In short, the disease came in on imported plants from an area where the disease was known to be rampant. The phyto-security measures on plant importation were totally inadequate to protect Ireland’s investment in its native forest estate from a disease that was known to be such a significant threat.

• It is not possible to control the spread of Ash Dieback. The misinformation propagated by the Forest Service about Ash Dieback needs to be highlighted and corrected.  

In addition, the current plan for dealing with Ash Dieback is unviable.

• Removal of visibly affected plants and leaving ash plants not currently showing signs of infection does not make those plants stronger and better able to resist the disease. They will die anyway. It is accepted scientifically that at best 5% of ash trees might survive and at worst, only 1% will.
• Interplanting a diseased crop leaving unaffected ash trees to die and be felled upon the newly planted trees, causing needless damage, makes no operational sense.
• The identification and propagation of disease-resistant ash to repopulate our forests with ash trees is not relevant to dealing with the immediate effects of Ash Dieback. This is a long-term research project – twenty or thirty years away from any prospect of success.  
• There is no alternative species of broadleaf trees with a similar commercial potential that ash trees once had. It is currently not possible to reimburse the financial loss of ash trees by replacing them with any other broadleaf species in Ireland.
• There are sites infected by fungal infestations that are unsuitable to replant and, in these cases the requirement to replant is impossible to accomplish.There are also sites with high lime content, making them unsuitable for replanting with Spruce
• There are several reasons why it’s a bad option for landowners to replant their affected ash plantations. The legislation has to be changed to allow these people to use other methods of production to gain income from that land other than forestry. Most will prefer to replant but those who do not must be given the option.
• It is ridiculous that replacing ash with conifers is considered a change of use and needs planning permission. Why is it not allowed to change the use of the land to other agricultural production? Silviculture is the same as agriculture. It is not an industrial process.  
• There is a growing health and safety issue involved in taking out the affected ash trees and this needs to be dealt with and the costs incurred in doing so need to be covered.