Subject: Is the existence of the Woodland Trust justified?
From: Christopher Norton
Date: 12/01/04 12:39 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

The message
from (AMacmil304) contains these words:


What the Woodland trust say about the Scottish Executive

"Adoption of a Scottish target to reduce CO2emissions. The Executive should
adopt a specific target to reduce Scotland’s CO2 emissions by more
than 20%
below 1990 levels by 2010, including specific sector-by-sector targets."


So how do these fine words square with the Woodland Trust's own
activities and
the activities they encourage in others?


Their "management" activities and the encouragement of the woodland
environment as recreation zones for over a million visitors a year in
Scotland
alone - many travelling by car for the purpose of emptying their dogs -
is damaging to the natural environment.

Why over a million people would travel to scotland just to let their dog
have a crap is pushing your logic a wee bit. More to scotland than just
a doggie toilet.

Not to Scotland "in" Scotland. Read what I write.



Is their agenda of planting of native saplings, rather than conifers
that have
greater carbon fixing attributes together with the added advantage of
maintaining a sustainable timber source thereby offsetting environmentally
damaging imports, an example of their futility in terms of combatting
global
warming?

The idea is to reintroduce native species rather than imported ones.
Exactly what you are advocating below. As for the sustainable timber
source you are having a laugh as you clearly have no idea about timber
qualities. Much of the home grown conifers are of very poor quality and
exceptionally wet in comparison to the timbers of scandanavia.
Therefore, they need much more kiln time to get down to a usable
moisture content. Not very enviromentally friendly.

No. It's about cost more than quality.

Whats wrong with the Scots growing our native oaks which are far better
at fixing carbon because the timber is likely to last hundreds of years
rather than the rather poor softwood timespan.

The Woodland Trust doesn't grow oaks for timber and the main fiixing time is
during early growth. Conifers can be harvested and replanted to maximise carbon
fixing.

Roof trusses (the bits
that hold your house roof above your house) have no time guarentee on
them. If they were to fail after 10 years of inhabitation you would have
absolutly no way of getting anything back. All made from coniferous
softwood.

Most are from coniferous softwood. Ours is probably 250 years old at least.


Would the woodland environment and it's wildlife be better served if left
undisturbed and protected by legislation, rather than being exploited by
the
Woodland Trust's policy of introducing millions of the planet's most
damaging
and intrusive mammals into nature's unspoiled places?

Reintroducing native species is the correct thing to do as everything
gets on with it, it`s called a symbiotic relationship

Not for the wrong reasons

.. Man is the killer
of these things.

You don't seem to have worked out that "the planet's most damaging and
intrusive mammal" IS man

Woodland trust is simply attempting to redress the
balence.

No. They're activities are damaging to the natural environment.


By the way, I guess you like red squirrels and that *******
american crayfish which is tearing our native species apart.

I like grey squirrels just as much as red. Why should we who are raping this
planet decide what should live or die?


Can the existence of the Woodland Trust be justified in terms of combatting
global warming?

Go tell that to George over in the states who does`nt give a flying f*/-
about global warming.

Better still, ask the WT to produce an Environmental Impact Assessment to
determine whether their activities, and the activities they encourage in
others, has a positive or negative effect on global warming. Bet they don't
reply!



Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.

I`ll prefer to laugh at you.

Then they fight, then they lose.



Angus Macmillan
Roots-of-Blood Campaign
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org.uk

" First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you,
then they lose". Mahatma Gandhi.