Engish forests and warm but smart jackets?

Alan Hogg wrote:
My wife and I will be travelling by car from Bath to

Quoted message said:

Portsmouth, Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and back to Bath, staying mostly at
B&Bs. I would like to spend an hour or two wandering in a mature deciduous
forest - an ideas where we could go on this itinerary? Is the Spring

I'd have to say, if you've got time near to Portsmouth, the New Forest
and the area around it would be your best bet. You can take your pick of
forest environment. The Beech (which differs from NZ beech the forest is
much more open) and oak woodlands are especially attractive.

M.

"Alan Hogg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi there,
I am from New Zealand, I will be visiting England early
April until after Easter and had a couple of queries
I would like to spend an hour or two wandering in a mature deciduous
forest - an ideas where we could go on this itinerary?

While you are in the London area come out to Epping Forest on the
Underground. Walk from Theydon Bois or Loughton over to Chingford station,
this takes you past the old Queen Elizabeth Hunting Lodge (with a nice pub
next door). http://tinyurl.com/3mnr8
You might even see some deer running around! This is actually a day stroll
but if you get a car you could park in High Beech at the visitor centre and
do a nice circular stroll from there. There's not much greenery on the trees
yet but we have 2 weeks to go.

While in London head for Covent Garden which is one of those 'must do
tourist spots' with great little craft shops and street entertainment. Most
of the major outdoor gear shops like Snow and Rock, Field and Trek, Ellis
Brigham, North Face all have shops round there, check their websites.

Drop me a line if you need any details or more advice.

Nick

Alan Hogg said:

Hi there,
I am from New Zealand and have lurked on your newsgroup for a few years
now, enjoying reading about how hill walking is done in the UK where
conditions are very different from here. I will be visiting England early
April until after Easter and had a couple of queries I would love some
advice on. My wife and I will be travelling by car from Bath to
Portsmouth, Exeter, Plymouth, Penzance and back to Bath, staying mostly at
B&Bs. I would like to spend an hour or two wandering in a mature deciduous
forest - an ideas where we could go on this itinerary? Is the Spring
growth likely to have started in Southern England by April 10 or so? We
have many oaks here of course, but none more than 150 or so years old and
not in large numbers. Also I will be in London for a couple of days and
would like to pick up a reasonably priced windproof warm jacket that looks
smart - fleece is warm enough but often piles and looks tatty after a
while. Any ideas on specific jackets, approxmate costs and where to get
them in Central London would be much appreciated. Many thanks, Alan Hogg,
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

As someone has already mentioned, the New Forest is one obvious
destination. Depending on how long you're staying in Bath, you could
pop across the River Severn to the Forest of Dean (who might even see a
wild boar). You could also try Longleat Forest, (not sure how deciduous
it is these day though) plus there are plenty of smaller woods dotted
around the area just to the north of the Salisbury plain.

Enjoy the visit!

John

Try Eartham Wood area a few miles northeast from Chichester, which in turn
is about 14 miles east from Portsmouth. Also, walking north from near
Goodwood race course will take you into some large forest on the South
Downs. Plenty of paths and tracks to create cicular routes.

--
Sandy Saunders @ www.thewalkzone.co.uk

'Mountains or Mole Hills .....
summiting still brings the
same excitement'

Alan Hogg said:

I am from New Zealand and have lurked on your newsgroup for a few
years now, enjoying reading about how hill walking is done in the UK
where conditions are very different from here.

Different in what way?

Quoted message said:

I would like to spend an hour or two
wandering in a mature deciduous forest

To be honest, we don't have very much decidious forest left in the UK, we
cut most of it down a long time ago. Most of what's left tends to exist in
little nooks and crannies, like steep narrow valleys. There are quite a few
green splodges on the UK map, but most of those are forestry commission
conifers.

Quoted message said:

- an ideas where we could go
on this itinerary?

As has been suggested, the New Forest and the Forest of Dean seem to be your
best bets. But again, don't be fooled into thinking that they're all
decidious. A lot of the New Forest is conifers, which fill the gaps between
the decidious trees, so there isn't as much native tree growth as you might
expect from a quick glance at the map. (An OS map shows decidious and
coniferous symbols so you can see which bits are which.)

Quoted message said:

We have many oaks here of course,
but none more than 150 or so years old

Well that's not bad. The "New" Forest wasn't planted all that long ago.
Not sure of the exact history, but I think it was planted in response to the
British Navy deforesting large areas, or something like that.

Quoted message said:

and not in large numbers.

Surely you've got plenty of old trees left in Fangorn Forest? Or did
Saruman cut most of them down? ;-)

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

Surely you've got plenty of old trees left in Fangorn Forest? Or did
Saruman cut most of them down? ;-)

Most of the giant Kauri trees were logged out in the 18th and 19th
centuries. Fortunately the few that are left are now protected but they
take so long to grow that it'll be several hundred years before they
get anywhere near like they were before the Europeans arrived.

Chris

Chris Gilbert said:

Most of the giant Kauri trees were logged out in the 18th and 19th
centuries. Fortunately the few that are left are now protected but
they take so long to grow that it'll be several hundred years before
they get anywhere near like they were before the Europeans arrived.

One of these eh? Impressive.
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/pan/KauriPan.jpg

And here's our best effort;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/360/where_to_go/sherwood_forest/major_oak_angle.shtml

Sorry I couldn't find a bigger picture.

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

One of these eh? Impressive.
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/pan/KauriPan.jpg

That's the doobrie. Here's Tanu Mahuta, the biggest of the bunch ...

http://www.whirleygig.co.uk/~cgilbert/NZ/images/NZ025.jpg

They were favoured by the loggers because they are absolutely
fantastic for building, being free of lower branches means that
the wood is knot free. Hundreds of tons of nice smooth building
material. San Francisco was built mainly from Kauri. When it was
destroyed in the 1906 earth quake they went back and got enough
Kauri to rebuild it. Astonishingly arrogant profligacy from all
involved. Its amazing there's any left at all

Chris

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Gilbert
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

One of these eh? Impressive.
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/pan/KauriPan.jpg

That's the doobrie. Here's Tanu Mahuta, the biggest of the bunch ...

http://www.whirleygig.co.uk/~cgilbert/NZ/images/NZ025.jpg

Could be the same tree !
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, "W.D.Grey"

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Gilbert
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

One of these eh? Impressive.
http://members.tripod.com/NZPhoto/pan/KauriPan.jpg

That's the doobrie. Here's Tanu Mahuta, the biggest of the bunch ...

http://www.whirleygig.co.uk/~cgilbert/NZ/images/NZ025.jpg

Could be the same tree !

Many thanks for all responses - it is much appreciated. I am sure we will
have a good time, irrespective of whether the trees are deciduous or
conifers!

Yes, the photos above are both of Tane Mahuta and yes Paul, we have
bucketloads of mature indigenous native forest, but not of oaks of course
which are imported from your neck of the woods!

Thanks again,

Alan Hogg

Paul Saunders said:

And here's our best effort;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/360/where_to_go/sherwood_forest/major_oak_angle.shtml

Sorry I couldn't find a bigger picture.

You weren't looking very hard
http://images.google.com/images?q=major+oak

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

W. D. Grey wrote

Quoted message said:

Could be the same tree !

Paul's image seems to have a large crack running up it. To be honest
they all take more or less the same form and are hard to tell apart.
For reference, the people in my image are about half way between
me and the tree. I estimated the trunk to be about 10m in
diameter.

Chris

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Gilbert
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey wrote

Quoted message said:

Could be the same tree !

Paul's image seems to have a large crack running up it. To be honest
they all take more or less the same form and are hard to tell apart.
For reference, the people in my image are about half way between
me and the tree. I estimated the trunk to be about 10m in
diameter.

Chris

The photos certainly were taken at different ages in the life of the
tree, and I did notice the crack. Much more diagnostic are the four
"growths" on the front of the tree - they are exactly the same in both
photos. Also if you can ignore the canopy growth you can see the top of
the tree has been broken, but what remains is the same in both pictures.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

W. D. Grey wrote

Quoted message said:

Much more diagnostic are the four "growths" on the front of the tree

It's a lemon entry, my dear Watson ;-)

Probably taken at different times of day.

Chris

In article <[email hidden]>, Chris Gilbert
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey wrote

Quoted message said:

Much more diagnostic are the four "growths" on the front of the tree

It's a lemon entry, my dear Watson ;-)

:-) :-)

Like it - a lot :-)
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

Paul Saunders said:

Alan Hogg said:

I am from New Zealand and have lurked on your newsgroup for a few
years now, enjoying reading about how hill walking is done in the UK
where conditions are very different from here.

Different in what way?

Different in that we don't have 10 stoat traps to trip over along the
CMD Arete like they have in just one short 150m odd section along the
very crest of the St. Arnaud ridge in Nelson Lakes, NZ.

Different in that we don't have flights of wooden steps along Striding
Edge like they have on some of the ridge section of the Kepler Track,
NZ.

Different in that we don't have marker poles every 20 metres to follow
across the Carneddau like they do on the Tongariro Crossing/Northern
Circuit, NZ.

Different in that we've removed a couple of old shelters from Ben Nevis
rather than building a brand new 30 bed Youth Hostel style hut on
stilts up it like the Meuller Hut in a stunningly beautiful spot just
below the summit of Mt. Oliver(?) a short 2 to 3 hour walk up from Mt.
Cook Village, NZ.

New Zealand's a fantastic place with some beautiful & very different
scenery but the Dept. of Conservation(DOC) do seem intent on
controlling it in a rather intrusive way as I believe someone else said
here just before I went. I'd love to go back again sometime though to
delve a bit deeper. You can escape the plastic orange triangle markers
for a while and find your own little space to camp alone if you try.

AndyP said:

Quoted message said:

Different in what way?

Different in that we don't have 10 stoat traps to trip over

Quoted message said:

Different in that we don't have flights of wooden steps

Quoted message said:

Different in that we don't have marker poles every 20

Quoted message said:

Different in that we've removed a couple of old shelters from Ben
Nevis rather than building a brand new 30 bed Youth Hostel style hut

Quoted message said:

New Zealand's a fantastic place with some beautiful & very different
scenery but the Dept. of Conservation(DOC) do seem intent on
controlling it in a rather intrusive way

Actually, I've been reading a bit about NZ tramping trails recently and I
found an interesting explanation about the highly maintained trails.
Apparently most of the tramping trails in the NZ wilderness can be quite
dangerous and don't satisfy international safety standards. With the
massive influx of overseas hikers, rather than trying to maintain the entire
trail network, they've opted to maintain a relatively small number of
popular trails to a very high standard, and then highly pubilicise those
trails to concentrate most of the tourists onto them. This keeps
maintenance costs down and reduces accidents by keeping most of the people
on the safe trails.

Meanwhile, there are a huge number of other trails available which are
potentially a lot more dangerous, many with no bridges (apparently river
crossings are the number one cause of deaths in the NZ wilderness), and few
other trampers are encountered on these trails. So apparently, that's the
way to get away from the crowds and experience the true wilderness. A lot
more dangerous, but then, that's the nature of real wilderness, isn't it?

As for the huts, apparently the reason they are so popular in preference to
camping is because of the intense rainstorms they frequently get. Even if
camping on well drained ground, in very heavy rain your tent can be flooded
because the water can't drain quickly enough. Also landslides are quite
common during heavy rain, so when there's a heavy rain warning it's
recommended that you stay in the nearest hut until it passes. So when it
rains there, landslides and impassable streams are more of a worry than how
breathable your waterproofs are! :-0

Looking on Google Earth, I think I've found a couple of landslides. What do
you reckon? (Not sure how best to link to these locations without adding
them to the Google Earth community. Anyone know?) Anyway, here are the
coordinates;

"Landslide?" lat=-41.0065375269, lon=172.649905937
"Landslide?" lat=-41.019453512, lon=172.618932895

I also found a plateau type landform that looks suspiciously similar to the
Brecon Beacons, which I think I've identified as Mount Misery. What on
earth is this plateau doing in the middle of this mountain range?

"Mount Misery" lat=-41.5613500836, lon=172.279522445

Paul

Paul Saunders said:

Apparently most of the tramping trails in the NZ wilderness can be quite
dangerous and don't satisfy international safety standards. With the
massive influx of overseas hikers, rather than trying to maintain the entire
trail network, they've opted to maintain a relatively small number of
popular trails to a very high standard, and then highly pubilicise those
trails to concentrate most of the tourists onto them.

Agreed. Also, mountain rescue is concentrated on the trails. You are
required to book the hut accomodation ahead then check out af and into
the huts as you move along the trail. If you don't turn up at the next
hut
then they send out the helicopter but it only looks along the trail or
close to it. The presumption is that if you go missing from the trail
then
they're looking for a body rather than a live person.

Quoted message said:

Looking on Google Earth, I think I've found a couple of landslides.

We saw the remains of a few hushes while we were there. Very dramatic
with entire hillsides swept clear.

Chris

Paul Saunders said:

Actually, I've been reading a bit about NZ tramping trails recently and I
found an interesting explanation about the highly maintained trails.
Apparently most of the tramping trails in the NZ wilderness can be quite
dangerous and don't satisfy international safety standards. With the
massive influx of overseas hikers, rather than trying to maintain the entire
trail network, they've opted to maintain a relatively small number of
popular trails to a very high standard, and then highly pubilicise those
trails to concentrate most of the tourists onto them. This keeps
maintenance costs down and reduces accidents by keeping most of the people
on the safe trails.

Meanwhile, there are a huge number of other trails available which are
potentially a lot more dangerous, many with no bridges (apparently river
crossings are the number one cause of deaths in the NZ wilderness), and few
other trampers are encountered on these trails. So apparently, that's the
way to get away from the crowds and experience the true wilderness. A lot
more dangerous, but then, that's the nature of real wilderness, isn't it?

Actually, it's a bit weird. As you say the "Great Walks" and some
other popular trails are maintained to make them easy for people to
walk. Fair enough, I expected them to be a bit like going up Ben Nevis
and chatting to people from all over the world along the Abel Tasman
beaches is all part of the experience. But even on the unfrequented
tracks like those in Arthur's Pass where there are sections where you
have to fight your way through head high tussock grass, cross some
potentially dangerous rivers a dozen times in a kilometre and descend
500m unstable scree slopes there are plastic orange triangle markers
jumping out at you every so often, chains to get up some quite easy
scrambles, new boardwalks are being put in over the boggy bits and
there are huts (& plastic portaloos) every few kilometres that are
being upgraded. It could still have a great wild and adventurous feel
to it if it wasn't for all that.

I think a lot of the tracks and huts only originated in the 50s and 60s
as part of the government backed deer culling programme. Apparently it
was a lot tougher before that. And it has to be said if it wasn't for
the hacked out tracks you would be hard pushed to find a way through
some of the New Zealand bush and scrub. Should be a worthwhile
experience trying though and one place a hammock might be useful.

Quoted message said:

As for the huts, apparently the reason they are so popular in preference to
camping is because of the intense rainstorms they frequently get. Even if
camping on well drained ground, in very heavy rain your tent can be flooded
because the water can't drain quickly enough. Also landslides are quite
common during heavy rain, so when there's a heavy rain warning it's
recommended that you stay in the nearest hut until it passes. So when it
rains there, landslides and impassable streams are more of a worry than how
breathable your waterproofs are! :-0

Yes, landslides and floods don't seem to be that uncommon, even the
"Great Walks" can go across fairly recent previous landslides. I saw a
lot of rain over the last couple of months and turned back from one
route because of river levels but not enough to make me want to leave
my tent behind and stay in a hut crammed full of 39 other people.
(Sharing a little crappy old 6 bed hut with some [censored] up local
hunters is good though.) It also has to be said that good low level
wild campsites away from the huts aren't nearly so easy to find as they
are in this country, most of the ones I used were on gravel river flats
using rocks for anchors.