www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation
________________________________________


19 January 2006


Ms Sue Holden
Chief Executive
The Woodland Trust
Autumn Park
Dysart Road
Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL


An Open Letter


Dear Ms Holden

Toxic Trees?

I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same
day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested
plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent
produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it
is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings
to protect your own interests.

Details of Dr Keppler's research were published in a number of
newspapers and for the benefit of readers of this letter the links are
shown below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...html?gusrc=rss
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...E30417,00.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,...9a7693,00.html

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp...on_dioxide.htm
But this is not the only research that has questioned the value of
trees to combat climate change.

This was highlighted in a BBC News item and the link is shown below.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm

I can understand your panic, as the Woodland Trust has built its
empire around planting trees but if this is shown to be damaging to
the environment as well as the other activities you engage in and
encourage, then perhaps there is little point in anyone supporting
your organisation.

Panic stricken waffle aside; let's look at what you say in your press
release.

There is no doubt you are correct in saying the trees have been around
for millennia - although I prefer to use English and say, thousands of
years. However, I suspect you do not have any firm evidence to support
your claim that their "contribution to regulating the planet's climate
and biodiversity vastly outweighs any theoretical harm".


You say trees are "hugely beneficial, not detrimental to the world in
the face of climate change" and then go on to list these "benefits",
but what evidence do you have there is not a detrimental side that
could undermine the benefits in terms of climate change? The emission
of methane, if it accelerates climate change, could undermine all the
benefits you list. So your assertion is hugely biased and might I
suggest based on self-interest.

However, the statement I find most interesting is:

"This clearly is an interesting study, but by far the biggest
contributors to greenhouse gas emissions are people and their
activities. What should be worrying all of us is vast increases in
man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are having a drastic effect on
our climate".

It is my understanding that the emission of greenhouse gases in the
main is a natural phenomena and that it is the effects of man's
activities that is increasing the level of these gases to a point
where the natural balance is upset. I think you are completely wrong
to say, "by far the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions
are people and their activities". What evidence do you have for this
wild statement? And if you believe that why are you as a conservation
organisation indulging in and encouraging environmentally damaging
activities?

In Scotland where there are more trees than there have been for 700
years, more planting could be harmful and hastening climate change.

This brings me on to your other activities.

· It is probably true to say that many of your woodlands were
woodland before you acquire them and I fail to see that your mere
ownership or management carries environmental benefit. However, part
of your agenda is to open these woodlands up for public recreation and
from my observations this mostly involves dog walkers. In one
four-hour survey of one of your woodlands in Scotland, all the
visitors except one arrived in vehicles to exercise and "empty" their
dogs and not one dog was kept on a lead. So I would suggest that your
overall ownership and management is detrimental to the woodland
habitat and wildlife by the intrusion you invite.

· On one of your woodland sites in Scotland large excavators and
other powered plant have been belching out CO2 for months, ripping up
and cutting down trees, and making footpaths estimated by a System
Three survey to attract more than 54,000 visitors annually to a
viewpoint - many of whom will come by car. This is woodland that
could well benefit from not having your management and intrusion. And
this is only on one site - there are others I could mention that have
been "attacked" by your emission belching monsters.

· In addition to this, your organisation churns out junk mail
and newspaper inserts, publishes the quarterly "Broadleaf" magazine
that it mails to thousands of its members and publishes "Exploring
Woodland Guides" that encourages travel. All of these are
contributing to climate change by their production, distribution and
disposal.

So how do you square all this when you say;

"What should be worrying all of us is vast increases in man-made
greenhouse gas emissions that are having a drastic effect on our
climate."

While emissions "should be worrying all of us", they clearly don't
worry you!

That's why I label your organisation and others with similar agendas
as "fake conservationists".

Join the Woodland Trust and hasten climate change?

No thanks!


Yours sincerely



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote:

www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation
________________________________________


19 January 2006


Ms Sue Holden
Chief Executive
The Woodland Trust
Autumn Park
Dysart Road
Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL


An Open Letter


Dear Ms Holden

Toxic Trees?

I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same
day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested
plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent
produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it
is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings
to protect your own interests.


SNIP Rant

Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of
thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of
course tempted to sell.

Personally I would prefer we keep the limited amount of woodland we
have and that the houses are built up in your neck of the woods, so to
speak, where the 4 million of you can pick and choose where to roam.

The main problem is too many people but that's for another group.

Andy

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote:

www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation
________________________________________


19 January 2006


Ms Sue Holden
Chief Executive
The Woodland Trust
Autumn Park
Dysart Road
Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL


An Open Letter


Dear Ms Holden

Toxic Trees?

I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same
day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested
plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent
produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it
is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings
to protect your own interests.


SNIP Rant

Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of
thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of
course tempted to sell.

They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for
recreation.


Personally I would prefer we keep the limited amount of woodland we
have and that the houses are built up in your neck of the woods, so to
speak, where the 4 million of you can pick and choose where to roam.


I agree that the limited amount of woodland should be protected and
houses built on brownfield sites.


The main problem is too many people but that's for another group.


Exactly!




Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:02:56 +0000, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote:

www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation
________________________________________


19 January 2006


Ms Sue Holden
Chief Executive
The Woodland Trust
Autumn Park
Dysart Road
Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL


An Open Letter


Dear Ms Holden

Toxic Trees?

I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same
day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested
plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent
produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it
is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings
to protect your own interests.


SNIP Rant

Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of
thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of
course tempted to sell.

They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for
recreation.

I really can't see any reason why they should not be used for
recreation. What's the point of having land enclosed unnecessarily. I
thought the plan was to make more land available.

If you are specifically criticising irresponsible dog owners, then I
am in full agreement with you, that they should exercise proper
control.


The main problem is too many people but that's for another group.


Exactly!


I didn't mean in the woods by the way. Just generally ! ;-)

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

Andy

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:11:37 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 23:02:56 +0000, wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:09:41 +0000, Andy Cap
wrote:

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:58:52 +0000, wrote:

www.con-servation.org.uk
The website that exposes the con in conservation
________________________________________


19 January 2006


Ms Sue Holden
Chief Executive
The Woodland Trust
Autumn Park
Dysart Road
Grantham
Lincolnshire, NG31 6LL


An Open Letter


Dear Ms Holden

Toxic Trees?

I was interested to read your panic stricken press release on the same
day as Dr Keppler's research results were published that suggested
plants may release enough methane to account for 10 to 30 per cent
produced each year around the planet. In the light of this I think it
is extremely irresponsible for you to try to contradict the findings
to protect your own interests.


SNIP Rant

Where I live the pressure on small woodland for development of tens of
thousands of new houses is very real and present landowners are of
course tempted to sell.

They should be protected but not by those who exploit them for
recreation.

I really can't see any reason why they should not be used for
recreation. What's the point of having land enclosed unnecessarily. I
thought the plan was to make more land available.

The reason they should not be used (abused?) for recreation is that
man's imprint needs to be reduced - not expanded by fake conservation
organisations.


If you are specifically criticising irresponsible dog owners, then I
am in full agreement with you, that they should exercise proper
control.

Dog owners will use facilities that are available to them. The
Woodland Trust is providing these facilities and without any
supervision.




The main problem is too many people but that's for another group.


Exactly!


I didn't mean in the woods by the way. Just generally ! ;-)


So did I. A 75m increase in population every year on the planet and
we talk about saving the starving?



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk