On Mar 21, 9:20*pm, Tim Lamb > wrote:
> In message >, Robert Seago
> > writes
>
> >In article >,
> > * Tim Lamb > wrote:
>
> >> Stop the
> >> Forestry Commission interfering with tree felling outside woodland
> >> areas.
>
> >I'm sure the answer will be yes, but have any of you actually had
> >problems? In all honesty I have never experienced any unreasonable
> >interference from the forestry comission concerning felling.
>
> 5 cubic metres is less than one mature Oak here. I do not need the
> hassle of asking permission to fell and being required to replant under
> compulsion.
>
> I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
> harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
> to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
> undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
> interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.

Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?

>
> regards
>
>
>
> --
> Tim Lamb

"Buxqi" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 9:20 pm, Tim Lamb > wrote:

> I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
> harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
> to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
> undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
> interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.

Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
otherwise would have planted?

------
Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off putting a few
trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get all the cost and
disadvantages of having them, but not be able to harvest the crop

Jim Webster

In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote:



> > Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
> > otherwise would have planted?

> ------ Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off
> putting a few trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get
> all the cost and disadvantages of having them, but not be able to
> harvest the crop

> Jim Webster
You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu
will be allowed to.

As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
either felling or plating where we have wanted to.

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
>
>
>> > Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
>> > otherwise would have planted?
>
>> ------ Certainly it has been one of the factors that has put me off
>> putting a few trees in, the sure knowledge that my children would get
>> all the cost and disadvantages of having them, but not be able to
>> harvest the crop
>
>> Jim Webster
> You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu
> will be allowed to.

Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability of a
family enterprise?
They are as likely to be nationalised if they become that valuable. ;-(

>
> As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
> either felling or plating where we have wanted to.

are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our families
money and have to get that money back over the years.

Jim Webster

In message
>,
Buxqi > writes
>>
>> I have planted trees because I enjoy doing so. They will not be
>> harvested in my lifetime. There is a perception that a sapling belongs
>> to the person who caused the planting. However, at 100mm that sapling
>> undergoes a transition and falls under the control of others who had no
>> interest or input for the previous 20 or so years.
>
>Has the legislation disuaded you from planting any trees that you
>otherwise would have planted?

Umm... I find that difficult to answer.

Recent moves to steer the CAP away from production support and towards
beneficial rural land management make planting decisions less easy. My
children have no interest in taking over this farm so there is no long
term financial benefit to unaided planting. Immature woodland, with no
sporting income, might be seen as a negative asset.

Aided planting has ties which might interfere with unforeseen changes in
agricultural land use.

I have not yet joined the *entry level* tier of environmental payments
simply because annual hedge trimming is forbidden and the agreement is
locked for 5 years. Anyone putting marginal arable land into low input
production might seriously regret the doubling of cereal and pulse
prices over the last 12 months.

I will continue to plant trees where they are unlikely to cause me
problems, on land not suitable for cropping. Sometimes this may
discourage an inappropriate use such as highway verge parking or access
for fly tipping:-)

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Robert Seago > writes
>You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again theyu will
>be allowed to.
>
>As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
>either felling or plating where we have wanted to.

Well they certainly affected us. The procedure for moving a failed
replant (done by our predecessors) took huge amounts of work and effort.
Most people would have given up. They have also refused us permission to
remove a couple of trees invisible from outside but which were in the
way. No, they had to be replanted in the same place.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

In article >,
Jim Webster > wrote:


> > You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
> > they will be allowed to.

> Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
> of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
> become that valuable. ;-(

You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
failed.

> >
> > As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
> > either felling or planting where we have wanted to.

> are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
> families money and have to get that money back over the years.

Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
to happen some time?

"Robert Seago" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
>
>> > You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
>> > they will be allowed to.
>
>> Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
>> of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
>> become that valuable. ;-(
>
> You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
> Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
> failed.

not with agriculture, they called it war-ag and insisted on wheat being
planted where wheat had never been planted before

>
>> >
>> > As I have stated, rules have never hindered our trust to my knowledge,
>> > either felling or planting where we have wanted to.
>
>> are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
>> families money and have to get that money back over the years.
>
> Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
> to happen some time?

would you rely on a crop that had to grow through 12 general elections? :-(

There are trees that are coming up to harvest that have passed through three
or four different tax regimes, to either encourage or discourage their
production

Jim Webster

Robert Seago > writes
>In article >,
> Jim Webster > wrote:
>
>
>> > You can be sure that if the trees are ever worth harvesting again
>> > they will be allowed to.
>
>> Since when has the state worried about damaging the economic viability
>> of a family enterprise? They are as likely to be nationalised if they
>> become that valuable. ;-(
>
>You might as well say they will nationalise wheat growing now.
>Nationalisation has pretty well always been when a firm has pretty well
>failed.

Thats not true in most of the world, usually the opposite.

>> are you commercial? that is the issue. If I plant trees I use our
>> families money and have to get that money back over the years.
>
>Is this something that has ever happened or do you just think it is likely
>to happen some time?

Que?

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.