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.