SWT has not given up on its plans to further interfere with the woodland by chain saw warfare. More felling. They would like to be able to show they have local people on their side probably because they need to show that there is support for their plans in order to qualify for the grants available. The grants come via the Forestry Commission and RSPB collaboration and the idea is that they re-design the woodland to provide just the kind of habitat - trees spaced out just so- in the way that the wee birdies are supposed to prefer. SWT has been trying to persuade me that this in the interests of everyone, of the woodland itself and of the woodland birdlife but I remain sceptical. This is public money being provided for this project and the plan is to improve on nature. As with the heathland management the presumption is that nature cannot be trusted to go its own way. It might do the wrong thing. And targets are what we are about these days, not just in the NHS but also it seems in our wild woods. I'm not sure whether the managers get a bonus for each time a Lesser Spotted Woodpecker visits but it's a bit like that.
My reservations are several:
1 An artificial habitat will be created where the situation at the moment is that natural vegetation, natural woodland cannot be said to have failed. The whole of Blacka is becoming increasingly artificial with artificial heathland and artificial pasture land. Now the one part of Blacka where nature has been allowed to be largely free from intrusive agendas would be managed.
2 It is conceded that birdlife on Blacka is doing well without the need for this kind of management. It is odd to have money spent where there is success now. Other places in the country are not doing well. Spend the money there instead.
3 The process is usually very disruptive. The way that SWT is organised it's often not the people who tell you about these things that actually do the work.
4 The story that these birds depend on a certain pattern of woodland seems to be a theory. How well has it been tested and has it been peer reviewed?
5 Once this has been done what next? We seem to have a never ending series of interventions and tinkerings in a site where we decided there should be minimum intervention.
2 It is conceded that birdlife on Blacka is doing well without the need for this kind of management. It is odd to have money spent where there is success now. Other places in the country are not doing well. Spend the money there instead.
3 The process is usually very disruptive. The way that SWT is organised it's often not the people who tell you about these things that actually do the work.
4 The story that these birds depend on a certain pattern of woodland seems to be a theory. How well has it been tested and has it been peer reviewed?
5 Once this has been done what next? We seem to have a never ending series of interventions and tinkerings in a site where we decided there should be minimum intervention.
3 comments:
So SWT have discovered the woodland on Blacka? That wouldn’t be because of the recent introduction of Woodland Birds Grants under the English Woodland Grant Scheme of the Forestry Commission? Isn’t this just another example of funding availability driving wildlife trust management? Perhaps SWT have been talking to the other SWT – Staffordshire WT – as they also “discovered” the Woodland Birds Grants in their determination to justify to objectors what is primarily a deforestation to open habitat at Gib Torr to create even MORE moorland!!
This is another example of SWT (Sheffield WT that is) making out that they walk on water – everything they do is marvellous, and that they are but the saviours of our natural heritage. Their focus on Blacka has very much been about the dogma of moorland management and the persecution of trees. That Blacka is designated as “Dwarf shrub heath – upland” petty much relegates the woodland to obscurity in their approach. Worse still, that designation could be used as a pretext to further persecute the woodland, as a requirement of that designation is that there should be no more than 20% of scattered trees on Blacka. The word scattered is underlined in the Common Standards Monitoring.
As you know, the Forestry Commission is well aware of the value of the woodlands on Blacka, and the RSPB person that they brought in to look at the woodland said there already was a lot of woodland bird interest, indicating that there is NO NEED to interfere. I hesitate to to use anything from English Nature in support of my point, but SWT needs to take notice of the objectives that were set by EN for the woodland on Blacka:
“The woodlands will be allowed to develop through natural processes wherever possible”
“Some limited supplementary planting may be required to increase the stocking of native species”
“..we would expect the area of semi-natural woodland to be maintained, with established targets for both canopy and understorey cover. A proportion of standing dead trees and lying dead wood should be retained on site and there should be signs of natural regeneration of native species. Species composition is important, and the long-term target should be at least 90% of cover in any one layer of site native or acceptable naturalized species, with 80% of ground flora cover referable to the relevant NVC community”
I just wonder what SWT really know about the woodland on Blacka. Can they ever get over themselves and allow the woodland to develop through natural processes.
So SWT have discovered the woodland on Blacka? That wouldn’t be because of the recent introduction of Woodland Birds Grants under the English Woodland Grant Scheme of the Forestry Commission? Isn’t this just another example of funding availability driving wildlife trust management? Perhaps SWT have been talking to the other SWT – Staffordshire WT – as they also “discovered” the Woodland Birds Grants in their determination to justify to objectors what is primarily a deforestation to open habitat at Gib Torr to create even MORE moorland!!
This is another example of SWT (Sheffield WT that is) making out that they walk on water – everything they do is marvellous, and that they are but the saviours of our natural heritage. Their focus on Blacka has very much been about the dogma of moorland management and the persecution of trees. That Blacka is designated as “Dwarf shrub heath – upland” petty much relegates the woodland to obscurity in their approach. Worse still, that designation could be used as a pretext to further persecute the woodland, as a requirement of that designation is that there should be no more than 20% of scattered trees on Blacka. The word scattered is underlined in the Common Standards Monitoring.
As you know, the Forestry Commission is well aware of the value of the woodlands on Blacka, and the RSPB person that they brought in to look at the woodland said there already was a lot of woodland bird interest, indicating that there is NO NEED to interfere. I hesitate to to use anything from English Nature in support of my point, but SWT needs to take notice of the objectives that were set by EN for the woodland on Blacka:
“The woodlands will be allowed to develop through natural processes wherever possible”
“Some limited supplementary planting may be required to increase the stocking of native species”
“..we would expect the area of semi-natural woodland to be maintained, with established targets for both canopy and understorey cover. A proportion of standing dead trees and lying dead wood should be retained on site and there should be signs of natural regeneration of native species. Species composition is important, and the long-term target should be at least 90% of cover in any one layer of site native or acceptable naturalized species, with 80% of ground flora cover referable to the relevant NVC community”
I just wonder what SWT really know about the woodland on Blacka. Can they ever get over themselves and allow the woodland to develop through natural processes.
So SWT have discovered the woodland on Blacka? That wouldn’t be because of the recent introduction of Woodland Birds Grants under the English Woodland Grant Scheme of the Forestry Commission? Isn’t this just another example of funding availability driving wildlife trust management? Perhaps SWT have been talking to the other SWT – Staffordshire WT – as they also “discovered” the Woodland Birds Grants in their determination to justify to objectors what is primarily a deforestation to open habitat at Gib Torr to create even MORE moorland!!
This is another example of SWT (Sheffield WT that is) making out that they walk on water – everything they do is marvellous, and that they are but the saviours of our natural heritage. Their focus on Blacka has very much been about the dogma of moorland management and the persecution of trees. That Blacka is designated as “Dwarf shrub heath – upland” petty much relegates the woodland to obscurity in their approach. Worse still, that designation could be used as a pretext to further persecute the woodland, as a requirement of that designation is that there should be no more than 20% of scattered trees on Blacka. The word scattered is underlined in the Common Standards Monitoring.
As you know, the Forestry Commission is well aware of the value of the woodlands on Blacka, and the RSPB person that they brought in to look at the woodland said there already was a lot of woodland bird interest, indicating that there is NO NEED to interfere. I hesitate to to use anything from English Nature in support of my point, but SWT needs to take notice of the objectives that were set by EN for the woodland on Blacka:
“The woodlands will be allowed to develop through natural processes wherever possible”
“Some limited supplementary planting may be required to increase the stocking of native species”
“..we would expect the area of semi-natural woodland to be maintained, with established targets for both canopy and understorey cover. A proportion of standing dead trees and lying dead wood should be retained on site and there should be signs of natural regeneration of native species. Species composition is important, and the long-term target should be at least 90% of cover in any one layer of site native or acceptable naturalized species, with 80% of ground flora cover referable to the relevant NVC community”
I just wonder what SWT really know about the woodland on Blacka. Can they ever get over themselves and allow the woodland to develop through natural processes.
Post a Comment