypaws]

Theres a house not far from us which is selling at a premium of £150,000 because it has about 1 1/2 acres of land out the back. People will pay a huge premium in the UK for a 'smallholding' because (perhaps not realising the work involved) its their preconceived idea of 'the good life'.

Go to rural France, where there's considerably more land, and a good portion of the properties come with land, without much premium if any. Its immensely satisfying to be involved with land and plants or trees, and I'm sure very few of us will ever sell up unless we are physically disabled.

I've often thought a better use of land rather than vast farms and millions without land, might be to allow a portion of farmland to be sold off as smallholdings of a particular size, say 1-5 acres, with automatic consent for a low impact dwelling such as a yurt, caravan or timber building. It would reduce property prices, be an option for those who can't afford a house, a democratic redistribution of land and lead to a new generation of rural dwellers living 'a la River Cottage'. They'd probably all want to plant part of it up as woodland too for sustainable fuel. Now that would be a radical and largely popular policy, and lead to far more diversity, small woods, and a micro agricultural revival of woodsmen, pigkeepers, beekeepers and craftsmen. (Vote for me, idyllic green loony philosophy party).

Going off at another tangent, but it was my post so I think I'm allowed to as part of questioning lifestyles, policy and land usage.

[splodger]

Going off at another tangent, but it was my post so I think I'm allowed to as part of questioning lifestyles, policy and land usage.

you've managed to change topic more than once on this thread - if it gets too off topic it may have to be split /locked / moved

[oldclaypaws]

you've managed to change topic more than once on this thread

Sorry, guilty. I'm a lateral thinker and do tend to 'ski off-piste'. I shall try to stay more relevant and focused on the subject in the future, or shut up more.

[Landpikey]

Currently I could clear fell my oaks, some of which have been there for 400 years and I worry the next owner might just do that. The FC were happy for me to do that if I wanted. Surely, when a large oak supports 400 species of insects, there should be some incentive to not fell, rather than putting cash before ecology. We criticise the Brazilians for felling the Amazon, but there's not much of our native forests left either, we are dominated by intensive farming. Farmers are paid for 'set aside' to do nothing with their fields, shouldn't we get an annual allowance for best ecological practice, and have a proactive support network to educate us, give us free batboxes and native saplings, and incentives if doing everything right? Others are paid for damaging practices, we're paid little or nothing for doing the right thing. At the very least we should be able to offset the costs of maintaining a wood properly against tax as we are protecting a precious resource with little or no income?

Be careful what you wish for! If there were grants and incentives for doing as you describe then the big money would be interested in coming in and buying up all the woodlands to make a profit, therefore pushing the price of the small woods beyond the reach of most of us on this forum.