thats right, smart ass, mr Forestry commission know it all.

On 04/05/2011 1:07 PM, Dawlish wrote:
On May 4, 12:13 pm, wrote:
I was waiting for some smart ass, actually, to say British Forests
don't need fire......lol.

.............that's a little unnecessary. You'll have to wait a lot
longer too for someone to say that, because I certainly didn't. I did
add a smiley, as you did overlook all those 3 things, rather!

British woodlands (few areas of forest now, most were cleared, using
fire, as well as felling and grazing) are very different from the
massive forests of America. Most breakdown of organic matter in a
broadleaved English forest takes place through recycling through the
food chain, leaving a brown earth soil as a result. Most of our (few
remaining) ancient woodlands have not seen major fires for a long
time; centuries in most cases and the woods and once plentiful forests
have been privately owned and managed for hunting for a thousand years
and more - that's why we have some of the oldest trees in Europe. I
can assure you that none of them are "miles deep in twigs and
branches", even though they have not suffered regular fires. Walk in
one. you'll soon see,