http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38972081

So while I’d not be too fussed about planting tree’s there needs to be some consideration as to the types of forest planted. I think it’s unlikely they’ll be wanting to plant/create the type of forest you would want to walk through/visit and it’ll be these horrible tree farms that they’ll be planting(Let me know if i’m off the mark there).

Anyway thoughts?

Mine are generally, if they did it right it could be a good thing, Scotland lacks nice forests. But I don’t really trust them to do so, and really I suspect this is just a commercial enterprise, on that basis, I’d be against it.

In fairness end of the article does allude to putting thought into it…

Stuart Goodall, from the forestry body Confer, told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme: “When we are creating woodland, it’s not just about how can we pack in as many trees as we can in a block.
“It’s about how do we design that new woodland into the landscape, how do we create opportunities for wildlife.”

But you can call me a cynic there.

My colleague always says if trees gave out free WiFi they would be planted everywhere. But they don’t. They only give us the oxygen we breathe and store our co2.

Doesn’t sound like tree farms, so if its done well…..I’m in!

Heard a bit of that on the radio this morning, Gamekeepers are in on it too, which automatically raises suspicion….

They need to replace the trees cut down to allow some wind farms to be built, there is real concern in the timber industry re lack of replanting I believe.
Here in D&G large areas of forests have been harvested/culled due to Larch disease in an attempt to prevent its spread.
We either grow our own wood/trees or import it and it is good for the environment….

If their goal is to increase the area of woodland cover from 17% to 25% they can pick and choose which tress to plant and where, it’s a completely different goal to the one which lead to planning tightly packed conifer farms for timber.

I feel no great cynicisum towards them, it’s worth noting that since they’ve deimated the forrests in South Wales because of the blight, they’re not replanting rows and rows of conifers again everywhere – they’re planting native trees.

Sounds great in principle – let the trees spring forth. Would support a similar program for the Peak district and its banal moorland.

Agree it’s all in the implementation – lashing acres of Sitka spruce around the place plus some logging roads is not woodland you really want to walk around in.

P-Jay – Member
I feel no great cynicisum towards them, it’s worth noting that since they’ve deimated the forrests in South Wales because of the blight, they’re not replanting rows and rows of conifers again everywhere – they’re planting native trees.

Good to hear that. As i say, I’m all for replanting native forests and rewilding. 🙂

this is not the mass planting of sitka spruce post war – this is the replanting of the great caledonian forest which has been going on for a decade. Its native trees at natural population densities and of course would not be on the tops anyway. Gamekeepers are worried because their barbaric pastimes are under increasing pressure and their monoculture grouse moors are increasing seen as detrimental to biodiversity. be nice to plant some trees on thee green deserts

finally scotland was heavily wooded up until a few hundred years ago – you can see the evidence when you walk

so yes – you are wrong OP

tjagain – Member
so yes – you are wrong OP

That’s me had my knuckles wrapped! 😆

I give it 4-5 pages of Ninfan and TJ

No, you had your knuckles rapped, so that’s you wrong again 🙂

Nickc – nah – I have had enough of destroying his arguments. Might just post up raptor persecution figures by gamekeepers again tho 😉

But why are Mountaineering Scotland opposing tree planting? And why have they signed a joint letter with the gamekeepers? Does it match the views of the members they are supposed to represent?

I think they are looking for detail on the next phases of this and are worried about more sitka plantations – also there is a NIMBY element in the MCofS

Put the bloody woods back before Scotland ends up a desert! Scotland’s “vistas” are all man made anyway when they cut all the trees down originally!

this is the replanting of the great caledonian forest which has been going on for a decade. Its native trees at natural population densities and of course would not be on the tops anyway.

Its a strange act of national pride (planting a ‘great’ forest) so that we can transform the absolutely unique landscape and habitat we have in scotland into one just like any other bit of hilly countryside on the same latitude. Wipe out one unique habitat so that its lost for ever, replace it with something ubiquitous.

Conservation is very fashion-driven isn’t it

The MCofS spokesman doesn’t have a clue.

Mr Reid added: “They talk about this landscape, they don’t talk about going for miles long wanders through woods.
“You can see the hills around you, you see the shape of the landscape and it’s also relatively benign for walking across.”

Some of the best walks are through forests. And has he never walked across heather moorland and knee deep bog?

Nothing unique about the degraded and impoverished landscape that is a lot of the highlands. anyway we are only talking about a small % of the country and a lot of this planting is going in the central belt

I think the MCoS are concerned about the views. I did a three day walk in NZ a while ago, first day went from sea level to about Munro height and all you saw till just before the top was trees. Anecdotally the treeline is moving up the hills around here but I think it’ll be nice open woodland.

Conservation is very fashion-driven isn’t it

I think conservation is trying to live by best practice isn’t it? As theories and evidence change over time, then the way we look after the world changes and matures, no?

sweepy – Member

😆 I’d a 50:50 chance with that yin!

Given where the natural tree line is in Scotland this will only “spoil the view” for those wedded to their cars.

OTOH it will increase biodiversity, allowing many native species to flourish and will help reduce the amount of flooding.

It would be great to see an end to the wet desert caused by tree felling and over-grazing by the antlered vermin.

MCofS out of touch – again.

Years ago I had an interview for a phd on reintroducing native woodland to the Scottish uplands. I asked how it would go down with the public as it would change to look of the areas they said it wouldn’t matter as it wasn’t like the Lake District!! Seeems I may have had a point!

Keepers should be well up for this – it will provide keepers jobs for a few years in slaughtering red deer en-masse on the open hill, and then for decades ahead in the impossible task of trying to stop the booming roe (and likely muntjac) population from eating all the regen.

Or we could reintroduce the wolves. (which I’m 100% behind.)

Funny that has not happened in areas where the regeneration has been going on for decades. Plenty of unfenced regeneration going on in areas where the deer numbers have been reduced.

A few lynx and some wolves could do it for us!!

Mountaineering Scotland said people were not interested in walking for miles through woodland

Just for the record, I wouldn’t mind.

I give you Rothiemurchus Forest, one of the most visited and highly praised parts of Scotland. Paths, for all abilities, criss-cross it. Pine marten, red squirrel, wildcat, crossbill and a very unique anto can all be found here and you can still look through it to see the mountains. A Great Scottish Woodland that replicated that would be superb.

I’ll just put in an ad for Carriran Wildwood here…

http://www.carrifran.org.uk/

A few lynx and some wolves could do it for us!!

It would certainly make dot watching the HT550 more interesting.

“Is he lost, or is his carcas being dragged off the trail by the wildlife?”

Glen Feshie was transformed when deer numbers were massively culled. Before that I read years ago “expert” opinion that it was impossible to regenerate pine/birch/juniper forest without fencing. More of that and I’m all for it.

2004

The Deer Commission ordered the cull, claiming the deer had to be killed in a bid to protect the regeneration of the native Caledonian Pine Forest.But the move has been branded “heavy handed” by objectors including staff at the Cairngorms National Park

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3462713.stm

2016

Eventually, in 2006, with the purchase by its present owner, Anders Povlsen, a new future for Glenfeshie emerged, one based upon a vision of a much reduced deer population allowing the landscape to regain its full natural splendour as the vegetation slowly recovered from low ground to high tops. The changes over the last ten years have been dramatic. Glenfeshie is blooming: young trees, wild flowers and wildlife abound. The increased vegetation and more porous soils absorb more carbon from the atmosphere and slow the flow of flooding waters to the sea.

http://treesforlife.org.uk/blogs/article/glenfeshie-reborn/

But anyone who has visited Glen Feshie over the last 20 years can see the evidence with their own eyes. It is unmissable.

So good forestry yes, inappropriate block plantations no.

*nudge*

So to summarise:

Some people: “Please don’t plant trees all over!”

ScotGov: “Ok then”

Problem here is that it appears to be Scotland in general which is being discussed, which of course is always going to get someone’s back up. The reaction is very similar to if someone suggested putting up another however many wind farms in as yet unidentified areas, or open cast sites, or nuclear power stations, or anything really.

Plenty of space for some more forestry I reckon. Clever bit is working out where it fits the best – of which ecology/conservation is just one part.

Hmm, situation in Glen Feshie is only one example, have a look at the Mar Lodge report to see the difficulties they faced in trying to achieve effective regeneration. (For what it’s worth, I was involved in some major fenced regeneration projects that were really successful, and now one of gage target areas for lynx reintroduction, which will be a great thing)

Problem here is that it appears to be Scotland in general which is being discussed

Indeed, huge differences across the board, very different potential outcomes in different areas.

Pissing off MCOS and gamies? SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY! Seriously though; it isn’t like the commercial farming they did and until the fires didn’t look too bad on the slopes round the Torridon area.

Mar lodge is doing OK considering it was hamstrung by the transfer of ownership including ( IIRC) a caveat as to keeping it as a shooting estate

Those of us that walk these hills see the regeneration happening all over the place. some by removing the deer and some by excluding them. Interestingly remove the deer from one valley system and they take many years to come back from other areas – a surprising finding

As a forestry consultant primarily involved in woodland creation, I’d call some of the scepticism here wide of the mark.

The soil types present in the majority of higher elevation sites would preclude the planting of commercial conifer crops. Most of any planting in these areas would be of the National Vegetation Classification categories W11/17 and W18 (upland birchwoods and native pinewoods respectively), which are usually planted for more habitat-related objectives than commercial.

As an aside, only a small percentage of the original native tree cover remains in Scotland (cut down by humans over the centuries) and many of these open vistas referred to by the two interest groups mentioned in the article are only there as a result of intensive land-management, and would have been covered in forest were they left alone. The land management is usually in the form of heather burning which kills back young tree saplings.

Will no-one think of the midges?