|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
grainknot
Joined: 26 Mar 2021 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
|
tahir
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 45671 Location: Essex
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46217 Location: yes
|
Posted: Thu Apr 01, 21 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
yes and yes.
the second part is a perpetual covenant and a management group
first is get begging money counts
the two i have done officially are both council owned land but are now designated community orchards based on a primary school community next to the site
i had to obtain about £6k to do the practical stuff with those, not too hard, a couple of local donors, a corporate greenwasher and we actually had more cash than we needed by 25%, that covers things like a years public liability insurance to get the management team started on a run rather than braked by scraping for a few hundred quid
my unofficial forest has a permanent covenant and no management, it was "waste" until i started planting it in about 1970
this cost nowt but time, pockets full of seeds and some careful thought
we did occupy some disputed and big style at risk territory for 9 years which is now national trust, those are a bit harsh and a niche activity
re official or normal ones, if you can get the "goodness" types involved, the commercial greenwashers as cash cows(tax or good publicity) and whatever bits of babylon that need telling what they must do doing it all should be well
it will be hard work that needs diplomacy, for every 3 sites one is perhaps plausible and from 3 plausible one may be possible
i have retired from orchard stuff and my co conspirator died recently, so community means that or dead trees and we wasted the effort on them
the NT can do what they want with that 36 acres(as much of it is vertical or interesting chances are it will rewild as it should into a multi microclimate temperate rain forest)
my unofficial forest i will observe and maybe tinker a little but i recon that should be fine with no management(tis too steep for most folk to travel around on so created multi species wild wood might be the outcome after my time) |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46217 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
grainknot
Joined: 26 Mar 2021 Posts: 11
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46217 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15972
|
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 21 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
As someone who managed woodland, please may I ask you to be very careful about the land you rewild. I know a lot of people are keen on this, but I am concerned that a lot of valuable habitat may be lost because of it.
In the area I live we have a lot of downland. Left to itself, it gets covered in scrub, eventually trees, and the steeper slopes get covered in yew trees and end up virtually lifeless chalk scree. If it is managed the way that it has for hundreds of years; grazing, then there are very valuable plant and insect communities at low level. Main problem is people and dogs. Similarly, if lowland heath, which is also a pretty rare habitat, is left to itself, it will scrub up and get a lot of pine trees. The best heathland is managed to minimise risk of fire but periodically cutting things like gorse, and stopped from turning into woodland by cutting the birch and pine. We recently got a lot of birch tops from one traditionally managed that way, which I will turn into besom heads with handles cut from our hazel coppice; another traditionally managed habitat. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46217 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|