Hands Off Hartlebury Common

#713: -

there isn't any benefits to grazing cattle, its already been claimed on here that the council want to turn the place into a wildlife theme park and thats simply not the case. The cattle grazing is being performed for its environmental benefits in ensuring the common is maintained to the standard of the SSSI that it was given. Its common practice on similar heathland habitats, the nearest being the Rifle range and devil's spittlefield between kidderminster and bewdley where they have a rare breed of cattle grazing to maintain the heathland habitat and its working well there

#714: - Re:

In which case you would not be planning to put cattle on the site because they will eat the valued flora and fauna which was noted in the earlier two sssi listings and on the new information boards, with reference to the stopping of grazing by WCC for exactly that reason.

Nor would you let cattle graze over a prehistoric archaeological site.

No mention of spraying asulox as a management tool either.

The cattle will not combat the new preponderent plant life, fern, which will always succeed over heather, hence asulox.

Can you tell me the enviromental benefit of creating an artificial, unsustainable 200 acre space that will need tending for ever. Not very carbon neutral.

Can you tell me why 100-150 year old oaks are being cut down in abundance when they were certainaly present at both listings. This one is 22 inches in diameter making it roughley 150 years old

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6638.jpg...

Heathland habitats are abundant without grazing and do not rely on it, as heath is plentiful  at hartlebury.

You  are the first person that I have met that thinks your schemes  nearby have been a success. The public I meet have a very different point of view of their own and talk of failing disorganized sites.

I would be happy to walk the areas in question with you, with a member of the press, to discuss these points.

Steve McCarron

Right first thing, how are you working out the age of said tree?

and i would remove #718 because it is completely irrelevant to the common, as UPLAND areas are above 400-500m and you won't find yourself above 400m on the common. (the common doesn't get above 60m for those who wonder how high the common is)

Also chopping down trees is fine because even after chopping it down it still holds the carbon its already taken up.

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/how-to-age-forest-trees2.jpg...

Not a very accurate chart I know but it is mirrored by other similar informations for a guestimate

An yes, I know it is an american table but netherless, 150 years for a 22 inch diameter tree would be about right

718 is relevant because climate change does not just effect upland ares but lowland as well.

If you would like to meet me I can show you many areas that are sucumbing to this  phenomena on the common. The proposed changes, plus grazing, plus, root reductions in the strata will exacerpate the problem.

At the upper terrace adjacent to the pine plantation (south) there is significant moisture here. This at the  the highest and most exposed point of the common. This is  indicated by the permanently sodden floor moss. This will be lost as soon as the trees are taken down and as the moisture levels drop.

Broad leaf oak canopy and our indiginous birches both assist in the retention of cooler, moister enviroments at ground level. You only have to walk around the common to see where the lushest and greenest grasses exist at the moment.

Deforestation is one of the most damaging things that can be done to an enviroment. Normally the felling of trees is offset by there planting elsewhere. Whilst a felled tree lying on the ground holds its carbon, the manpower, management and fuels, plant, transport cannott be called carbon neutral and act as a deficit.

Add to this that trees consume co2 and generate oxygen makes the validity for their cutting less credible.

The common has had more plant, machinery, work, manpower, recources, expended on it in the last two years than it has in the past one hundred. All this to create an unsustainable enviroment. Is this a green policy?

I notice the tree felling to the east of the pine plantations, in the gulleys headind towards the worcester road.

Were these cleared by our ancestors for agricultural means also. I think they are a bit to steep for man or beast.

In these areas, the protective layer of humus rich soil is know being washed away. More and more of the fresh red sand underneath is begining to show. This in turn is being eroded.

http://i1179.photobucket.com/albums/x395/stevemac2/DSCF6601.jpg...

This oak is over a metre accross, not only was it cut down a week ago in the middle of the breeding season for birds but was uneccesarily cut to the floor. The cutting was subject to maintaince by a utility company but the tree should have enjoyed some protections. The felling is counter to guidlines used by E-on and central networks. There is another felled tree adjacent to this one.

I have answered you in turn, could you do me the courtesy of doing the same

Steve McCarron

#721: Steve McCarron - Re:

No offence but im going to question your forestry knowledge because you have not measured the trees correctly.

Diameter of a tree in such measurements is made by measuring the tree at breast height which is 1.5m off the floor of the ground. You use a different type of tape that measures more accurately than the one your using then divide by Pi. that will then give you the diameter that is required.

Measuring as you have from the stump is wrong because its not a diameter across and the stump of a tree is generally wider at floor level than the tree is at 1.5m. You growth factors are wrong as you say because they are american trees, the oaks you find in this country are Sessile, Holm (non native), Turkey (non native) or English and probably has a different growth factor to the US species

For a felled tree you are meant to count the rings of a tree as you can't measure the width and looking at the photo you first provided i reckon its about 30-40 years old. And then trees can produce 2 rings a year so your estimate may be double the actual count.

718 is irrelevant in that you removed a comment for being emotive and thats exactly what it is given you won't fine peat in the same conditions on the common

I don't know why you thinking the common is a woodland when it is specified as a heathland in the SSSI and its heathland plants. You continure to mention mositure but heahtlands can be dry and there is such recognition in the National Vegetation Classification and Phase 1 habitats.

"Dry heaths tend to be dominated by ling and bell heather. Nutrients from decomposed leaf litter are quickly washed through the sandy soils making the land inhospitable to many other plants. Dry, sandy areas are home to sand wasps and sand lizards." 
Thats a qoute from the Heathland Conservation Society

Removal of the trees is to make up for the years where trees were allowed to grow so if you balance it over time its fine and you think this place is bad for CO2 go to scotland and see their forest removals, the scale of the common compared to them is a drop in the ocean.

Steepness of ground is nothing have you not seen a welsh mountain sheep.....? or feral goats they don't have a problem with sheer rock cliffs, and i reckon i could cope up there as well ive been on worse. But the reason for removing the trees there is so it doesnt provide a site for recolonisation by the trees. (and yes i have seen the place in question and its not as bad as you make out.

Also as a keen wildlife watcher and bird enthusiaste we are not in the middle of the breeding season more the end, all of the birds will have laid eggs, hatched a brood, fledged them and moved on. You will only find the late breeders hanging around as the season generally finishes in the next 2 season but only for a small number of birds. If any are laying now its far to late for them to be successful as most of the food will have gone and its time for any migrants to build up their reserves

#722: - Re: Re:

additional from the JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committe)

Lowland heathland is a broad term that refers to a range of wet, humid and dry habitats, characterised by dwarf shrubs such as heathers and gorses. They are generally found on poor soils below about 300 m altitude.

#722: - Re: Re:

Measuring a tree that has already been cut makes your approved method invalid. I was already aware of this method My measurement might be innacurate up to a point but a I think an ordainary person can understand what I am trying to say here, roughly 150 years old.

I think you can see the ball park figures though, even if you were to deduct 50 years, the trees are still to old to be cut. According to Francis flanagan in my transcribed interview with him he states that no trees over 30 years of age will be cut. this simply is not true. Trees well over this age are the predominant trees being felled. Memebers of the public comment on this issue quite routineley and it is this sort of ambiguous behaviour which alarms not just me.

Aging trees from there physical dimensions is an accepted practice, your instruction for aging is just the first part.

1 Measure the circumference

2 devide by 3.14

3 multiply by the growth factor 5.0

4 The answer I have conservativeley is 118 years old



Regarding post 718, my point was that both habitats are prone to climate change in their own ways. The peaty, boggy areas, adjacent to worcester road benefit from water entrapment as moisture remains caught in the sub strata around it. These areas are fed from moisture travelling through permiable sands that then encounter less permiable bed rock stratification, which coursing water moves over, which in turn keeps these places moist and viable.

The common is being de-wooded which will result in a drier enviroment as moisture evaporates. Global climate change impacts supports this notion. No matter how much rain there is now, because of the nature of our stormburst, intense heat, wind cycle which are now a feature of our climate and indeed this summer there is widespread drought.

Also the common will be more prone to fires the same as the widespread fires that have occured throughout this year so far. They have all started on heath, or converted land.



There is already plenty of habitat on the common for these species already. Sand wasps are abundant on the pathways just as much as in the wilderness areas. Ironically, one particular area of the common had an abundance of common lizards until it was subject to "Improvement" The lizards are not there anymore, it is now an area of disturbed habitat.



Why is your justification for tree removal based on what is happening in Scotland? I was answereing a question which suggested that tree felling was a neutural carbon enterprise, I was pointing out that it is not, if you read what I said. I made the point about Co2 because it is true and in another time and place you might be telling me so. What is happening in Scotland has got nothing to do with this discussion.



I quote Worcetershire county Council, "The common was cleared of woodland 4000 years ago for agriculture, unfortunatley, the common was unsuitable and so became a wilderness" What did these people use , chainsaws? Were they really that stupid. This is pureley conjecture. The gullies could be grazed by mountain sheep yes, but its cattle that are being introduced. This is accepted thinking, not feral goats or sheep. They have never been mentioned before by anyone.Do you have anything to say about the contradiction of free grazing given the potential loss of valuable plants and species.

Why would anyone what to clear out difficult areas such as in these gullies flys in the face of logic current evidence and history of prehistoric settlers and their recources. For you to say the damage is not as "Bad as you say", is really niether one thing or another. The situation is worsening daily and if I caused similar damage in my sphere of expertise I would be sacked or issued a summons.



The RSPB advise that work on trees, shrubs and hedges should be limited during the period mid March to
early August, while removing a hedge entirely should be avoided completely. Also, if you look here

http://www.devon.gov.uk/woodlands.pdf

there is reference to TPO's and there speacial protection as both the largest oak trees were definatley subject to elevated protection. Where has it gone, evaporated?



As always, it would be a pleasure to meet you at the common and to take a walk around together.



Steve McCarron