Joshua Styles
@joshual951.bsky.social
Plant obsessive, restoration ecologist and science communicator 🏳️🌈
Meanwhile you’re arguing that restoration of an ancient woodland is something to reconsider.
October 7, 2025 at 9:53 PM
Meanwhile you’re arguing that restoration of an ancient woodland is something to reconsider.
There was nothing indecent in what I said. It is lunacy, and the fact that comments consistently ignore objective reality is testament to a lack of education.
October 7, 2025 at 8:26 PM
There was nothing indecent in what I said. It is lunacy, and the fact that comments consistently ignore objective reality is testament to a lack of education.
And what exactly is ideological here? It sounds to me as though you’re upset over the openness of WT to discuss an inconvenient truth.
October 7, 2025 at 8:15 PM
And what exactly is ideological here? It sounds to me as though you’re upset over the openness of WT to discuss an inconvenient truth.
It sounds to me as though an education is what’s missing from those who work in forestry on this thread. Perhaps you ought to be speaking to them! 😊🌱
October 7, 2025 at 8:13 PM
It sounds to me as though an education is what’s missing from those who work in forestry on this thread. Perhaps you ought to be speaking to them! 😊🌱
The number of species plantations support is dwarved by the number which are supported by semi-natural habitats. To conclude anything less is only evidence of ignorance in the extreme.
October 7, 2025 at 7:55 PM
The number of species plantations support is dwarved by the number which are supported by semi-natural habitats. To conclude anything less is only evidence of ignorance in the extreme.
You can disagree all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that afforestation accounts for 9% blanket bog loss, c20% loss of raised bog, 39% of existing ancient woodland loss (PAWS), the list is endless…
These are not only nationally, but frequently globally threatened habitats.
These are not only nationally, but frequently globally threatened habitats.
October 7, 2025 at 7:53 PM
You can disagree all you like. It doesn’t change the fact that afforestation accounts for 9% blanket bog loss, c20% loss of raised bog, 39% of existing ancient woodland loss (PAWS), the list is endless…
These are not only nationally, but frequently globally threatened habitats.
These are not only nationally, but frequently globally threatened habitats.
Translation: please don’t communicate objective facts about non-native conifer plantation in case the public realise the invonvenient truth 👏🌱
October 7, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Translation: please don’t communicate objective facts about non-native conifer plantation in case the public realise the invonvenient truth 👏🌱
Thank you @wtscotsocial.bsky.social for educating!! It’s long overdue folks realise the damage non-native conifers do to ancient woods, alongside many of our other globally important habitats.
Please ignore the lunacy from the uneducated forester brigade 🌱❤️
Please ignore the lunacy from the uneducated forester brigade 🌱❤️
October 7, 2025 at 7:45 PM
Thank you @wtscotsocial.bsky.social for educating!! It’s long overdue folks realise the damage non-native conifers do to ancient woods, alongside many of our other globally important habitats.
Please ignore the lunacy from the uneducated forester brigade 🌱❤️
Please ignore the lunacy from the uneducated forester brigade 🌱❤️
You’re entitled to your wrong opinion.
Non-natives objectively support substantially less wildlife (take a gander on the BRC database cor insects and their food plants). Meanwhile, non-native conifers actively chemically modify soils and extirpate species. The world isn’t centred around squirrels.
Non-natives objectively support substantially less wildlife (take a gander on the BRC database cor insects and their food plants). Meanwhile, non-native conifers actively chemically modify soils and extirpate species. The world isn’t centred around squirrels.
October 7, 2025 at 7:31 PM
You’re entitled to your wrong opinion.
Non-natives objectively support substantially less wildlife (take a gander on the BRC database cor insects and their food plants). Meanwhile, non-native conifers actively chemically modify soils and extirpate species. The world isn’t centred around squirrels.
Non-natives objectively support substantially less wildlife (take a gander on the BRC database cor insects and their food plants). Meanwhile, non-native conifers actively chemically modify soils and extirpate species. The world isn’t centred around squirrels.
Probably because it is an industry that continues to decimate some of our most important habitats left in Britain
October 7, 2025 at 5:10 PM
Probably because it is an industry that continues to decimate some of our most important habitats left in Britain
Really disappointed to see this sort of deeply ignorant commentary from an industry that continues to decimate some of our most important habitats left in Britain TBH
October 7, 2025 at 5:09 PM
Really disappointed to see this sort of deeply ignorant commentary from an industry that continues to decimate some of our most important habitats left in Britain TBH
I believe it does! Not been to see it for a while though
October 2, 2025 at 12:03 PM
I believe it does! Not been to see it for a while though