What?! That's a good thing! Are you sure you read that right? Frankly, we need more native tree cover, and that's what they're planning on doing, and getting r

What?! That's a good thing! Are you sure you read that right? Frankly, we need more native tree cover, and that's what they're planning on doing, and getting rid of those damned ugly conifers that are only good for wood harvesting. Personally, I'd like to see more marginal land being returned into proper deciduous forests. The problem is that people have difficulty getting to the idea that more forest cover would actually be beneficial to the unforested land as it would protect it from the wind, thus preventing soil erosion, which is an issue, especially in the west and northwest. I'd a discussion about this in a pub over Christmas, and the arguments against boiled down to people not wanting to lose grazing land for sheep, which is reasonable enough, and that forest can be breeding grounds for midges, which is less reasonable.