For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.  

My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.  

From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
seed or roots.  

The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
antiques. 



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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>
> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>
> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
> seed or roots.
>
> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
> antiques.

A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
will change with time. A condition known as the climax ecosystem
identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.

'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
etc.

In message 
, 
John M.  writes
>On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>> seed or roots.
>>
>> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>> antiques.
>
>A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>will change with time. A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.

Angus clearly doesn't understand this or (probably more likely) refuses 
to acknowledge it.

Otherwise much of what he posts about reserves and management he would 
know was meaningless.

>
>'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>etc.
>

-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>> seed or roots.
>>
>> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>> antiques.
>
>A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>will change with time.

Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
"ancient" - no matter how you look at it.


>A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>
So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
planted with new trees "ancient"?


>'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>etc.


Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".

All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.



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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes

>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>
"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost 
the court case they brought against me".


>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>Scotland.

Where did this "understanding" come from?

>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>
What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the 
only one and one that can never be altered?

>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>seed or roots.
>
You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You 
are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a 
whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)

>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>antiques.
>
Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.

-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>
>>> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>> seed or roots.
>>>
>>> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>> antiques.
>>
>>A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>>will change with time.
>
>Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
>"ancient" - no matter how you look at it.

Nobody other than you said the trees were ancient.

The woodland is ancient.   That is to do with the time there has been a 
wood there.

>
>
>>A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>>identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>>that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>>
>So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
>planted with new trees "ancient"?

See above.

>
>
>>'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>>ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>>climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>>wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>>etc.
>
>
>Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>
Of course it does p0rovided you aren't narrowing your attitudes due to a 
vendetta against conservation.

Ancient woodland is about how long the land has been a wood rather than 
the age of the trees.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost 
>the court case they brought against me".

Which had little or no effect of what I do.

>
>
>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>Scotland.
>
>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>

Are you saying it's not correct?


>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the 
>only one and one that can never be altered?

How do you define "ancient woodland"?

>
>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>seed or roots.
>>
>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You 
>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a 
>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)

I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
"ancient". 

The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.

>
>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>antiques.
>>
>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.

Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.


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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>the court case they brought against me".
>
>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>
So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.

>>
>>
>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>Scotland.
>>
>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>
>
>Are you saying it's not correct?
>
When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own 
in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you 
can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can 
answer it, please do so.

>
>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>
>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>
>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>
And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your 
own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?

>>
>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>seed or roots.
>>>
>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>
>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>"ancient".
>
If you're not concentrating on individual trees, why have you mentioned 
"the idea of planting new trees"?

>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.
>
Please provide your evidence that "the public" are being misled?

>>
>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>antiques.
>>>
>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>
>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>
Then, yet again, your understanding of woodlands and how they are 
managed in order to conserve them is seriously lacking.

-- 
Malcolm

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:47:22 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>
>>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>>
>>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>>the court case they brought against me".
>>
>>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>>
>So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.

Like removing a couple of words.

And I stand by everything I said and it is all recorded on Google.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>>Scotland.
>>>
>>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>>
>>
>>Are you saying it's not correct?
>>
>When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own 
>in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you 
>can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can 
>answer it, please do so.
>

That's what you do.


>>
>>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>>
>>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>>
>>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>>
>And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your 
>own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?
>

I have already said what I think an ancient woodland is.

You have not.


>>>
>>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>>seed or roots.
>>>>
>>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>>
>>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>>"ancient".
>>
>If you're not concentrating on individual trees, why have you mentioned 
>"the idea of planting new trees"?
>

Because they cannot constitute an "ancient woodland". 


>>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.
>>
>Please provide your evidence that "the public" are being misled?
>

Because a woodland cannot be more ancient than any other piece of
ground if the trees that constitute that woodland are not ancient
themselves.  Trees make the woodland and every image I have ever seen
showing an ancient woodland shows what is meant to be ancient trees. 


>>>
>>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>>antiques.
>>>>
>>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>>
>>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>>
>Then, yet again, your understanding of woodlands and how they are 
>managed in order to conserve them is seriously lacking.

Not at all.  Ancient woodlands composed of newly planted saplings?

Don't make me laugh :-))


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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In article , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:47:22 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>
>>>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>>>
>>>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>>>the court case they brought against me".
>>>
>>>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>>>
>>So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.
>
>Like removing a couple of words.
>
>And I stand by everything I said and it is all recorded on Google.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>>>Scotland.
>>>>
>>>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying it's not correct?
>>>
>>When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own
>>in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you
>>can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can
>>answer it, please do so.
>>
>
>That's what you do.
>

I see. So I'm your role model :-))

Now, what about answering my question "Where did this "understanding" 
come from?

>
>>>
>>>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>>>
>>>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>>>
>>>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>>>
>>And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your
>>own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?
>>
>
>I have already said what I think an ancient woodland is.
>
>You have not.
>
And I asked you where your "understanding" of what an ancient woodland 
was came from?  Did you dream it up yourself, or do you have a source?



>
>>>>
>>>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>>>seed or roots.
>>>>>
>>>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>>>
>>>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>>>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>>>"ancient".
>>>
>>If you're not concentrating on individual trees, why have you mentioned
>>"the idea of planting new trees"?
>>
>
>Because they cannot constitute an "ancient woodland".
>
No woodland can survive without regeneration, Angus. I would have 
thought you might have known that, but apparently not :-(


>
>>>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>>>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.
>>>
>>Please provide your evidence that "the public" are being misled?
>>
>
>Because a woodland cannot be more ancient than any other piece of
>ground if the trees that constitute that woodland are not ancient
>themselves.  Trees make the woodland and every image I have ever seen
>showing an ancient woodland shows what is meant to be ancient trees.
>

None of which is evidence that "the public" are being misled, so I will 
take that as you admitting you have no such evidence. Thought not.

>
>>>>
>>>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>>>antiques.
>>>>>
>>>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>>>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>>>
>>Then, yet again, your understanding of woodlands and how they are
>>managed in order to conserve them is seriously lacking.
>
>Not at all.  Ancient woodlands composed of newly planted saplings?
>
>Don't make me laugh :-))
>
Who said anything about a woodland "composed of newly planted saplings"?


-- 
Malcolm

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>
>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>the court case they brought against me".
>
>Which had little or no effect of what I do.

Strange it appears to heightened your vendetta to me.

>
>>
>>
>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>Scotland.
>>
>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>
>
>Are you saying it's not correct?

Typical Angus ask him a question and rather than answer he tries to 
avoid having to answer by asking one of his own.

This suggests it isn't a standard definition or he would be brave enough 
to quote his source.

>
>
>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>
>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>
>How do you define "ancient woodland"?

Typical Angus ask him a question and rather than answer he tries to 
avoid having to answer by asking one of his own.

Anyone of the casual readers notice a pattern developing here?

>
>>
>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>seed or roots.
>>>
>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>
>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>"ancient".
>
>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.

Where and when?   What you really mean is "I interpret ancient woodland 
to mean ancient trees and as a result I will pretend that that is what 
the public believe".

>
>>
>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>antiques.
>>>
>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>
>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>
No Angus as usual you are either failing to understand or not admitting 
it.

Conservationists are describing reforesting areas of woodland which have 
had woods for a long time as restoring the wood.  Which it is.  The wood 
can have been woodland for centuries without having any ancient trees. 
I would suggest an old coppice and standard wood neglected for a hundred 
years or so might have no ancient trees.  It could however have been 
woodland for centuries before the modern neglect.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:11:01 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:47:22 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>>>>the court case they brought against me".
>>>>
>>>>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>>>>
>>>So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.
>>
>>Like removing a couple of words.
>>
>>And I stand by everything I said and it is all recorded on Google.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>>>>Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying it's not correct?
>>>>
>>>When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own
>>>in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you
>>>can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can
>>>answer it, please do so.
>>>
>>
>>That's what you do.
>>
>
>I see. So I'm your role model :-))
>
>Now, what about answering my question "Where did this "understanding" 
>come from?
>



Wikipedia and English Nature.

Take your pick.


>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>>>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>>>>
>>>>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>>>>
>>>And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your
>>>own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?
>>>
>>
>>I have already said what I think an ancient woodland is.
>>
>>You have not.
>>
>And I asked you where your "understanding" of what an ancient woodland 
>was came from?  Did you dream it up yourself, or do you have a source?

See above.
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>>>>seed or roots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>>>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>>>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>>>>
>>>>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>>>>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>>>>"ancient".
>>>>
>>>If you're not concentrating on individual trees, why have you mentioned
>>>"the idea of planting new trees"?
>>>
>>
>>Because they cannot constitute an "ancient woodland".
>>
>No woodland can survive without regeneration, Angus. I would have 
>thought you might have known that, but apparently not :-(
>
>

Woodlands regenerated themselves.long before grant screwing
conservationists came along.



>>
>>>>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>>>>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.
>>>>
>>>Please provide your evidence that "the public" are being misled?
>>>
>>
>>Because a woodland cannot be more ancient than any other piece of
>>ground if the trees that constitute that woodland are not ancient
>>themselves.  Trees make the woodland and every image I have ever seen
>>showing an ancient woodland shows what is meant to be ancient trees.
>>
>
>None of which is evidence that "the public" are being misled, so I will 
>take that as you admitting you have no such evidence. Thought not.
>

False images are evidence.


>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>>>>antiques.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>>>>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>>>>
>>>Then, yet again, your understanding of woodlands and how they are
>>>managed in order to conserve them is seriously lacking.
>>
>>Not at all.  Ancient woodlands composed of newly planted saplings?
>>
>>Don't make me laugh :-))
>>
>Who said anything about a woodland "composed of newly planted saplings"?

Well, are they  going to plant mature trees to restore ancient
woodlands?



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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message <9BjGkpBF+OgHFwAb@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm 
 writes
>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:47:22 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>
>>>>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>>>>the court case they brought against me".
>>>>
>>>>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>>>>
>>>So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.
>>
>>Like removing a couple of words.
>>
>>And I stand by everything I said and it is all recorded on Google.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>>>>Scotland.
>>>>>
>>>>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you saying it's not correct?
>>>>
>>>When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own
>>>in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you
>>>can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can
>>>answer it, please do so.
>>>
>>
>>That's what you do.


I would have said that the only time Malcolm doesn't answer one of your 
questions is when he is trying to get an answer from you and you resort 
to the ask a counter question ploy.

However casual readers will soon either notice or check a few past 
threads to see :-)))))
>>
>
>I see. So I'm your role model :-))
>
>Now, what about answering my question "Where did this "understanding" 
>come from?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>>>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>>>>
>>>>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>>>>
>>>And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your
>>>own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?
>>>
>>
>>I have already said what I think an ancient woodland is.

However you were asked where the definition came from and instead of 
answering you fell back on your old retreat ploy of asking a question.

Now you will try to avoid answering the question on the pretext that 
Malcolm hasn't answered yours.

What a clear sign you are struggling.

>>
>>You have not.
>>
>And I asked you where your "understanding" of what an ancient woodland 
>was came from?  Did you dream it up yourself, or do you have a source?


Going by his desperation to not answer he came up with it himself.
>

-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
>
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>
> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>
> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
> >> seed or roots.
>
> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
> >> antiques.
>
> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
> >will change with time.
>
> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.

There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>
> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>
> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
> planted with new trees "ancient"?

The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>
> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
> >etc.
>
> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".

I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.

> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.

Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
for your perverted viewpoint?

On Jan 6, 4:11 pm, Malcolm  wrote:

> No woodland can survive without regeneration, Angus. I would have
> thought you might have known that, but apparently not :-(

He did. But as it was yesterday when I told him, he's forgotten
already.

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:11:01 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article ,
>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:47:22 +0000, Malcolm
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>In article ,
>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:55:55 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>>>>>>conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>>>>>>that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>"For some time now" = "Ever since I had a run in with the WT and lost
>>>>>>the court case they brought against me".
>>>>>
>>>>>Which had little or no effect of what I do.
>>>>>
>>>>So you claim. Your websites are evidence that it did have an effect.
>>>
>>>Like removing a couple of words.
>>>
>>>And I stand by everything I said and it is all recorded on Google.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>>>>>>United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>>>>>>dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>>>>>>Scotland.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where did this "understanding" come from?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you saying it's not correct?
>>>>>
>>>>When you indulge in your frequent habit of posing a question of your own
>>>>in response to a question from someone else, it usually means that you
>>>>can't answer the original question. Why not just say so or, if you can
>>>>answer it, please do so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's what you do.
>>>
>>
>>I see. So I'm your role model :-))
>>
>>Now, what about answering my question "Where did this "understanding"
>>come from?
>>
>
>
>
>Wikipedia and English Nature.
>
>Take your pick.

There you see that didn't hurt did it.  Perhaps you will make it a new 
year resolution and always answer questions (hopefully as soon as you 
are asked.

>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>>>>>>unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>>>>>>woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>>>>>>minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>What makes you think that your definition of "ancient woodland" is the
>>>>>>only one and one that can never be altered?
>>>>>
>>>>>How do you define "ancient woodland"?
>>>>>
>>>>And now, for the second time, you respond to a question with one of your
>>>>own. What's wrong, Angus, can't you answer my question?
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have already said what I think an ancient woodland is.
>>>
>>>You have not.
>>>
>>And I asked you where your "understanding" of what an ancient woodland
>>was came from?  Did you dream it up yourself, or do you have a source?
>
>See above.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>>>>>>told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>>>>>>to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>>>>>>manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>>>>>>descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>>>>>>seed or roots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>You find it "incredible" because you haven't grasped the concept. You
>>>>>>are concentrating on individual trees and not on the woodland as a
>>>>>>whole. In other words, you can't see the wood for the trees :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not concentrating on individual trees  I'm concentrating on enough
>>>>>trees of an age to constitute a woodland that can be termed as
>>>>>"ancient".
>>>>>
>>>>If you're not concentrating on individual trees, why have you mentioned
>>>>"the idea of planting new trees"?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because they cannot constitute an "ancient woodland".
>>>
>>No woodland can survive without regeneration, Angus. I would have
>>thought you might have known that, but apparently not :-(
>>
>>
>
>Woodlands regenerated themselves.long before grant screwing
>conservationists came along.

Only if managed correctly.

By the way talking about management does your wood have a fence, wall or 
hedge round it?   What is the adjacent land used for.?

Now you have worked out how to answer questions do get round to these 
two.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>>>The public are led to believe that "ancient woodlands" consist of
>>>>>ancient trees and it seems to me they are being misled.
>>>>>
>>>>Please provide your evidence that "the public" are being misled?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because a woodland cannot be more ancient than any other piece of
>>>ground if the trees that constitute that woodland are not ancient
>>>themselves.  Trees make the woodland and every image I have ever seen
>>>showing an ancient woodland shows what is meant to be ancient trees.
>>>
>>
>>None of which is evidence that "the public" are being misled, so I will
>>take that as you admitting you have no such evidence. Thought not.
>>
>
>False images are evidence.

?

>
>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>>>>>>an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>>>>>>antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>>>>>>antiques.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Another fine Angus analogy, except that as usual it is a rotten one.
>>>>>
>>>>>Not at all.  It seems to me that fake conservationists are passing off
>>>>>the planting of new trees as ancient woodland.
>>>>>
>>>>Then, yet again, your understanding of woodlands and how they are
>>>>managed in order to conserve them is seriously lacking.
>>>
>>>Not at all.  Ancient woodlands composed of newly planted saplings?
>>>
>>>Don't make me laugh :-))
>>>
>>Who said anything about a woodland "composed of newly planted saplings"?
>
>Well, are they  going to plant mature trees to restore ancient
>woodlands?
>
I suspect you will find that they plant whips and possibly standards 
among the trees and scrub which probably exist.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

In message 
, John 
M.  writes
>On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>>
>>
>>  wrote:
>> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>> >> seed or roots.
>>
>> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>> >> antiques.
>>
>> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>> >will change with time.
>>
>> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
>> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>
>There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
>that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
>old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>>
>> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>>
>> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
>> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>
>The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>>
>> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>> >etc.
>>
>> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>
>I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
>replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
>analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>
>> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>
>Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
>for your perverted viewpoint?

He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 11:44:03 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 6, 4:11 pm, Malcolm  wrote:
>
>> No woodland can survive without regeneration, Angus. I would have
>> thought you might have known that, but apparently not :-(
>
>He did. But as it was yesterday when I told him, he's forgotten
>already.

As usual your willingness to give Ogilvie a blow job is scary!
Woodlands like everything in nature are quite capable of looking after
itself, and have done for millenia.









--

My greatest speech to the peasants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em7LWuP0T7Q

pam the SPAMMERS send an email to enquires@urfreesim.co.uk



England / Angelic Upstarts 

The red in the flag is the blood that was spilt
In the way that your forefathers tell
And never a country has been so great
The stories Britannia could tell 

I never want to live my life
Away from the golden shores
There's never a country in the world
With the scent of an English rose 

England oh England a country so great
A land that's so fair and so true
There'll never be any colours like
The red the white and the blue 

Whenever you go to a far off land
There's something goes with you
The pride and the joy and the love that comes
For your mother of red white and blue 

You could never be born under a flag that's like
The one of the Union Jack
St.Georges spirit has never died
It all keeps coming back

On Jan 6, 9:06 pm, Malcolm Kane 
wrote:
> In message
> , John
> M.  writes
>
>
>
> >On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>  wrote:
> >> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
> >> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
> >> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>
> >> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
> >> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
> >> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
> >> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
> >> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
> >> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
> >> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>
> >> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
> >> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
> >> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
> >> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
> >> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
> >> >> seed or roots.
>
> >> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
> >> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
> >> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
> >> >> antiques.
>
> >> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
> >> >will change with time.
>
> >> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
> >> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>
> >There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
> >that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
> >old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>
> >> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
> >> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
> >> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>
> >> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
> >> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>
> >The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>
> >> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
> >> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
> >> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
> >> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
> >> >etc.
>
> >> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>
> >I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
> >replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
> >analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>
> >> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>
> >Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
> >for your perverted viewpoint?
>
> He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.

Looks like you got a hole in one. Not even a "See above" or similar
prevarication.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
 wrote:

>On Jan 6, 9:06 pm, Malcolm Kane 
>wrote:
>> In message
>> , John
>> M.  writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>> >> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>> >> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>> >> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>> >> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>> >> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>> >> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>> >> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>> >> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>> >> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>> >> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>> >> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>> >> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>> >> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>> >> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>> >> >> seed or roots.
>>
>> >> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>> >> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>> >> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>> >> >> antiques.
>>
>> >> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>> >> >will change with time.
>>
>> >> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
>> >> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>>
>> >There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
>> >that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
>> >old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>>
>> >> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>> >> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>> >> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>>
>> >> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
>> >> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>>
>> >The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>>
>> >> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>> >> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>> >> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>> >> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>> >> >etc.
>>
>> >> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>>
>> >I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
>> >replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
>> >analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>>
>> >> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>>
>> >Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
>> >for your perverted viewpoint?
>>
>> He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.
>
>Looks like you got a hole in one. Not even a "See above" or similar
>prevarication.

I don't  bother reading the sock-puppet's posts - but I do see the odd
one second-hand like now.


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

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 6, 9:06 pm, Malcolm Kane 
>>wrote:
>>> In message
>>> , John
>>> M.  writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>>
>>> >>  wrote:
>>> >> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>>> >> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>>> >> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
>>> >> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>>
>>> >> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>>> >> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>>> >> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>>> >> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
>>> >> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>>> >> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
>>> >> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>>
>>> >> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
>>> >> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
>>> >> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>>> >> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>>> >> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
>>> >> >> seed or roots.
>>>
>>> >> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
>>> >> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>>> >> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
>>> >> >> antiques.
>>>
>>> >> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>>> >> >will change with time.
>>>
>>> >> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
>>> >> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>>>
>>> >There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
>>> >that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
>>> >old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>>>
>>> >> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>>> >> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>>> >> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>>>
>>> >> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
>>> >> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>>>
>>> >The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>>>
>>> >> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>>> >> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>>> >> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
>>> >> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>>> >> >etc.
>>>
>>> >> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>>>
>>> >I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
>>> >replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
>>> >analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>>>
>>> >> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>>>
>>> >Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
>>> >for your perverted viewpoint?
>>>
>>> He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.
>>
>>Looks like you got a hole in one. Not even a "See above" or similar
>>prevarication.
>
>I don't  bother reading the sock-puppet's posts - but I do see the odd
>one second-hand like now.
>

Things are looking up!   Last time Angus commented he read the posts but 
didn't reply.  Now I have managed to get him not reading them.  :-))

Soon I will be able to post any comment sure in the knowledge Angus 
won't read it.   :-))))

Notice John he doesn't deny your summation is correct.
-- 
Malcolm Kane

On Jan 8, 9:15 pm, Malcolm Kane 
wrote:
> In message ,
> amacmil...@aol.com writes
>
>
>
> >On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
> > wrote:
>
> >>On Jan 6, 9:06 pm, Malcolm Kane 
> >>wrote:
> >>> In message
> >>> , John
> >>> M.  writes
>
> >>> >On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>
> >>> >>  wrote:
> >>> >> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> >> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
> >>> >> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust and others,
> >>> >> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>
> >>> >> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
> >>> >> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
> >>> >> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
> >>> >> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of time travel
> >>> >> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
> >>> >> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never underestimate fertile
> >>> >> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>
> >>> >> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I have been
> >>> >> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the site and not
> >>> >> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
> >>> >> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
> >>> >> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the original
> >>> >> >> seed or roots.
>
> >>> >> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere to restore
> >>> >> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
> >>> >> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture as genuine
> >>> >> >> antiques.
>
> >>> >> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
> >>> >> >will change with time.
>
> >>> >> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
> >>> >> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>
> >>> >There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
> >>> >that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
> >>> >old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>
> >>> >> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
> >>> >> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
> >>> >> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>
> >>> >> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
> >>> >> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>
> >>> >The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>
> >>> >> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
> >>> >> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
> >>> >> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some types of
> >>> >> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
> >>> >> >etc.
>
> >>> >> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>
> >>> >I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
> >>> >replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
> >>> >analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>
> >>> >> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>
> >>> >Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
> >>> >for your perverted viewpoint?
>
> >>> He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.
>
> >>Looks like you got a hole in one. Not even a "See above" or similar
> >>prevarication.
>
> >I don't bother reading the sock-puppet's posts - but I do see the odd
> >one second-hand like now.

<snip - so Angus won't ever know what you said ;-)>

I absolutely agree, Malcolm and, even better, Angus will not know what
I agree with :-)))))))))))) Unless he's been lying, that is :-(

In message 
, John 
M.  writes
>On Jan 8, 9:15 pm, Malcolm Kane 
>wrote:
>> In message ,
>> amacmil...@aol.com writes
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 09:56:43 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>On Jan 6, 9:06 pm, Malcolm Kane 
>> >>wrote:
>> >>> In message
>> >>> , John
>> >>> M.  writes
>>
>> >>> >On Jan 6, 1:45 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>> >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 13:03:33 -0800 (PST), "John M."
>>
>> >>> >>  wrote:
>> >>> >> >On Jan 5, 1:43 am, amacmil...@aol.com wrote:
>> >>> >> >> For some time now. I have been concerned about claims by
>> >>> >> >> conservationist organisations such as the Woodland Trust 
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> that they are engaged in "restoring" ancient woodlands.
>>
>> >>> >> >> My understanding is that "ancient woodland" is a term used in the
>> >>> >> >> United Kingdom to refer specifically to continuous natural woodland
>> >>> >> >> dating back to 1600 or before in England and Wales and from 1750 in
>> >>> >> >> Scotland.  So, unless conservationists have some method of 
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> unknown to the rest of us, it would appear that restoring ancient
>> >>> >> >> woodlands is quite impossible.  However, never 
>> >>> >> >>underestimate fertile
>> >>> >> >> minds of those seeking to make a few bob out of bending the rules.
>>
>> >>> >> >> From a Freedom of Information enquiry to Natural England I 
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> told that the term "ancient" refers to the history of the 
>> >>> >> >>and not
>> >>> >> >> to the trees themselves. I find it incredible this term has been
>> >>> >> >> manipulated to discount the age of the trees or even their direct
>> >>> >> >> descendents  - such as offspring growing naturally from the 
>> >>> >> >>original
>> >>> >> >> seed or roots.
>>
>> >>> >> >> The idea that planting new trees brought in from elsewhere 
>> >>> >> >>
>> >>> >> >> an "ancient" woodland seems to be as fraudulent a concept as shady
>> >>> >> >> antique dealers trying to pass off reproduction furniture 
>> >>> >> >>genuine
>> >>> >> >> antiques.
>>
>> >>> >> >A forest is not a static antique. It is a living entity and as such
>> >>> >> >will change with time.
>>
>> >>> >> Sure, but it's the trees that make the woodland and new trees are not
>> >>> >> "ancient" - no matter how you look at it.
>>
>> >>> >There's a parable I can't quite rember about old men planting trees
>> >>> >that they will never be able to sit in the shade of. New trees become
>> >>> >old as well as men. It just takes longer.
>>
>> >>> >> >A condition known as the climax ecosystem
>> >>> >> >identifies the final stage of a relatively rapid succession of stages
>> >>> >> >that begin with unvegetated soil or rock or water body.
>>
>> >>> >> So what all this got to do with calling a woodland that has been
>> >>> >> planted with new trees "ancient"?
>>
>> >>> >The appelation will not be "Ancient" if you read carefully enough.
>>
>> >>> >> >'Restoration' is jargon indicating an attempt to bring a degraded
>> >>> >> >ecosystem back to its expected place in the succession, usually the
>> >>> >> >climax stage or to 'artificial' climaxes like heathland, some 
>> >>> >> >types of
>> >>> >> >wetland, coppiced woodland, grazing pasture, chalk downland, etc.,
>> >>> >> >etc.
>>
>> >>> >> Planting new trees doesn't "restore" an "ancient woodland".
>>
>> >>> >I don't believe that anyone is saying it does. Apart from you. Some
>> >>> >replica antiques are now antiques in their own right - to use your
>> >>> >analogy. The passage of time alters all perspectives.
>>
>> >>> >> All that is, is fake conservation rubbish.
>>
>> >>> >Is that all you've got? Can't you at least put up a credible argument
>> >>> >for your perverted viewpoint?
>>
>> >>> He never has done yet.  I don't suppose he will start now.
>>
>> >>Looks like you got a hole in one. Not even a "See above" or similar
>> >>prevarication.
>>
>> >I don't bother reading the sock-puppet's posts - but I do see the odd
>> >one second-hand like now.
>
><snip - so Angus won't ever know what you said ;-)>
>
>I absolutely agree, Malcolm and, even better, Angus will not know what
>I agree with :-)))))))))))) Unless he's been lying, that is :-(
>
LOL I like the way you think.    :-))))))))
-- 
Malcolm Kane