Assuming too much about the woods?
I refer to an item published last week in the ‘Scarborough News’ concerning
‘Felling of ‘non-native’ trees in Raincliffe woods’.
This article falls short on accuracy on several counts and attempts to justify this needless destruction with a spin that we shall all somehow become beneficiaries by these operations!
Firstly, the ‘fell to waste grant’ applied to Row Brow and Forge Valley is indeed a complete waste of money, needlessly blitzing the lovely woodland ridge surrounding this town and leaving a mass of debris on the woodland floor.
Secondly, non-native trees must go? This seems rather drastic as most of our trees currently in the UK are NOT strictly native species and often have stronger resistance to climate change. Does their definition ‘non-native’ cover the ‘Scots Pine’ for example; do they regard that as an alien species? Do they consider the ‘European Larch’ and other adapted species non-native, or is this simply because it suits their agenda?
Oh well, perhaps they mean non-native to Raincliffe Woods? If this is so how far back do they wish to regress into history as this wonderfully diverse woodland has steadily evolved over the decades?
Finally, considering the extent of public feeling, it seems that this so called ‘enterprise’ assumes far too much without being properly accountable to the community it is supposed to serve!
In conclusion, whatever the motive behind these ‘industrial scale’ operations ‘highly questionable’ reasoning is being used to justify the virtually unrestricted plundering of much loved public woodland.
Response to the latest ridiculous ‘Woodland Trust’ propaganda…..