Forestry: Readers address suggestions sycamore could save woodlands

There is, however, one surprising omission in his article which makes me doubt his contention that sycamore will largely replace ash as a hardwood component of English, or indeed British, forests and woodland. The omission, of course, is that Dr Mabbett fails to mention the main reason sycamore is not a major component of existing woodland – the grey squirrel problem.

As most of us know, sycamore sap is the very favourite tipple of the grey squirrels, and their damage to the bark and cambium of sycamores means that unless grey squirrels are meticulously controlled, it is a waste of time planting and tending them.

Despite much research and many potential advances in squirrel control either by trapping, chemical treatment or genetic manipulation, I very much doubt whether sufficient control of these pests will occur. Only on those few areas and estates where rigorous and never-ending control is practised can there be any chance of Dr Mabbett’s contention that sycamore could largely replace ash becoming a fact.

WANT MORE LETTERS? 

• Lantra chiefs address 'false information' about its qualifications
• 'The forest industry as a whole in Wales has suffered greatly'
• 'I feel it necessary to share this letter anonymously for fear of reprisal'

I suspect that wild cherry (gean) or possibly birch might be more likely replacements for ash. Both have similar catholic site requirements, both are fairly untroubled by squirrels, both are widely available and easy to grow. Perhaps also a strain of ash may emerge which is resistant to Chalara.

Regards,
W R Williams
(Welsh forestry estate owner)

DEAR EDITOR, 

Why are successive governments incapable of joined-up writing? It has been announced at least 10,000 hectares are to be lost to the madness of solar panel farms, pylons and whatever stupidity this government, in the form of Miliband the energy guru, can come up with. We can’t feed our own population and a person so against hydrocarbon fuels has just added millions more food fuel miles to the environment.

The loss of land is at least a third of the annual target area for tree planting.

We are told that forestry is key to carbon sequestration by the Forestry Minister Mary Creagh and she wants to turbo-charge tree planting (Forestry Journal issue 360). One minister has just removed vast areas from hedgerow and tree planting and another is planning to turbo-charge planting? In all likelihood this is not a one-off situation and the loss of productive land to the foreign-owned power generators’ profits will continue during the life of this parliament.

We in the industry want to be profitable, to reduce the dependency on imported timber, create jobs and skills and to improve the environment. We do not want to be considered an ‘amenity’ because that is what the Blair government thought about forestry.

We need protection from Right to Roam. It’s not that trees could fall on a roamer’s head, even if we cordon the area and sign it. It’s the fact that we could be prosecuted for unlawful killing, locked up and sued because you can’t teach common sense to idiots. I want to know how the specialist environment and conservation work I am involved in is to be protected from the trampling hoards.

Here is a suggestion for the energy secretary. Why not use the oil production platforms he is going to put out of work to become solar panel islands? Of course, you would have to move them south to get more sunshine, but that is a joined-up thought.

Regards,
Martin Charlton