Hands Off Hartlebury Common

Subject: Re: NATURAL ENGLAND


Hallo Ian and others

Unfortunately, many Action groups tire after a few years of battling the bizarre world of Natural England and the conservation industry - constantly pressing at a sponge?!! Ashdown Forest was draining for the Action group there, consistently being stone-walled by NE, the DEFRA minister at the time, various MPs etc. In some places, it goes quiet for a while until the consequences of the fencing, cattle grids and grazing becomes clear - such as at Holt Heath in Dorset (which has been going on for over 10 years) where there was so much anger recently that the parish council held an open meeting this April after RTAs with cattle etc. (the cattle had reflective collars fitted, as if that would solve the problem!!)

I've copied in a few people: Sutton Heath in Suffolk, and Blacka Moor near Sheffield etc. Many of the contacts I have had over the years go quiet eventually when faced with the brick wall. They have had enough. Its hard to know what to do about NE. They are an "arms lenghth" Non-departmental Government Body that seems only accountable in terms of public scrutiny to the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. And yet it dispenses millions in agri-environment money (HLS etc) solely to pursue an agenda of its own. The NE Board is filled with "thinkalike" place persons. There should be an EU angle to scrutiny since agri-environment money is partially funded through the second pillar of the CAP, with Governments topping it up.

The biggest defence that NE has is that our elected representatives - at all levels - can't be bothered to understand what is going on (perhaps the odd exception) and will just supinely take whatever explanation the current DEFRA minister dishes out. The minister of course will be relying on what NE has told them. Moreover, as some people have found out about MPs, they will claim that they cannot take up an issue for someone who is not a constituent, or if the issue is not in their constituency.

Journalists are no better. Its just too easy to regurgitate (churn out) press releases from NE and the conservation industry rather than understand the issues. They often have cosy relationships with local "sources" in the conservation industry, especially the ones on national newspapers..

It has to be recognised also that NE and the conservation industry will always hide behind legislation, irrespective of whether that legislation actually specifically legitimises the CHOICES THAT ONLY THEY MAKE. It is also on the back of a designation system - SSSI - that is deeply flawed, such that they can make it up as they go along to support THEIR CHOICES. It suits their purpose to use legislation as a scare tactic, as they also do the UKBAP and its devolved entities. And yet the various enforcement provisions available for SSSIs are very rarely used. It is all bluff, especially that the BAP list under section 42 of the NERC Act has any force . Same with the threats under EU law - the first round of reporting under Artcle 17 in 2007 would have had every country in the EU at that time prosecuted. As the action group at Kingwood Common showed, it can be very useful to throw the law back at the conservation industry, as they work on a presumption that everything they do is legitimate. It makes them lazy. However, it comes at a cost. Remember that everything the conservation industry does is financed by the tax payer - you also have to find your costs out of your pocket, and so you are paying twice! Sometimes, also, the conservation industry can be caught out in the lies they tell, their back door deals, and the incompetence they exhibit - Freedom of Information is about the only redress we have.

Any confrontation of this absurdity only puts us at personal risk, and at the risk of losing public support, but I fear that the challenge to NE and the conservation industry is getting nowhere when it is fragmented and easily containable by them. Like colleagues, I make no bones about my disgust of NE, and have long given up being reasonable. I hesitate to put into words what is needed, but I do think the time has come for some really obdurate high profile but clearly thought out stand, and which is backed by all of us as evidence of the frustration of dealing with such an oppressively tyrannical situation.

Cheers

Mark

#58: Choose a nickname - Fire risk

You see, it's easy to get your argument wrong if you do not read clearly what I have said which is;

That by REDUCING scrub and tree cover and Widening the cover of heath and reducing natural fire breaks by installing heath do add up to an increased risk of fire.

You WILL create a drier more fire prone enviroment because the trees and scrub create shade and lock moisture into the ground, Green ground cover and wet or damp mulch underneath juvenile trees is not particulary flamable.

There were no trees at the site of the fire, just gorse which had become flamable because we are experiencing the driest spring since 1910.

Therefore, expanding heath area, climate change, windier weather, site on top of a hill, drier heath for longer periods, lack of natural firebreaks and the historic tendacy for the heath to be arsoned.

What makes you think I want an increase in scrub and gorse?

Do you think felling the pine plantation and the two adjacent decidious plantations will make the common less prone to fire?

Well managed heath eh, like this, the future of hartlebury Common?



"The Dorset Heathland Project was set up in 1989 in order to offset continuing losses of lowland heathland and to reduce fragmentation, through a programme of land management advice and habitat restoration.

The Project ran two teams, restoring heaths in the Avon Valley and Purbeck, mainly by removing invading trees. In 2003, the Project celebrated the milestone achievement of restoring over 1,000 hectares of lowland heath, successfully demonstrating that large-scale lowland heath restoration is a viable proposition."



And then this happens http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-13716970



Manage the site, conserve what is there by all means, but in 1976, these fires were a daily occurence throughout the land. Increasing fire risk by disregarding common sense in favour of rote arguments is not good enough. I am not in favour of a preponderence of anything, is that so wrong when 80% of the common is open space and heath anyway?

Is that really perverse?, I don't think so and most people agree. You cannot fathom the land and the way man and nature can interact from text books.

#721: Steve McCarron - Re:

The over a metre across tree, im assuming you thought was what a good 200-250 years old (given your measurement technique/calculation).

 

Hate to break it to you but its the grand old age of 63. About 4x times short of your estimation

 

Next time count the rings (you don't need a calculator just the ability to count)

#960: - Re: Re:

Thanks guest

1 Of course broadleaf english oaks are 60 years old when they are a metre accross at the base.

2 What you are really trying to say is that their removal to the base is ok.

 

Cicumference in cm

devide by Pi

Multiply by growth factor of tree = age

#963: Steve McCarron - trees being ellegaly cut down

Daisy is excited she thinks she is gonna be moving soon

DAISY MOO RULES THE COMMON

Been to common and all fences look ok to me

#966: Steve McCarron - unatural england and birds

thought the fence was damaged look at it today looks ok to me where has it been tampered with

Towards poolands fence cut and peeled back and Worcs rd by sandy lane fence cut peeled back

Hi Steve.An FOI to the Fire Services 3 years ago showed that heath fires were most common on grazed sites.The distinction between natural fires and arson must be made as many heathland plants have evolved with a genetic fire response which raises germination %'s to avail those plants of the immediate nutrients released through fire followed by 20 years of low nutrients within which they thrive and their successional competitors struggle.Unfortunately grazed areas tend to be areas of compaction thus denying reptiles etc escape runs from fire!Intervention has downsides but they are not publicised.I am attempting to say that fire is a natural phenomena as well as a sick entertainment to some BUT that grazing associates with excess fires.Fire confuses the issue without analysis as humans all fear fire and react emotionally but nature has evolved to adapt and benefit from NATURAL fires.

#969: -

Thanks for your considered reply.

Steve Davis of the Dorset wildlife trust is quoted as saying the recent fire there had set them back 25 years. That scheme was subject to the same  proposals as for hartlebury Common. I understand the cycle of burn, regeneration and dependant species but there is a clear difference between out of control devestating injurous infernos and controlled back burning. The purpose of fire is irrelevant anyway as this form of deliberate mangement is banned here. My post was not intended as an emotional statement but merely a statement of fact. More heath, more fires, less heath, less fires. The people, public and experts in this field that I correspond with, do not deal in emotive terms. For all these reasons the issue of fire is not relevant here, only in the context of increased risk to cattle, wildelife, firefighters and emergency services, the public, adjacent houses, property, and the stability of the common itself.

 

Steve McCarron

 

Watch, and become edcauted on what your trying to stop

http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b011w6nj/?t=20m40s

My comments re fire attempted,poorly,to underline another negative of grazing.The depression of biodiversity through the loss of escape routes for reptiles/amphibians etc as the cattle compress and destroy some access to underground runs.They can also destroy hibernacula and create areas that make predation easier.As controlled burning is banned with you the tinder carrying capacity is uncontrolled(except manually I guess) and the threat of fire raised.Coincidentally the 25yrs quoted by the Dorset WT is the time a burning regime takes to complete a cycle(at 4% a year)and produce 100% biodiversity whilst reducing the overall risk of wildfires.An awful endictment of NE(then EN)exists if you GOOGLE What are Natural England up to now NW Raptor Group.

Why do people keep cutting the fence? Don't you realise it's people like us that will be paying for it when wcc put their council taxes up to cover the cost! If you don't agree with what's happening fine but stop costing us all MORE MONEY!

#973: Graham Dodd -

Well said Graham we have all tried to tell them about vandalism but he does'nt seem to understand

He says he's not gonna pay the fine--------

#973: Graham Dodd -

If you had read the petition page, which you dont seem to have, you would understand that the council should not be spending rate payers money on this fencing. We are tax payers too you know.

The funds have been misapropriated. They are using OUR money to make money for themeselves. The fencing is persuent to every tom dick and harry, sub contractor, consultant, regulatory body, operatives, graziers, vets, cattle providers. You name it THEY have in interest, thats why our money is being used to put up a bloody fence.

Other people can see this clearley. Some people think that the sun shines out of county hall, others disagree.

People have given up with so called normal process, they want to protect their enviroment, hence the fence cutting.

 

McCarron