[Magnus Angus]

Hi Guys

Don't know if this has already been discussed. The Forrestry Commission have plans for a large new 'forest', a series of commercial plantations around Loch Arklet to create what the FCS describe as a 'semi-natural' landscape, what I'd describe as another artificial and barren tract of plantation conifers. This time it's in a stunningly beautiful glen around a gorgeous Loch.

The full details are here http://www.strathardnews.com/arkletview/campaign.html

and the petition line is http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/save-the-loch-arklet-view.html

Takes about a minute to complete the form.

[Jim Eddie]

Worthwhile cause guys , as Magnus said , only takes a minute.

 

Jim

[Rob Brownfield]

An interesting one as the "natural" view just now as depicted in that rather beautiful picture is infact man made. At one time these moorlands where stunning deciduous forests, that whole area was one of the biggest forests in Europe..and man destroyed it all.

Sooooo...return to forest is returning it to its natural state..BUT...not with coniferous trees. I am pretty much surrounded by FCS plantations where I am an they are bloody horrible!!! Terrible view, terrible for the soil and terrible for the wildlife!!!

[Irvine Ross]

Hang on a minute.

At 40% oak and alder and 40% native Scots pine this will not be a "barren tract of plantation conifers". If anything the broadleaved trees will improve the aquatic habitat  and filter out acid rain so it will be better for all the fish species in the loch and better for us anglers.

The objectors don't mention that Scottish Water cleared all the grazing animals from the catchment to prevent E-coli getting in the water supply so one of their options for an alternative land use is not a runner. They also ignore all the carbon capture that the new woodland will provide. New woodlands are a priority objective for the Scottish Government so where do the objectors suggest we put them? NIMBY.

The same scenario has been repeated for all my working life. Plant new areas of woodland. People object. Cut down an area of woodland. People object.

People just don't like change. It starts as a gut feeling and then they look for any sort of argument to support their objections and overlook the fact that the glen was historically covered in trees before the farmers grazed and burned them away to make room for sheep. The current landscape is artificial, created by human intervention but that is what the locals are used to and that is what they want to keep.

Fair enough it is their back yard and they are entitled to voice their opinion and run their campaign.  Just take time to look at the other side of the argument before you rush in to support them.

Irvine

[Jim Eddie]

Fair point Irvine

 

Jim

[Rob Brownfield]

Irvine,
I must admit, I just saw FCS and jumped to conclusion. Like I said above..the forest should be there, man removed it in the first place..so if they are putting back native trees then thats fine by me

I would much rather see broadleaf forests than endless rows of Pine.

[Magnus Angus]

Irvine

Well argued.

FCS themselves refer to the result as 'semi-natural'. I've seen the result of replanted forestry in the UK, Canada, and in a fair bit of Scandinavia and I prefer the way that place looks now.

What point in geological history do you think we should take as our 'natural' benchmark? How deep was the Ice Sheet coving this part of the planet back in the day

The fact that landscape (like all but about 10% of the UK ?) is the result of man and grazing animals and therefore 'unnatural' is, to my mind, a bogus argument. It works on the assumption that local people have no right to participate in the landscape, that they are not a natural part of the landscape, and implies that they their voices should have no influence on the fate of the place and land they live on. Exactly the same "natural" argument is being used to justify the reintroduction of beaver, wolves, elk etc.

Similarly deploying the NIMBY argument seems to me to be why we are slowly growing a forest of wind farms - whether local people like it or not - and in some cases whether the site is appropriate or not.

Magnus

PS

Reputable academic research similarly found no evidence of prior forest in Glen Arklet.
The study 'looked for evidence of climax forest (pine / oak / ash) in Glen Arklet but
found none, the peat only yielding evidence of a little birch scrub'. Statements and
assumptions in the EIA that this would be a reinstatement project are therefore
inaccurate.

http://www.strathardnews.com/arkletview/files/loch_arklet_eia_web.pdf

[Irvine Ross]

Magnus

As there are no truly natural landscapes left in the UK then "semi-natural" is the highest we can aim for. Even the native pinewoods in Glen Tanar, Abernethy and Glen Affric, descended from an unbroken line of self sown trees, are classed as semi-natural.

How far back? Well I'm only looking back about 250 years to before the highland clearances and the massive introduction of Cheviot and black faced sheep to the highlands. Amongst that social upheaval a lot of our native woodlands were lost.

Yes the land has been occupied by man for thousands of years and we are part of the ecosystem. However the intensive sheep farming of the past 200 years has led to the depletion of the soil and loss of vegetation cover leading to erosion and silting of water courses. It isn't sustainable and is isn't good for the land. Old style forestry planting with ploughing and deep draining wasn't too clever either, but that is not what is proposed for Glen Arklet.

Yes local people have the right to influence what happens and I support their right to protest and run their campaign. So far as I know the land is in public ownership so the decisions can be swayed by political pressure. How many of the protesters actually work on the land as opposed to having a house in the vicinity? I guess very few. Their arguments seem to be based on keeping it looking as it does now.

But as ever their publicity material puts only one side of the case and I am not persuaded by their arguments. Others will probably see it the other way.

I rest my case  M'Lud.

Irvine

[Magnus Angus]

 

Fair enough Irvine - the fact there is no history of climax forest in Glen Aklet does nothing to alter your position?

Incidentally as for the NIMBY thing - personally I'd be delighted if the FCS would like to get to work around here - I'd like to volunteer a few tracts of farmland and some industrial sites around here for sensitive mixed forestry - while they're at it they could sort out some of the nice square ugly patches of commercial trees we have.

The nub of my 'gut feeling', and you are right about that, is why change that landscape? Why blight that valley for the next generation or so. It is a beautiful place, forest was never it's historic condition.

I too rest my case 

Magnus

[Sky]

New Balls Please? 

The existing landscape at Loch Arklet currently has a value - what seems clear from the objectors is that they feel the developers have failed to properly evaluate the existing landscape skewing the decision on where it's appropriate to plant. As a Londoner who has travelled up to fish many of the lochs in this area and whose favourite landscape is the shores of Arklet I absolutely agree with the local residents... the place is stunning as it is. Sometimes only when we have seen something can we really appreciate it's beauty. Not my back yard but glad someone, whilst agreeing to the large majority of the scheme, is questioning the wisdom of the tree planting in this location.

[Irvine Ross]

Magnus

No history of woodland in Glen Arklet? The OS map of 1840 shows scattered trees along the northern and eastern slopes Beinn Uamha and  5 minutes of searching came up with one reference.

This is an extract from a conference report by Peter Quelch one of our authorities on Scottish woodland history

Peter showed some pictures of ancient wood pasture on
the Loch Katrine Estate, now being managed by the
Forestry Commission after taking over management from
Scottish Water. The wood pastures of alder and birch
had been grazed by sheep and cattle. At the east end of
Loch Arklet, the worked trees within the wood pasture
were associated with old, pre-1800 settlements. Below
the wood pasture, there were areas of cultivation and a
drover’s road. The veteran trees of birch and alder which
have been low pollarded were often hollow and gnarled
making them difficult to age. Some of the veteran trees
have rowan or birch growing out of their hollow trunks;
these are known as ‘air trees’

I will search further and let you know.

Irvine

[Magnus Angus]

Hi Irvine

A significant proportion of the land in that Valley is being described as "blanket bog". Do you know if that's true? If it is - how long has peat been accumulating to form that type of bog? Far as I can find it means at least 1500 years.

Magnus

[Mike Barrio]

[Sky]

Oh Mike... a picture can truely say a thousands words

Here's the link to a decent guide to Scottish Woodland Pastures by Hares expert Peter Quelch... might apply to small parts of the Loch Arklet shoreline but a not to the general and as becomes clear on close inspection requires only a spattering of pollarded birch/alder to qualify as woodland pasture http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/pdf/ancient.pdf.

Conceivably the single birch in Mike's first 2 photo's could justify the definition of a woodland pasture for this area of shoreline. If the planting proposed amounted to this I doubt there would have been any objection

[Irvine Ross]

Hi Irvine

A significant proportion of the land in that Valley is being described as "blanket bog". Do you know if that's true? If it is - how long has peat been accumulating to form that type of bog? Far as I can find it means at least 1500 years.

Magnus

Magnus

The soil Survey of Scotland map shows the soils around Loch Arklet as Strichen Association Map unit 504 which is peaty podzols, peaty gleys and peat.

The description says that
"Peaty podzols are found on the mounds and steep slopes while the peaty gleys and peats occupy the channels, hollows and gentler slopes.  ...............Bog heather moor in found on the peaty gleys and and podzols, with some Atlantic heather moor in drier sites. Blanket bog communities are developed on the peat. The steeper drier slopes are extensive and carry common white bent grassland, providing grazings of higher value. The map unit has quite good forestry potential which is now being utilized in many areas."

So there will be blanket bog on the hollows and gentle slopes, as in the foreground in Mike's picture, but not on the slopes which make up a lot of the valley sides as you can see. So how much is "a significant proportion"?

It is not possible to grow oak and pine on blanket bog so these areas would be planned to be left as open ground. The proposed tree planting would be aimed at the better drier soils on the slopes and hummocks. And no a singe trees does not define wood pasture. As Peter Quelch points out "Unenclosed upland wood pastures often have very natural origins". ie. there was native woodland present before it was modified into wood pasture

OK its a landscape you like/love and want to protect. That is a valid point to put forward and one which the powers that be should take into consideration. When I look at at it I see an impoverished landscape that could be brought back to life. An opportunity that could be missed.

This is almost a much fun as arguing about fishing

cheers

Irvine