Looking for an argument

#1
Gentlemen,
I have posted this in here as I think this where some of you forest dwellers er...dwell.
I am at college studying countryside management (I'm in my 40s & male, sorry) & I'm doing an investigative project on woodlands; what I'm looking at is the creation of new broad leaf forests, the hows & whys etc. Now I have found reams of material saying what a good thing this is, from carbon dioxide reduction to just the simple aesthetics that make us feel good, but & hence the thread title, I cant find anything from the other side of the coin as it were. I need a devils advocate counter argument so where better than arrse when one needs an argument!

So can anyone here think of or has ever encountered an argument against having more woodland in this country?

I found this thread whilst having a look about the place http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/156583-forestry-commission-sell-off.html which was useful, some good links so thanks for that. But clearly all on the thread are in favor of forests.

I am a never served gopping civie sheeps c.... (I believe is the correct description) but my own love of the woods started in Rinteln & Fallingbostel as a pad brat, doing all the den/tree house making stuff kids cant do these days.

(Bit boring I know, for my 1st post, sorry)

Any ideas/help gratefully received, thank you
 
P

PrinceAlbert

Guest
#2
I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#6
Well more woodland makes for more restricted/severely restricted terrain, depending on: the age/size of the trees; the distance between them; the slope on which they grow and the weather conditions. So, depending whether you are attacking or defending this is either a good or a bad thing.
 
#7
Gentlemen,
I have posted this in here as I think this where some of you forest dwellers er...dwell.
I am at college studying countryside management (I'm in my 40s & male, sorry) & I'm doing an investigative project on woodlands; what I'm looking at is the creation of new broad leaf forests, the hows & whys etc. Now I have found reams of material saying what a good thing this is, from carbon dioxide reduction to just the simple aesthetics that make us feel good, but & hence the thread title, I cant find anything from the other side of the coin as it were. I need a devils advocate counter argument so where better than arrse when one needs an argument!

So can anyone here think of or has ever encountered an argument against having more woodland in this country?

I found this thread whilst having a look about the place http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/156583-forestry-commission-sell-off.html which was useful, some good links so thanks for that. But clearly all on the thread are in favor of forests.

I am a never served gopping civie sheeps c.... (I believe is the correct description) but my own love of the woods started in Rinteln & Fallingbostel as a pad brat, doing all the den/tree house making stuff kids cant do these days.

(Bit boring I know, for my 1st post, sorry)

Any ideas/help gratefully received, thank you
You know the rules, photos or it's not true.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#10
I would have thought most arguments against planting new woodland would come from people who are directly affected in that particular area, i.e. people who's views may become obscured or people who would be bothered by increased traffic, logging trucks etc.

I doubt there is any rational argument toward planting woodland in general, just in specific cases.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
One counter argument would be that we should be more sufficient in food and thus should replace woodland with arable land, pasture, etc. Its difficult eating oak but you can grind wheat to make bread.

Another would be its easier to make a commercial return off land turned over to food production as opposed to the production of timber.

As as this is only a three minute argument - goodbye...

Wordsmith
 
#12
Adding more broadleaf trees to the environment is a bad thing, it will just encourage hippies and tree huggers!

And on a serious note, I live on a highland estate that several hundred years ago, was mostly broad leaf trees. These days is is sodding Pine and not much else. Hate it! I wold much rather look out at "proper" and "native" trees than the hideous "I am going to fall over at the slightest wind" pines that I have now!
Bring back the oak!!
 
#13
More should be done to promote the re-cycling of wood. Wood can be an excellent fuel in rural homes which do not have a piped gas supply.

Too much wood from building demolition is just thrown away. It should be salvaged.

We could have Wood burning power stations.
 
#14
More should be done to promote the re-cycling of wood. Wood can be an excellent fuel in rural homes which do not have a piped gas supply.

Too much wood from building demolition is just thrown away. It should be salvaged.

We could have Wood burning power stations.
All new building sites separate and reprocess timber now, you cannot burn it on-site or dispose in a standard skip.
 
#15
Good day Sir,
Have some of this.

I honestly believe that we have as much woodland,feilds and green belt b*ll*xs as we are ever going to need and certainly do not need anymore. What we do have is not utilised, it's hardly more than a boundary on a map to show who owns what or a pretty thing to look at and have the occassional bimble through while thinking.....'Oh, how pleasant to be away from the plebs'...until a old Lab comings running up to you followed by their owner who looks at you as if you are going to eat the fecking thing or give it a disease at the very least.

I currently live in Greater London, and about 8 miles from the City, in what some people would like to call an over crowded concrete jungle of flats, streets, houses, shops and other assorted urban shite. They wouldn't be wrong.

I have the sound of traffic and/or sirens pretty much going throughout the day and evenings, then generally quiet from about 1am until sparrow fart.

Even then, at no time am I more than 5 minutes away from several large playing feilds, some with wooded areas, that are hardly used apart from Sunday football, and I am definetely no more than a 20 minute drive away from open countryside, consisting of the feilds and wooded areas. These are often fenced off.

Over my time of leaving this fair City and travelling both abroad and throughout the British Isles, in my search to get wet, cold and hunger, courtesy of HM Forces, I have encounted miles upon miles, upon fecking miles, of your beloved Woodland and green/brown/orange coloured environments....and dragged my sorry arrse over too much of it for my liking.

If I drive into kent, I see miles of feilds and woods, same if I drive into Essex..same if I drive in Herts and beyond. S & W and all in between offers the delights of SPTA, Dartmoor, Brecon, Epping Forest, the New Forest, etc, etc.

Past the Midlands and up into Otterburn and its 60,000 acres of shite, then we have Bonnie Scotland with a few steep things to ruin your day along with a few specs of rain.

Ireland, on a whole, has it's own joyous weather patterns and greenery to be enjoyed/endured.

Summing up. No, we do not need anymore fecking woods, look after what we have, but if they are in the way of progress...whatever that 'progress' may be.......then it's match stick time for you Mr Tree.

What we need is to get more of the urban population/Townies to visit and enjoy what we do already have..but the Col Blimps and other snotty nosed nimbys wouldn't like it would they?

Build a few more car parks and facilities near the large wooded areas to encourage visitors. It's a trade off with the mess/shite behaviour that they'd bring but at least they'd be utilised a bit more and then maybe feckers like me would have a bit more empathy with the trees...cos all I do when I walk through a wood is to look and think 'Could I put a platoon in there?' or that it would be a good place to build a new town and railway station/airport ;-)

...but then again I'm a Philistine.
 
#16
what I'm looking at is the creation of new broad leaf forests, the hows & whys etc.
You need to restart the thread with a title conatining something about forests, or the forest dwellers won't know the thread is of any interest to them.

Surely, it is more reinstating forests rather than creating new ones for the first time ever. The entire country was covered in forests, even the Brecon Beacons which promptly became a barren windswept, wet desert when the trees were cut for ships, houses, fuel, etc. and the soil set off downhill. There was recently someone trying to reinstate forests in the Brecons, a project which will probably receive much support here.

The answer lies in the economics, you'd need to make woodland more profitable than any other use of the land before it undergoes an uptake. You may achieve this in the Brecons or similar windswept shite holes, but any other areas would need some government incentive payment to make the landowners take it up. There is a hugely growing demand for wood fuel, but that is itself fuelled by RHI payments. It is only a matter of time before the government manages to work out that wood fuel is not carbon neutral and that most of their renewable enrgy payments have been misspent.


OT, but do you know; were the heaths (heathery places, where only ericaceous lime-hating plants grow) created by humans removing lime (in the form of animal bones, eggs, milk, etc) or did they exist before humans inhabited the areas? I've had a Google for the answer but haven't found it. There was apparently a big increase in agricultural output when the canals first allowed lime to be carried to areas that had no lime or chalk bed rock.
 
#17
Thanks people, some interesting points. Ravers, good point, I'll defiantly look at the local thing. The whole 'we need to grow more food' angle has come up before, usually countered by 'the woods provide habitat for insects that pollinate the crops & stop soil erosion' (the woods not the insects) China has invested millions planting trees as they've realised that their soil is disappearing down the rivers.
BiscuitsAB, I never made it to PRS just Heide Middle school in Fally, quite glad, heard loadsa horror stories about PRS, old fella left the army in '79
I was looking at the thread about tic bites, tenuous argument there............more woods = more deer = we all die of Lyme disease? ...............Nah
Natostandard thanks for that, I too live in the urban hell of London & am doing this course so as to get the **** out. I thought some one would raise the valid point that as soldiers you might be sick of the woods.
Thanks folks (going to be interesting to see what my lecturer makes of my arrse included bibliography for this project)

PS is it wrong to be excited like a school boy that the snail replied & wanted photos?
 
#18
Onetap, not sure, doing heathlands next term!
Oliver Rackham is the recognized authority on the history of the British country side but as with all history stuff, has arguments with other authors about forest coverage etc. Frans Vera argues that large herbivores cleared forests before humans & may have created heaths
 
#20
If in doubt, consult the experts;

A tree's diet consists mainly of carbondioxide; a side effect of this is that they fart out lots of oxygen. If there are too many trees there will be too much oxygen, meaning that everyone will be light headed and spaced out all the time. Our heads may even explode, which is officially A Bad Thing.

© BBC Nature MMXII
;)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Current Affairs, News and Analysis 1
S Lonely Hearts 177
leeanne Lonely Hearts 247

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top