Threat to Scottish Syndicates.

[Border]

Thanks for the detailed explanation. Definetly different to how things are done here. Mostly Norway spruce and Scots pine here and rotations are longer although I have no detailed silvicultural knowledge. I believe that both Sitka and other spruce/fir types have been experimented with on the west coast but don't think they took off compared to the native species. Growth rates slower here because of the cold as well. Streams and watercourses rigorously protected here.

 

[Shabz]

We have a massive (and expanding) programme of woodland creation in Scotland. The grants for new woodland creation does quite a lot to encourage more diverse conifer and native broadleaf components. I don’t know the actual figure but I would be surprised if Sitka is 50% of the total being planted, new ground prep methods are giving us more of a chance of resilience against windblow and a large proportion of open ground is usual. The schemes are worlds apart from those of the 80’s where we would just rip the ground and plant wall to wall Sitka.
Unfortunately, those woods from the 80’s are still there and still doing the bad PR bit. Eventually it’ll get round to being more diverse woodland, it’ll just continue to be a slow evolution.

 

[Cut+Squirt]

I don’t really know what you’re saying.
How are the watercourses ‘trashed’? Are you talking about shade or acidification?

I’ve done a lot of work in catchments at risk of acidification in Galloway and totally agree that there are continuing problems with SItka regeneration after restructuring. It’s very difficult to maintain regen free riparian areas in some cases but I don’t know that I would consider them ‘trashed’.

We absolutely need more diversity in our forests, P ramorum in larch should show us that, but we also have to accept the fact that Sitka Spruce pays the bills. Without it, we wouldn’t have a forest industry.

I would personally like to see the numbers adjusted in the UKFS. If a condition of a felling licence was that you had to have 50% diversity, then land owners would take deer management a lot more seriously.

Your absolutely spot on.
Without sitka spruce there is no sustainable forestry industry.

Great steps have been taken in recent years in respect of planting native trees to break up the monoculture of sitka spruce.

I can't think of a site which I have been on in recent years where great consideration hasn't been given to planting a significant percentage of native broad leaves, with particular attention given to riparian areas.

 

[Hayduke]

I think the main issue with Sitka Spruce forestry is that it’s too profitable. It’s too much of a sure thing and it means that forestry investors want to maximise profits by maximising Sitka. It’s very hard for a forester to persuade a faceless investment company to reduce their profit and risk more of their capital to improve the diversity of their woodland. The investor will just move on to the next forestry company who will fight for every inch of Sitka that they can get. Even on the national forest estate, where diversity is actually very good, there is immense financial pressure to make profits.

As for how deer management fits into the picture, deer are a very immediate problem. You’ll have a forest sit for 30 years, accumulating a deer population because it isn’t at immediate risk, notwithstanding sika deer which can make a mess at any stage in the rotation as pointed out above.
The forester will only really ever consider the deer a problem when it comes to felling and restocking. We need to address the underlying high populations on a landscape scale.

Perversely, all of these factors are sometimes used to promote Sitka Spruce as the only thing that should be grown.
Deer will eat anything else that I plant.
I can’t sell any other type of timber.
Sitka Spruce is the only thing I can grow here.
As I said, painted into a corner.

The need is for more Sitka to be planted not less, we are 80% reliant on imported timber, this represents a loss of over £8 billion a year to the United Kingdom's balance of trade.

To drastically change the species composition of our forests would mean growing trees the market doesn't want and throwing more public money at it to achieve this, when the market could effectively deliver afforestation (particularly the case without CAP BPS skewing land prices). There is already more policy and regulation directing forestry practice in the UK than most other countries.

The UK grows excellent timber, demand for UK grown timber outstrips supply.. The UK is the market of last resort for Scandinavian timber, we are demanding, fussy, late payers and insist on 90 day terms, Scandis would rather not sell to us and go to China instead.

The choices for the forester and landowner, a few truths and complexities:

• Sport and recreational stalker syndicates pay to hunt, they are the customer and they will want high deer populations on the ground.
• Locals generally don't pay or pay less, are more likely to provide a culling or deer management service and be on the ground more often (unless their motivation is only their sport and then they probably won't last).
• Contract cullers cost the owner money, mainly the state and a few others are willing to pay.

Landscape scale deer management is idealistic and a largely unobtainable myth across most of the UK:

• Or the NFE who manage vast tracts of land would not need to use fencing to establish broadleaves despite consistent annual cull levels.
• It only needs owners of a wood, forest or large gardens who don't want to cull deer (as is their right) within or neighbouring your 'landscape' area to sink the ideal of landscape scale deer management. These areas will continue to export deer.
• Similar principles apply where woods are beyond the establishment phase and the owner isn't interested in consistently high culling pressure.

 

[Cut+Squirt]

The need is for more Sitka to be planted not less, we are 80% reliant on imported timber, this represents a loss of over £8 billion a year to the United Kingdom's balance of trade.

To drastically change the species composition of our forests would mean growing trees the market doesn't want and throwing more public money at it to achieve this, when the market could effectively deliver afforestation (particularly the case without CAP BPS skewing land prices). There is already more policy and regulation directing forestry practice in the UK than most other countries.

The UK grows excellent timber, demand for UK grown timber outstrips supply.. The UK is the market of last resort for Scandinavian timber, we are demanding, fussy, late payers and insist on 90 day terms, Scandis would rather not sell to us and go to China instead.

The choices for the forester and landowner, a few truths and complexities:

• Sport and recreational stalker syndicates pay to hunt, they are the customer and they will want high deer populations on the ground.
• Locals generally don't pay or pay less, are more likely to provide a culling or deer management service and be on the ground more often (unless their motivation is only their sport and then they probably won't last).
• Contract cullers cost the owner money, mainly the state and a few others are willing to pay.

Landscape scale deer management is idealistic and a largely unobtainable myth across most of the UK:

• Or the NFE who manage vast tracts of land would not need to use fencing to establish broadleaves despite consistent annual cull levels.
• It only needs owners of a wood, forest or large gardens who don't want to cull deer (as is their right) within or neighbouring your 'landscape' area to sink the ideal of landscape scale deer management. These areas will continue to export deer.
• Similar principles apply where woods are beyond the establishment phase and the owner isn't interested in consistently high culling pressure.

Very well written post.

 

[Shabz]

The need is for more Sitka to be planted not less, we are 80% reliant on imported timber, this represents a loss of over £8 billion a year to the United Kingdom's balance of trade.

To drastically change the species composition of our forests would mean growing trees the market doesn't want and throwing more public money at it to achieve this, when the market could effectively deliver afforestation (particularly the case without CAP BPS skewing land prices). There is already more policy and regulation directing forestry practice in the UK than most other countries.

The UK grows excellent timber, demand for UK grown timber outstrips supply.. The UK is the market of last resort for Scandinavian timber, we are demanding, fussy, late payers and insist on 90 day terms, Scandis would rather not sell to us and go to China instead.

The choices for the forester and landowner, a few truths and complexities:

• Sport and recreational stalker syndicates pay to hunt, they are the customer and they will want high deer populations on the ground.
• Locals generally don't pay or pay less, are more likely to provide a culling or deer management service and be on the ground more often (unless their motivation is only their sport and then they probably won't last).
• Contract cullers cost the owner money, mainly the state and a few others are willing to pay.

Landscape scale deer management is idealistic and a largely unobtainable myth across most of the UK:

• Or the NFE who manage vast tracts of land would not need to use fencing to establish broadleaves despite consistent annual cull levels.
• It only needs owners of a wood, forest or large gardens who don't want to cull deer (as is their right) within or neighbouring your 'landscape' area to sink the ideal of landscape scale deer management. These areas will continue to export deer.
• Similar principles apply where woods are beyond the establishment phase and the owner isn't interested in consistently high culling pressure.

Surely an extra 100,000ha of diverse woodland with 50,000ha of extra Sitka is extra Sitka? The other 50,000ha being other conifer, or productive broad leaves builds some resilience into the industry and gives us the opportunity to diversify processing operations?

It’s a hard sell to any public body, community group or conservation group to promote Sitka only plantations.

The only answer is balance. Diverse woodlands with productive components and developed markets for the timber. Anything else is only any good for single issue interests.

 

[Freeforester]

Surely an extra 100,000ha of diverse woodland with 50,000ha of extra Sitka is extra Sitka? The other 50,000ha being other conifer, or productive broad leaves builds some resilience into the industry and gives us the opportunity to diversify processing operations?

It’s a hard sell to any public body, community group or conservation group to promote Sitka only plantations.

The only answer is balance. Diverse woodlands with productive components and developed markets for the timber. Anything else is only any good for single issue interests.

Quite, I'm not certain that monoculture forestry can really be sustainable in the longer term, never mind the environmental costs mentioned/shown. A bit like the Christmas tree industry, the more intensive aspects of which (the chemicals used, etc) have been becoming more and more restricted in Denmark, with the resulting expansion of the industry over here; it seems we don't value our nature in the same way as other countries.

 

[Hayduke]

Surely an extra 1,000,000ha of diverse woodland with 500,000ha of extra Sitka is extra Sitka? The other 500,000ha being other conifer, or productive broad leaves builds some resilience

More like it Shabz

 

[Shabz]

Surely an extra 1,000,000ha of diverse woodland with 500,000ha of extra Sitka is extra Sitka? The other 500,000ha being other conifer, or productive broad leaves builds some resilience

More like it Shabz

Yeah, I was trying to be a bit more diplomatic!

I reckon it won’t be too long until it’s more profitable to plant native woodland to sell the carbon credits in future. There’s an awful lot of companies buying carbon to offset their bad habits. As soon as you can buy them as a commodity, I’ll be buying a lot of them.

 

[Pete6.5]

My suggestion to the OP is to talk to the forest manager / owner or agent, whoever you deal with. They desperately want the deer culled, and they don’t want to have to pay for it so it’s in their interest to help you make the numbers. Why not ask for a letter stating that you are ‘employed’ by them to cull the deer and that when travelling up you are ‘at work’. I think that your lease fees could be perhaps described as ‘carcass fees’ and as such you are paying for the meat rather than the stalking.
im sure with a bit of thought something can be worked out that would satisfy the ‘I’m at work’ requirement.

Declare your money in from venison and off set the costs and registered as a food business which you should do anyway if you are selling to a game dealer and bingo you are a business. If you don't make much money after expenses you are just a bad businessman.

 

[countrryboy]

Surely an extra 1,000,000ha of diverse woodland with 500,000ha of extra Sitka is extra Sitka? The other 500,000ha being other conifer, or productive broad leaves builds some resilience

More like it Shabz

But where are u going to find 1 million hectares of ground just lying about doing nothing??

We just don't have the land to be growing vast areas of native species.
And which native species would u even plant???

Unless u only grow the natives on the real sh*tty areas and steep ground, some of the areas they plant u wonder wot the hell they were thinking in 1st place.
1 large wood near me planted at head of a valley with real crap access, only allowed either 4 or 5 wagons a day, so 100 ton. The 1st job up there was 20k tonne and only a tiny part of f the forest.
Complete madness to plant there, plus much is as steep as hell, prob a a skyline job. Which are struggling to get decent staff to run and cut for them

Ash and oak both have disease issues looming, larch is sadly gone as a species.
Even Scots tends to fair far better and produce better sticks on drier soils than most on the west coast forests have.
I know 1 big wood with hectares of dead lodgepole left over from the 70s or 80s.

Grandis can grow well and produce a decent stick althou a bit 'toey' for modern harvesters prone to rot and no demand for the timber from mills.
Quite a brittle timber for a soft wood and has a crap hinge snaps off quite easy, so might not be strong enough timber for building?
See some nice Doug fir in some estate woods but usually a lot more mature/over aged than a normal SS rotation. Never seen it planted much in commercial forestry
Tried willow locally for biomass but everyone now has ripped it up as not paying

Is this new 'modern' continous mounding a good thing??
I know all the rage nowadays and ploughing is the devil.
Does it not constantly leave a puddle/wet area to 1 side of the root, so causing root to rot on 1 side potentially making it more prone to wind blow in future?
All the auld boys think ploughing is still the best for crop establishment.
The problem is by the time u realise there is a problem ur 20+ years down the line and have created a massive problem for a fad/trend

 

[Freeforester]

Scots pine now also vulnerable to mass dieback from some sylvicultural lurgy too, apparently.

 

[countrryboy]

I wonder if its PR???

Was a banking off dead diseased larch near a job I was on and a couple of very strange looking trees with all their needles golden right in the middle of the banking.
I was always driving with traffic behind so could never slow down enough to entirely figure out wot they were, but Scots was my favourite.
Always meant to ask the Forrester but kept forgetting.

Trees in this country are knackered due to big business, buying cheaper plants from outside the country,
Bloody harvesting side going the same way with all the big mills in bed with there own pet management company and now many have their own harvesting divisions, and all the independant conteactors racing to the bottom by cutting rates despite timber prices being at record highs

 

[tattie]

I Agree there Countrryboy and hauliers getting the same prices they were getting 15 years ago and still lining up to do the job.

Harvesters leaving 100s of tons of timber lying about going to waste and I won't start on the mounding carry on!!!

Lack of tracks being planned when sites are restocked so access is nigh on impossible, unless the forester and stalker/ranger speak and get the contractors to make them.

Nobody gives a continental.