Indiscriminate cutting down trees

Possibly Elm, they regrow from the base and the timber dies and can leave a hazard. Only to deal with it is to chop them down. Or as you say, it could be ash, which has the same outcome.

The council here have orange dotted all the ash trees on the side of the roads and asked the landowners to take them down.

Pedantic, but it doesn't sound indiscriminate. It sounds like it was planned to discriminate quite deliberately between wanted and unwanted trees.

Hard to say why without seeing any of it, but roadside trees can be bit of a liability and there are various things that can affect a trees structural integrity and how it can be dealt with.

There is also some really indiscriminate use of tree shears in the name of hedgerow restoration.

It could be to prevent the spread of squirrels, in which case I am in favour of it!

🙂

If they were outside the field then my first assumption would be council responsibility, nothing to do with farmer.

It was not the council as I asked if they had, it was the farmer but does he own the verge I wouldn't think so as the has a barbed wire fence 15" from the road. Chopped up for fire wood , all the other parts of the road the trees budding with birds on the branches but for a few hundred yards every one chopped. They were obviously well planted with much the same distance between. Between the poison of birds of prey and trees cut down to feed their biomass burners some farmers/land owners seem to think they are above the law

Could be a bit of pollarding going on? Especially if the trees are too close to the road?

If they were outside the field then my first assumption would be council responsibility, nothing to do with farmer.

Unlikely. Trees on farmland neighbouring a b-road are more likely owned by the farmer (even outside a visible field boundary) in my limited experience of investigating such matters.

The council here have orange dotted all the ash trees on the side of the roads and asked the landowners to take them down.

this is the most likely explanation/excuse IME.

Hard to say why without seeing any of it, but roadside trees can be bit of a liability

liability a key word here. landowners are liable for their trees on the roadside - even for responsible (to nature) landowners easier to reduce risk by chipping down.

some farmers/land owners seem to think they are above the law

You know we have a Tory government, right?The farmers are doing exactly what the law tells them in causing all this destruction. The farmers are encouraged to cut down ash to manage road safety. (Unfortunately this needs to be done in many cases.) They are then paid to plant new trees. Yay government economics! They are not paid to raise those trees, so they don’t water or nurture them. The saplings are left to die.

For the avoidance of doubt, I really hate farmers. But I’ve come across plenty of lovely people who own/manage farms and who love nature. The systems just broken, so I can’t blame farmers.

Rant over.

For the avoidance of doubt, I really hate farmers. But I’ve come across plenty of lovely people who own/manage farms and who love nature. The systems just broken, so I can’t blame farmers.

Seriously? Get a ****ing life! There are plenty of people to ‘hate’, corrupt politicians, child molesters, I could go on, but farmers?

jeezus! Do you honestly believe that people go out and individually water each and every one of the several million trees planted over the last few years? How do you think that trees spread naturally? How do you think forests form?

A couple of years ago along the A350 just as you enter Beanacre on the way into Melksham, a whole line of trees were cut down, on each side of the road. They were spaced fairly neatly, so I guess they’d been planted deliberately. New saplings have been planted to replace them. The road has farmland on one side, a field on the other - I guess the farmer’s to blame for what Highways have done; I think the trees were Ash…

Oh, and I think you’ll find that it’s town and city councils who are fondest of the indiscriminate cutting down of hundreds of trees, all in the interests of ‘improving the urban environment’, you understand…

It's less about elected politicians and more about unelected bodies doing as they want. Network Rail have always cut back some vegetation from line sides (which are very good green corridors in many areas) but it has made a real effort to not just cut back but completely eliminate growth far from the tracks. Sure, it may help on leaves on the line and trees falling on overhead power cables but on my commute (Thameslink) they took out whole hedgerows which were well below the level of the track.

I really hate farmers

What do you eat?

Or do you mean "I don't like some of the things some farmers do"?

I thought this was going to be about Plymouth council .
Nightime choppers

Anyway...

I really hate farmers

I blame Clarkson,they new face of farming land control 🙃😉

They may also have a replanting scheme in place too - but they haven't done it yet, or they may be planting hedgerow, etc. Very harsh to say it's indiscriminate. As others have said, if they were ash, they would need to come down sooner or later - it's not a case of if they'll get die-back, it's when. There's also the issue of I think that there's now legislation restriction the climbing to dimantle of ash with dieback, and are meant to fell only. Obviously an issue road side, so they've maybe been getting ahead of themselves. Also, you don't know what other schemes the farmer has on his farm - hes maybe rewilding some of his land, increasing the size of hedgerows/field borders, planting trees in land that isn't productive grazing/arable land. You may hate farmers, but the vast majority of the farming community at least around here, are responsible land managers.