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.

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?

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?

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




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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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. Man is the killer
of these things. Woodland trust is simply attempting to redress the
balence. By the way, I guess you like red squirrels and that *******
american crayfish which is tearing our native species apart.

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.


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.

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.

The message
from (AMacmil304) contains these words:



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.

Why is it about cost? End usage for most home grown timber is on the
lower end because it does`nt have the required strength requirements due
to it`s quality. You cant get commercially grown Scottish timber of TR26
(thats a strength grade) in any significant quantities because the
timber is`nt good enough.

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.

Granted but coniferous timber does`nt have the same lifespan of hardwoods.

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.

250 years and coniferous softwood? I doubt it very much to be honest.
BUT the fact is that I bet the sizes are huge compared to the somewhat
slender sizes used today (35x 72mm and even 35x63 on webs)


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

What reasons would they be? Taking away introduced species for natives
is sense alone surely. Going back to how it used to be before man came
along and decided the world was our playground.

. 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

I know damn well that man is the worst thing on this earth. I don`t see
anything else dropping bombs, using fossil fuels etc.

Woodland trust is simply attempting to redress the
balence.

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

In what way? Surely attempting to manage woodlands better by
reintroducing species which will live together better as they used to.
Regardless of what man will do it will kinda even out.

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?

Unfortunatly, animals have died out over the years and so will mankind.
Accept the fact that in real terms we have been around for no time at
all and you`ll have a happier life.


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!

They wont reply because global warming is just that, a global issue.
What their activities are involved in is managing woodland. In many
cases they are actually increasing them. Alot of these are hand in hand
with the likes of future forests and the forests forever campaign backed
by the timber industry. Certainly where I live we actually have
woodlands now (sounds pathetic I know but we have very little in
southern lincs) Surely these help with global warming on a localised
scale. BUT it`s small fry against the amount of fossil fuels burnt over
in the states. At least the Uk and indeed europe is trying.

You have to start looking at the bigger picture Angus and not on
individual causes.


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

Subject: Is the existence of the Woodland Trust justified?
From: Christopher Norton
Date: 15/01/04 10:58 GMT Standard Time
Message-id:

The message
from (AMacmil304) contains these words:



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.

Why is it about cost?

Because as you say below the construction industry wants to use matchsticks
instead of decent sized timber.

End usage for most home grown timber is on the
lower end because it does`nt have the required strength requirements due
to it`s quality. You cant get commercially grown Scottish timber of TR26
(thats a strength grade) in any significant quantities because the
timber is`nt good enough.

The best houses were built of homegrown timber well before TR26 was thought of.
It's encouraging to see that a sawmill near here has invested heavily in
machinery to supply local timber for the local market.

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.

Granted but coniferous timber does`nt have the same lifespan of hardwoods.

Exactly. See above.

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.

250 years and coniferous softwood? I doubt it very much to be honest.
BUT the fact is that I bet the sizes are huge compared to the somewhat
slender sizes used today (35x 72mm and even 35x63 on webs)

Sure. What did I say about cost?



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

What reasons would they be? Taking away introduced species for natives
is sense alone surely. Going back to how it used to be before man came
along and decided the world was our playground.

But that's what the Woodland Trust do. Make woodlands into playgrounds

. 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

I know damn well that man is the worst thing on this earth. I don`t see
anything else dropping bombs, using fossil fuels etc.

Sure, and the Woodland Trust introduces more than 1m of them into the woodland
environment in Scotland alone, so they can't justify their existance in
environmental terms


Woodland trust is simply attempting to redress the
balence.

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

In what way?

See above.

Surely attempting to manage woodlands better by
reintroducing species which will live together better as they used to.

Like man which " is the worst thing on this earth" ?

Regardless of what man will do it will kinda even out.


It hasn't in the past that's why you say man is the wort thing on this earth.

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?

Unfortunatly, animals have died out over the years and so will mankind.

I don't disagree but why should organisations like the Woodland Trust claim
conservation values when they are involved in environmentally damaging
activities. That's dishonest.

Accept the fact that in real terms we have been around for no time at
all and you`ll have a happier life.

I know that and I'm quite happy.


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!

They wont reply because global warming is just that, a global issue.

But they say they're conservationists and at the same time damaging the natural
environment and encouraging others to do so.

What their activities are involved in is managing woodland. In many
cases they are actually increasing them. Alot of these are hand in hand
with the likes of future forests and the forests forever campaign backed
by the timber industry. Certainly where I live we actually have
woodlands now (sounds pathetic I know but we have very little in
southern lincs) Surely these help with global warming on a localised
scale. BUT it`s small fry against the amount of fossil fuels burnt over
in the states. At least the Uk and indeed europe is trying.

No, because they encourage millions of people into the woodland environment


You have to start looking at the bigger picture Angus and not on
individual causes.

I do.

Read a my most recent letter:

10 January 2004


Letters to the Editor


Dear Sir

Fake Conservation!

According to a new report by international scientists from eight countries,
more than a million species will become extinct over the next fifty years
because of global warming

However, there is little chance of combating this problem as long as
governments and conservation charities prioritise economic development and
single-issue ideals ahead of reducing damaging consumerism.

If global warming is to be addressed. our government needs to drastically
change its attitude and bring about unpopular changes akin to those taken in
time of war. Indeed, global warming will be a war fought until the end of
time, as we know it.

"Conservation" needs to be redefined and restricted to the principle of
reducing consumption that is damaging to the natural environment and away from
organisations such as national parks and conservation charities that are
responsible for much greater environmental damage than any pocket-sized benefit
they provide.

I recently wrote to the chief executive of a well-known conservation charity
asking if he could justify the existence of his organisation by providing an
Environmental Impact Assessment to show whether its activities, and the
activities it encourages in others, has a positive or negative effect on global
warming. Not surprisingly, he didn't respond. That says a lot!

Present day conservation, based on theme-park values and exploitation of the
natural environment is little more than a fake industry that delivers no
overall benefit to the natural environment and is well out of date.


Yours faithfully





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.