|
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL -- Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On May 10, 4:02 pm, jl wrote:
In article A combination of Spanish Broom and Tree Lupin make an excellent local windbreak (scented). Thanks for the tip. Mind you, our house is 200m high on a mountain and open to the South, East and West - in fact we can see across Lough Foyle from the Donegal mountains and the mouth of the Roe to the Sperrins. Some of the winds we get - particularly from the West - are /very/ severe. I tend to plant only those trees that I know will grow up here because I've seen them elsewhere. Even the oak tree I planted three years ago seems to be dying. Ash, larch and spruce on the other hand seem to be doing very well. Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com They grow easily from seed, buy online and it's not to late. If you use Eucl. Viminalis; plant them only a foot apart and in a group. They will support each other in the wind (groups of two metres diameter) and when the trunks are about eight inches wide they can be harvested. Paint the cut on the living trunks with oil and they will sprout again: same as Salix Viminalis (Osier Willow). Tree Lupin is sown by aircraft in some parts of the world and their roots go sown about twenty feet (stops soil erosion) - also Spanish Broom and Tree Lupin are legumes and produce nitrogen. Donal |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On May 9, 5:15*pm, Si wrote:
On 8 May, 13:49, Des Higgins wrote: On May 8, 11:15 am, mothed out wrote: On May 7, 11:53 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. *Is it climate? *Too windy in Ireland? *Sheep and/or other livestock? One factor is this: The EU has been paying farmers to cut down trees for a long time. I think it is now paying people to plant them again. Tree coverage in Ireland was at its lowest point a century ago. *The EU has nothing to do with it. *In fact, Irish tree coverage has been slowly growing since the 70s. *The trees disappeared for farming, fuel and for building (including ships), centuries ago. T'was the towel heads(pasted from an old SCI thread): "Message from Q'il Q'as (Al Jazzbeera) Q'adda yen Hamid fastha q'on Aymid? Tha Tehran A'Q'ilta er Al'Awer. Ni Al Traw'q ter Q'il Q'as nawat' Ayla'q, Shni Q'lingfer A'Qling Ibn' Braw " well spotted that man!! It makes a change from blaming the Brits (apart from Gavin Bailey who himself almost certainly chopped down several large native trees). Des Si "Bog snorkler extraordinaire"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense". http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? You're the one turning "British" into "English". After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. So what did they do with the wood? "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which supports his view, not yours. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing hot air. -- Billy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the English. You may have heard about it. then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL -- Billy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
J. Clarke wrote:
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense". No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or British) coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood for the fleet against the Spanish Armada! There is NO proof of that SFAICS, and I doubt that it happened. How long does it take to build a warship from wood? http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? You're the one turning "British" into "English". Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the context it means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant. After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. So what did they do with the wood? They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building ships probably. "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which supports his view, not yours. Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others. Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather than a carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding English a bit more! -- Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. -- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Billy wrote:
In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the English. You may have heard about it. LOL! Indeed I have!! Why do you think I said that if not to get up the noses of our fundamentalist republicans? Humour is as humour does! then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. -- Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Billy wrote:
In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing hot air. EERMM! I may be wrong, but I believe that jl was responding to Nik in fact. I will Google for you if you want, but that too is a snare and a delusion in that in the end one is only forwarding on other peoples opinions as facts when they are not. -- Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article
, mothed out wrote: On May 10, 10:25 am, "Westprog" wrote: jl wrote: ... Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. I wonder if anyone wrote a poem or song about Irish trees being cut down. That would be interesting. There's definitely a sort of 'horticultural aesthetic' prevailing in Ireland which doesn't seem to accomodate trees much. By and large, the norm for most people in the countryside is to have no trees at all in your garden or near your house. It's almost as if there's a desire for your house to be as clearly seen as possible when you look at the landscape. Like the house is used as a very visible statement, and you want people to get a clear, treeless view of it. Same for the garden, so often there's very few shrubs or trees, and it's all just grass. That's very different from England and many other countries, where people often either plant or preserve trees to create privacy and want trees in their immediate garden and nearby land anyway. In so many cases Ireland people seem to choose just to have nothing in their garden except grass, right from the garden wall to the house. Even my Irish neighbours in London have gone for the same thing, ripped everything out and put down grass from fence to fence, plus put in quite a lot of paving. They do have just a few plants right up against the fence, but I don't think a tree was ever likely to be included in the plans. They don't even have kids, so don't need the space for them to play football etc. They just like it that way. Fair enough of course, but I'm just making a note a different aesthetic way of looking at gardens which I find quite interesting. It's almost as if the mostly treeless landscape has found a way into people's idea of what is normal, or what they want to see from their window. I once knew a tweaker who talked like you. Perhaps you may care to take a look look at Jochem's website before you go and make too much of a fool of yerself;-) http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com -- Billy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL Hang on, I've gotta get some beer and crisps. Battling citations, I never. But that was a point blank question about "Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Don't be coy duckie, which ones precisely? But, let me get my beer first;-) -- Billy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"jl" wrote in message ... In article , Someone else wrote: As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? There are more countries around the Baltic than just Latvia. For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? For the British fleet - when it was still built out of wood - certainly until about 1860. I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. A 'British' fleet at the time of the Armada? Allan |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
"Hal Ó Mearadhaigh." wrote: Billy wrote: In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing hot air. EERMM! I may be wrong, but I believe that jl was responding to Nik in fact. I will Google for you if you want, but that too is a snare and a delusion in that in the end one is only forwarding on other peoples opinions as facts when they are not. I guess the beer got in the way of my eye tooth. Apologies all around. Still, even if we can boil it down to battling authorities (I'm usually keen on Ph.Ds, and those who can direct you to source material), that should clear up some points. -- Billy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Billy wrote: In article , Hal Ã" Mearadhaigh. wrote: - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? I missed the original question. Which ones: I've recently made a study of English history in the 19th century and the various books - amongst others, include the journals of Mrs Arbuthnot, the journals of Charles Greville, gleanings of the journals of his brother, letters by the Duke of Wellington and various histories of the period. The subject was so important that it cropped up every once in a while. At that time only Prussia, Scandinavia, Russia and other Baltic countries who still had large parts of the original Northern forest to harvest, could supply the huge needs of a big fleet. Not to mention all the charcoal you needed in order to make bronze for the guns. I will not read them all again and give page and line number - it was hard work reading them all in the first place! Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
J. Clarke wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense". No, he is claiming the deforestation was due to the English (or British) coming into Ireland and removing our forests to supply wood for the fleet against the Spanish Armada! You're being picky. Not just the Spanish Armada, but the French Navy and everything in between. Britain was a naval power. To do that they needed a navy. To get a navy when the only way you know to build ships is to cut down trees, you cut down trees. There is NO proof of that SFAICS, and I doubt that it happened. How long does it take to build a warship from wood? What difference does it make how long it takes to build a ship? Great Britain built thousands of them. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. In any case, how many ships? Possibly two at most? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? You're the one turning "British" into "English". Your the one being so specific! English/British, so what? In the context it means the same thing and everyone knows what I meant. May mean it to you, but it doesn't to a Scot or a Welshman. After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. So what did they do with the wood? They used it for houses, for smelting iron, and yes, for building ships probably. So how much did they use for each purpose, and what did they make with the iron? "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which supports his view, not yours. Not if you read and understand what I have written, see above. I read what you wrote and your source does not support it. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others. Oh, but I have. And I am not afraid to post the entire source rather than a carefully edited smidgion. You should try understanding English a bit more! You haven't posted "the entire source", you've posted a link. If you think that it supports your view then find quotations from it that do so. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"jl" wrote in message ... In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that whatever deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was down to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different but surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that different from Britain at that time? http://www.stewardwood.org/woodland/tree_loss.htm Allan |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Des Higgins wrote:
On May 9, 5:15 pm, Si wrote: On 8 May, 13:49, Des Higgins wrote: On May 8, 11:15 am, mothed out wrote: On May 7, 11:53 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? One factor is this: The EU has been paying farmers to cut down trees for a long time. I think it is now paying people to plant them again. Tree coverage in Ireland was at its lowest point a century ago. The EU has nothing to do with it. In fact, Irish tree coverage has been slowly growing since the 70s. The trees disappeared for farming, fuel and for building (including ships), centuries ago. T'was the towel heads(pasted from an old SCI thread): "Message from Q'il Q'as (Al Jazzbeera) Q'adda yen Hamid fastha q'on Aymid? Tha Tehran A'Q'ilta er Al'Awer. Ni Al Traw'q ter Q'il Q'as nawat' Ayla'q, Shni Q'lingfer A'Qling Ibn' Braw " well spotted that man!! It makes a change from blaming the Brits (apart from Gavin Bailey who himself almost certainly chopped down several large native trees). Des I didn't see him do it, though it is very likely, I would imagine he lingered at it, you know the way those crazy pepole in Oregon tie you to a tree before they do something that has the FBI web-site falling over? Well I reckon it was like that, a difficult to understand type of thing. T & C |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Someone else" wrote in message On
Sat, 10 May 2008, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message Thu, , "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Way Back Jack" wrote in message TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? (snip) Ireland suffered from ice coverage during the Ice Ages so any trees there had to come back as pioneer species. Large numbers of people, 'modern farming' and trees don't go together. As the population grew the trees would have had to go, or in some instances, 'modern farming' methods were the cause of clearance too. Ireland's population exploded after the introduction of the potato and you can't grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so. That is true. I know and therefore wonder why you can now read what I wrote originally and have no trouble with it, but couldn't do so the first time you read it. Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of potatoes in Europe... Yes it did have more trees but even today Ireland has only 16.8% of land that is arable. I don't know what the figure is for Ulster, but think it would be higher. There is a reason why Cromwell's men gave the inhabitants of Ulster the choice "To hell or Connaught" that being that the land of Ulster was preferable to the land of Connaught for farming...and underlies the essentially economic reasons rather than theological ones for the Irish conflict. Indeed. ...so you're telling me that in the roughly 150 years between the arrival of the potato in western Europe, including Ireland, from South America, and the Potato Famine of the 1840s that Ireland's population grew so much that it had also become deforested? Do read for comprehension. You clearly did not understand what I wrote. I've addressed this elsewhere in this post. You didn't. In addition, some of your facts are simply wrong. The potato was introduced into Ireland by about 1600 Right...after the 1588 Battle with the Spanish Armada... so by the time the first cases of potato blight were seen in 1816, so 200 years had passed not 150. The famine of 1845-1851 was the worst but not the only famine. Did I claim it was? Nah. Indeed you didn't claim that, but attempting to shift the goal posts doesn't invalidate my point. You claimed that it was 150 years between the arrival of the potato and the 1840s famine. That is not correct. Ireland population doubled at the end of the 18th century in about a 40-50 year period till it hit 8 million. So you're telling me that the population of Ireland in 1750 was 4 million people despite the fact that there were no censuses of the entire population of Ireland until 1821? http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/help/history.html http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findin...on.asp?sn=3542 Do try rereading what I wrote and do try to understand what the words mean when linked together. I try to be quite precise in what I write and your interpretation of what I wrote is not what I wrote. Also the existence of a census is not the only way that population growth is assessed. If you do not know about the growth of the Irish population in the latter half of the 18th century then I suggest you use google. That increase did not come from grain. I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above. Not on the basis of anything you have written. Ireland's population today is now just over 4 million. No, Ireland's population is more like 6 million...remember to compare apples with apples and include the population of what is now known as 'Northern Ireland' in your figures because the figures for the census of 1821 included all 32 counties... Fair point and I stand corrected. Why do you neglect to mention the impact on farm ownership patterns incurred by the Penal Laws? http://local.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/land.html You're right I didn't mention them and that was quite deliberate. Really you should have No, really I shouldn't have. I was aware that some Irish Nationalist would come out of the woodwork at some stage and rave on about irrelevancies. They always do. And you did. Perhaps you could knock that chip off your shoulder and explain how to grow potatoes in a forest to feed a rapidly growing population? Admittedly difficult but given that the naval battle between the English and the Spanish occurred in 1588 was before the potato was introduced to Ireland, as you claim above, 1600 and the trees had already been largely cut down to build the ships that fought the Spanish Armada in the name of the Elizabeth I the point is beside the point...the trees were already gone... If you have managed to get to this conclusion, you must finally begin to see my original point. I will remind you that my original point and which seemed to result in your posting of irrelevancies. My point was: "you can't grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so." Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land? Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren? Another irrelevancy? Also you neglect to mention that the English desire to build a fleet of warships to fight the Spanish Armada and where they obtained the timber to do so... You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much about the natural and human history of Ireland. Perhaps I should say, don't seem to know much, in particular about the impact of the penal laws and their long reaching historical consequences...some of which are still in place right now...in the form of inherited privilege... You shouldn't say that because to do so based on a total lack of evidence based on anything I have so far posted in this thread makes you sound even less logical and unable to read for comprehension than you have to this point. And you appear to have reading difficulties The lecturers at my University disagree with you. Well given the paucity of skills I've seen amongst recent graduates, that doesn't surprise me. It saddens me that Lecturers and Tutors seem prepared to accept intellecual sloth and sloppy thinking from their students, but it doesn't surprise me. so I will forgive your inability to draw a logical conclusion Please indicate, using formal logic where it is that I make an invalid inference. No. We will do the reverse. YOU indicate using formal logic how you reached the conclusion that: "You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much about the natural and human history of Ireland." based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote or didn't write. Of course a logically valid inference can be drawn from an incorrect assumption/belief but it remains for you to demonstrate that I have done this. I await with interest. And you can continue to wait. You drew a conclusion based on an incorrect understanding of what I wrote therefore it is up to you to do the work. Not me. I am not your mother or one of your lecturers. I know when my ancestors left Ireland, I also know why they left. Ok, fair enough but does that have anything at all directly to do with the deforestation of Ireland? Or the introduction and subsequent dependence of the Irish Catholic population on the potato? No it doesn't but then I never claimed that it did. I wrote that comment in response to your conclusion that I knew nothing about the natural or human history of Ireland. You could not logically reach such a conclusion based on the scarce information I presented in my initial post in this thread. You know nothing about what I know about Ireland Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards inheritance? Because I KNOW how it brings rabid, raving nutters out of the woodwork. And you did come. nor it seems about the impact of the potato on population growth of Ireland or indeed when the famines occurred Claiming to know the extent of my knowledge is just silly...especially considering that you've underestimated it. LOL. And I'll bet you don't appreciate the irony of that statement! A nice case of pot, kettle, black. The infestations of the fungus Phytophthora infestans occurred several times in the 1840's with the consequences being particularly dire in 1848-49 given that there had already been several years of crop failure... or how long the Irish had been growing potatoes. Do feel free to make up shit to suit your prejudices eh? So far the prejudices in this thread have been displayed by you in truck loads. I was not the one to introduce them and very deliberately avoided doing so. YOU were the one to introduce them and you have continued to do so. I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage. Perhaps when you become an adult. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense". Reread what you've just posted. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. Only in the sense of a 'Conqueror's right'...of course stolen property remains stolen property even if it was taken as the spoils of war and in no way guarantees that that property will remain in their control.... In any case, how many ships? No idea. Possibly two at most? How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? I begrudge them their invasion and occupation of Ireland. It has stunted Ireland's development as a sovereign nation for centuries...happily this is finally coming to an end... You're the one turning "British" into "English". People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was only England and not Britain that was doing the fighting. After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Ireland has Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene steel... The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for that claim. So what did they do with the wood? "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html Bibliography 1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974 2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press Publishers, New York,1969 3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990 4. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/raleigh.html Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton 5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing, New York, 1990 Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which supports his view, not yours. Right. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others. Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who has no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad but true. Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:55:43 -0700, Billy
wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the English. You may have heard about it. The crime of taking property using force is, in law, called 'aggravated robbery'. Furthermore, the passing of time makes that property no less stolen. "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html Bibliography 1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974 2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press Publishers, New York,1969 3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990 4. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/raleigh.html Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton 5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing, New York, 1990 Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Salahoona" wrote in message
If you use Eucl. Viminalis; plant them only a foot apart and in a group. They will support each other in the wind (groups of two metres diameter) and when the trunks are about eight inches wide they can be harvested. Paint the cut on the living trunks with oil and they will sprout again: I can't think of a eucalypt that doesn't resprout if the trunk is cut right off . I don't think there is really any need to paint with oil. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote:
In article , Someone else wrote: As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? There are more countries around the Baltic than just Latvia. Extend my question to include Estonia, Lithuania, Sweden and FInland then...if that pleases you. For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? For the British fleet - when it was still built out of wood - certainly until about 1860. I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? I have no idea. Well...its closer and the local population, who are the ones that would have been doing the harvesting, were more 'under the thumb' of their British overlords than any Baltic forestry worker....plus the distance that the timber needed to traverse was much shorter...indeed some of the ships were probably built in Ireland itself... I'm sure the procurement agents in those days were quite competent What makes you so confident of that? and got their supplies from whoever could deliver the quality and quantity need. The demands of a large fleet are quite astonishing - even for simple things like wooden tackles. No disagreement. Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:52:06 -0700, Billy
wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. So, laughter, are you telling me that the British overlords of Ireland didn't use any of the forests of Ireland for their own ship building? As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. Yes, but not completely. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Shame on you Hal. jl gave you a retort with citations to prove his point. Until you do likewise, we can only assume that you are blowing hot air. Hal has done nothing else than blow hot air. Regulars of SCI have long ago come to this conclusion. Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:40:29 -0700, Billy
wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html At that reference it says: "Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." Brown, Terry. "Wood in Development of Civilization." [http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fo...velopment.pdf] Which supports my allegation that Ireland was rapidly deforested during the time that Britain invaded and occupied. Game, set and match Mr Merrick. Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... You really do have a problem. You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place. In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. There has been NO such question except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your posts are relevant to the OPs interest. Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read for comprehension. Do note especially the subject header which includes more than Ireland. The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush 'green' but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain. The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places the OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs interest also extends beyond just Ireland. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sun, 11 May 2008 15:23:59 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... You really do have a problem. In your opinion. You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place. In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that? There has been NO such question except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your posts are relevant to the OPs interest. Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly refer to the original poster's point? For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the proximate cause of that deforestation. Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read for comprehension. Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's post: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?" I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. Do note especially the subject header which includes more than Ireland. Yeah, so? The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush 'green' but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain. So? The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places the OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs interest also extends beyond just Ireland. Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for the Irish government and private land owners. Have a nice day Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Someone else" wrote in message
On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... You really do have a problem. In your opinion. Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that opinion. You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place. In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that? viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..." You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not asked. There has been NO such question except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your posts are relevant to the OPs interest. Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly refer to the original poster's point? Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know. It works like this: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? Discuss" Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and provide evidence to support your stance. You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went on to discuss something unrelated. For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the proximate cause of that deforestation. And that answer is irrelevant and simply harps back to your failure to comprehend that the OP is interested in the current time. The interest is NOT about deforestation. Trees can be grown in 80 years or less. How long has it been since the Armada sailed? Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read for comprehension. Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's post: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?" I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. Do note especially the subject header which includes more than Ireland. Yeah, so? If your lecturers are right about your reading abilities, you wouldn't need me to explain. I don't spoon feed (your lecturers might). The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush 'green' but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain. So? Try reading the subject header and try remembering how often you mentioned any lack of trees in Britain. The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places the OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs interest also extends beyond just Ireland. Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted... Of course they could. there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for the Irish government and private land owners. See, you can understand the statement when pushed to do so. Have a nice day Thank you. So far I've had an expemplary day and it will shortly get even better. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:50:38 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sat, 10 May 2008, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message Thu, , "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Way Back Jack" wrote in message TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? (snip) Ireland suffered from ice coverage during the Ice Ages so any trees there had to come back as pioneer species. Large numbers of people, 'modern farming' and trees don't go together. As the population grew the trees would have had to go, or in some instances, 'modern farming' methods were the cause of clearance too. Ireland's population exploded after the introduction of the potato and you can't grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so. That is true. I know and therefore wonder why you can now read what I wrote originally and have no trouble with it, but couldn't do so the first time you read it. Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of potatoes in Europe... Yes it did have more trees but even today Ireland has only 16.8% of land that is arable. I don't know what the figure is for Ulster, but think it would be higher. There is a reason why Cromwell's men gave the inhabitants of Ulster the choice "To hell or Connaught" that being that the land of Ulster was preferable to the land of Connaught for farming...and underlies the essentially economic reasons rather than theological ones for the Irish conflict. Indeed. ...so you're telling me that in the roughly 150 years between the arrival of the potato in western Europe, including Ireland, from South America, and the Potato Famine of the 1840s that Ireland's population grew so much that it had also become deforested? Do read for comprehension. You clearly did not understand what I wrote. I've addressed this elsewhere in this post. You didn't. In addition, some of your facts are simply wrong. The potato was introduced into Ireland by about 1600 Right...after the 1588 Battle with the Spanish Armada... so by the time the first cases of potato blight were seen in 1816, so 200 years had passed not 150. The famine of 1845-1851 was the worst but not the only famine. Did I claim it was? Nah. Indeed you didn't claim that, but attempting to shift the goal posts doesn't invalidate my point. You claimed that it was 150 years between the arrival of the potato and the 1840s famine. That is not correct. Ireland population doubled at the end of the 18th century in about a 40-50 year period till it hit 8 million. So you're telling me that the population of Ireland in 1750 was 4 million people despite the fact that there were no censuses of the entire population of Ireland until 1821? http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/help/history.html http://www.data-archive.ac.uk/findin...on.asp?sn=3542 Do try rereading what I wrote and do try to understand what the words mean when linked together. I try to be quite precise in what I write and your interpretation of what I wrote is not what I wrote. Also the existence of a census is not the only way that population growth is assessed. If you do not know about the growth of the Irish population in the latter half of the 18th century then I suggest you use google. The onus of proof is on the claimant, i.e. you, now, if you please demonstrate your source of knowledge regarding the Irish population prior to 1821. That increase did not come from grain. I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above. Not on the basis of anything you have written. You've neglected to include your reference regarding the population of Ireland prior to 1821. Ireland's population today is now just over 4 million. No, Ireland's population is more like 6 million...remember to compare apples with apples and include the population of what is now known as 'Northern Ireland' in your figures because the figures for the census of 1821 included all 32 counties... Fair point and I stand corrected. Phew. Why do you neglect to mention the impact on farm ownership patterns incurred by the Penal Laws? http://local.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/land.html You're right I didn't mention them and that was quite deliberate. Really you should have No, really I shouldn't have. No, really you should have because not doing so is ignorant. I was aware that some Irish Nationalist would come out of the woodwork at some stage and rave on about irrelevancies. They always do. And you did. Oh my God...explain then, why it was that the blight hit Ireland hardest when the blight was also in other countries in Perhaps you could knock that chip off your shoulder and explain how to grow potatoes in a forest to feed a rapidly growing population? Admittedly difficult but given that the naval battle between the English and the Spanish occurred in 1588 was before the potato was introduced to Ireland, as you claim above, 1600 and the trees had already been largely cut down to build the ships that fought the Spanish Armada in the name of the Elizabeth I the point is beside the point...the trees were already gone... If you have managed to get to this conclusion, you must finally begin to see my original point. I will remind you that my original point and which seemed to result in your posting of irrelevancies. My point was: "you can't grow spuds in forests so even if there had been a desire to grow more trees, there would have been a strong disincentive to do so." Fair comment. Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land? Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren? Another irrelevancy? You already make the point above...its not arable land. Also you neglect to mention that the English desire to build a fleet of warships to fight the Spanish Armada and where they obtained the timber to do so... You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much about the natural and human history of Ireland. Perhaps I should say, don't seem to know much, in particular about the impact of the penal laws and their long reaching historical consequences...some of which are still in place right now...in the form of inherited privilege... You shouldn't say that because to do so based on a total lack of evidence based on anything I have so far posted in this thread You deny the significance of the Penal Laws ergo my point stands. makes you sound even less logical Fortunately the Professor of Logic at my University disagrees with you on this point. and unable to read for comprehension than you have to this point. And you appear to have reading difficulties The lecturers at my University disagree with you. Well given the paucity of skills I've seen amongst recent graduates, that doesn't surprise me. It saddens me that Lecturers and Tutors seem prepared to accept intellecual sloth and sloppy thinking from their students, but it doesn't surprise me. so I will forgive your inability to draw a logical conclusion Please indicate, using formal logic where it is that I make an invalid inference. No. We will do the reverse. Ah come on now...you're claiming, implicitly to have strong logical skills, you should already appreciate the Onus of proof lies upon the claimant, i.e. you. If you need to read more on this, please see he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onus_of...and_other_uses "Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven" YOU indicate using formal logic how you reached the conclusion that: "You may (or may not) know a lot about Botany but you don't know much about the natural and human history of Ireland." You deny the importance of the penal laws to the historical period we are discussing... based on your misunderstanding of what I wrote or didn't write. Of course a logically valid inference can be drawn from an incorrect assumption/belief but it remains for you to demonstrate that I have done this. I await with interest. And you can continue to wait. You drew a conclusion based on an incorrect understanding of what I wrote therefore it is up to you to do the work. Not me. I am not your mother or one of your lecturers. Up to you but if you want to be taken seriously then you ought to live up to your epistemological responsibilities. I know when my ancestors left Ireland, I also know why they left. Ok, fair enough but does that have anything at all directly to do with the deforestation of Ireland? Or the introduction and subsequent dependence of the Irish Catholic population on the potato? No it doesn't but then I never claimed that it did. I wrote that comment in response to your conclusion that I knew nothing about the natural or human history of Ireland. I didn't say "nothing" I said, "not much"...there's a difference but this supports my claims regarding your prejudice(s)....I just checked again and I note that you've even quoted me saying "not much" as opposed to your made up "know nothing" bullshit. You could not logically reach such a conclusion based on the scarce information I presented in my initial post in this thread. True but I'm asking for the relevance. You know nothing about what I know about Ireland Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards inheritance? Because I KNOW how it brings rabid, raving nutters out of the woodwork. And you did come. Ad hominem...deal with the point please. nor it seems about the impact of the potato on population growth of Ireland or indeed when the famines occurred Claiming to know the extent of my knowledge is just silly...especially considering that you've underestimated it. LOL. And I'll bet you don't appreciate the irony of that statement! A nice case of pot, kettle, black. laughter The infestations of the fungus Phytophthora infestans occurred several times in the 1840's with the consequences being particularly dire in 1848-49 given that there had already been several years of crop failure... or how long the Irish had been growing potatoes. Do feel free to make up shit to suit your prejudices eh? So far the prejudices in this thread have been displayed by you in truck loads. Ah yes...which ones please? I was not the one to introduce them and very deliberately avoided doing so. YOU were the one to introduce them and you have continued to do so. You say that like its a bad thing. I'm sure you'll stop sounding like an undergraduate at some stage. In your opinion. As it happens I have a Post Graduate Diploma as well as a B.Sc. Perhaps when you become an adult. Ad hominem. I'm 40, my house is almost freehold, I've been married for 6 years... Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article , Someone else
wrote: On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: I'm sure the procurement agents in those days were quite competent What makes you so confident of that? There were reports and inquiries on a regular basis, particularly once young Pitt became prime minister and a new fleet was built. A lot of the paperwork has survived and has been collated by people like Aspinal. Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sun, 11 May 2008 16:23:31 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... You really do have a problem. In your opinion. Yes, but I note that I'm not the only one with that opinion. Ad populum... You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place. In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that? viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..." You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not asked. Ah well...you're just going to have to cope then aren't you? There has been NO such question except presumably in your own mind! You have decided to take a contrary view to what other people have chosen to post, but your contrariness does not mean that any question has ever been asked nor does it mean that your posts are relevant to the OPs interest. Is there some law that specifies that in usenet I must repeatedly refer to the original poster's point? Only the sort of 'law' any competent undergraduates should know. It works like this: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? Discuss" This is usenet, not an undergrad essay topic... Read the statement, understand what the statement is about, do research on the topic, decide which information is pertinent, write a response and provide evidence to support your stance. You would rate a fail because you didn't understand the statement and went on to discuss something unrelated. laughter For the fun of it, here is the OPs posting: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those (meaning Ireland and Britain) countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock? My answer is that Ireland was once heavily forested but has been deforested and that the English ruling class, historically, were the proximate cause of that deforestation. And that answer is irrelevant and simply harps back to your failure to comprehend that the OP is interested in the current time. The interest is NOT about deforestation. Trees can be grown in 80 years or less. How long has it been since the Armada sailed? Reread the OPs post and do TRY (as difficult as you clearly find it) to read for comprehension. Forget the attempts to patronise...and here it is...again...the OP's post: "TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. Is it climate? Too windy in Ireland? Sheep and/or other livestock?" I suppose trees could now be replanted...there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. Here tis, I've begun to answer the OPs question...here, for your reading pleasure I'll go on further to suggest that the concrete industry in Ireland has a fair amount to answer for...one thing that you may, or may not appreciate about Ireland is the way politics, in the 26 counties works...its not as straight forward as one might think...there are 'behind the scenes' exchanges of funds...as you may note recently with the resignation of Bertie Ahern: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../03/dl0302.xml "The ignominious manner of Bertie Ahern's surprise departure from office, tarnished by allegations of financial impropriety..." Do note especially the subject header which includes more than Ireland. Yeah, so? If your lecturers are right about your reading abilities, you wouldn't need me to explain. I don't spoon feed (your lecturers might). I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet. The OP observed that TV documentaries and travelogues revealed lush 'green' but a scarcity of trees in both Ireland AND Britain. So? Try reading the subject header and try remembering how often you mentioned any lack of trees in Britain. I get your point but I'm not replying to the bit about British countrysides...I don't have to...this is usenet. The OP wanted to know WHY there were no trees and since you seem to have missed the point, the mention of TV documentaries and travelogues places the OPs interest in our current time. It is about the here and the now, not something that took place at the time of the Spanish Armada. The OPs interest also extends beyond just Ireland. Right. I suppose trees could now be replanted... Of course they could. The real reasons why they aren't are likely to be much more complicated than someone who's never lived in Ireland might think. A significant factor has to be population density...the places where the population isn't so dense e.g. the Burren aren't particularly hospitable to trees. there are forests in Ireland nowadays, they aren't big but they're there...the arboretum planted for JFK's visit for example. The reasons why the trees aren't being replanted now are questions for the Irish government and private land owners. See, you can understand the statement when pushed to do so. Have you considered the possibility that I've been having you on all along? Have a nice day Thank you. So far I've had an expemplary day and it will shortly get even better. Hurrah! Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 12:17:17 -0400, "J. Clarke" wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which, among other things, says "The deforestation effects of increased shipbuilding was most visible in the change of Great Britain’s landscape during the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." So I guess your own source is spouting "nonsense". Reread what you've just posted. What do you think I'm going to find there? http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, then he had every right to do as he pleased. Only in the sense of a 'Conqueror's right'...of course stolen property remains stolen property even if it was taken as the spoils of war and in no way guarantees that that property will remain in their control.... Estates were given to him by the Queen. I'm sorry, but Raleigh didn't "conquer" them. If you have a problem it's with the Queen, not with Raleigh. In any case, how many ships? No idea. Possibly two at most? How can you make that claim? What evidence do you have? Not a lot of Oak involved in that.Why do you isist on being such a begrudger against the English? I begrudge them their invasion and occupation of Ireland. It has stunted Ireland's development as a sovereign nation for centuries...happily this is finally coming to an end... You're the one turning "British" into "English". People quibble about that...it is true though that at 1588 it was only England and not Britain that was doing the fighting. What does 1588 have to do with anything? After all, without England, Ireland would not have progressed past the Iron age. Ireland has Technology, smelting iron, using wood for that? Of course...Celts were the first western Europeans to have damascene steel... The largest industry in Wicklow for many a long year was Forestry. Nothing to do with the English. I'm not disagreeing but I'm interested in your justification for that claim. So what did they do with the wood? "He exploited the natural resources of Irish forestry to fund his expedition and targeted religious dissidents for settlement in English outposts." Your source? http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html Bibliography 1. Lacey, Robert, Sir Walter Ralegh, Atheneum, New York, 1974 2. Pollard, A.F., The Political History of England, Greenwood Press Publishers, New York,1969 3. Rodriguez-Salgado, M.J., England, Spain and The Gran Armada, Barnes and Nobel Books,Savage Maryland, 1990 4. http://www.devon-cc.gov.uk/tourism/p...y/raleigh.html Sir Walter Raleigh, of Hayes Barton 5. Sale, Kirkpatrick, The Conquest of Paradise, First Plume Printing, New York, 1990 Britain had more than enough forests of her own to build all the ships she wished!! Maybe so / maybe not but the ruling class of Britain still cut down the trees of Ireland. Bullshit. Over simplification and merely your own unsupported opinion. See: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html Which supports his view, not yours. Right. As far as I'm aware Britain got most of it's marine supplies from the Baltic countries What? There were substantial Oak forests in Latvia? For the ships that fought the Spanish Armada? Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? - that trade certainly is mentioned quite frequently in various history books. Which ones precisely? Maybe you should use Google Nik, everyone else seems to! ROTFL You really should read your own sources in their entirety before using them to refute the statements of others. Like I've said, on a number of occasions, Merrick is an idiot who has no compunction when it comes to ignoring basic logical truths, sad but true. Nik ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:55:43 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html http://www.russellmcmurtrey.com/ "Ireland used to be covered with a lot of oak forest until the peak British armada years where much of it was cut down for making ships." and, interestingly, http://www.millersville.edu/~columbus/papers/nucci.html "The Queen gave Ralegh a massive estate in Ireland. He later plundered this Irish land for its forests in order to finance one of his expeditions." So? If the estates were his, Oh so now you have gone and done it. You had to bring up the conquest and all the troubles that entails. There was a considerable amount of resistance to the idea of Irish property being requisitioned by the English. You may have heard about it. The crime of taking property using force is, in law, called 'aggravated robbery'. Furthermore, the passing of time makes that property no less stolen. So you're saying that the Normans should give England back to the Anglo Saxons? -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:40:29 -0700, Billy wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Fri, 09 May 2008 22:35:45 +0000 (GMT), jl wrote: In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: For those who think that Ireland never had significant forest cover please see: www.lhi.org.uk/docs/History_Project_1.pdf "The first wave of colonisation was by birch, aspen and sallow. About 8 500 BC. pine and hazel spread northwards, replacing the birch, which became uncommon. The pine colonisation was followed by a wave of oak and alder. Lime and elm followed this, then holly, ash, beech, hornbeam and maple." Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. Who was it that was responsible for that overharvesting? NOT the British, who always had plenty of forests of their own, but also imported any woods for ship building mostly from Scandinavia. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. No, it was always available... Peat bogs? of course. But they were also forested. If local attitudes to trees were the same then as now, it is surprising that any trees survived at all. "That tree will knock that wall down - cut it down". I've heard that sentence so often, it makes me sick. Manufacturing, farming, and the monies being made out of harvesting the peat bogs were main causes. (Alas Bord Na Mona, so much for greed). Blaming the British, (English) is merely being paranoid and specious. Not if it actually was the British that cut down the Irish forests to build the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. Nonsense! : See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html At that reference it says: "Those who traveled across Ireland at this time reported that one could ride all day and not see a single tree, an image that contrasts sharply with the carpet of trees that covered the area only centuries before (Brown, Terry)." Brown, Terry. "Wood in Development of Civilization." [http://www.cof.orst.edu/cof/teach/fo...velopment.pdf] Which supports my allegation that Ireland was rapidly deforested during the time that Britain invaded and occupied. Game, set and match Mr Merrick. I made that same comment and you told me to "reread what I had posted". Are you by any chance a loon? -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On May 11, 1:14*am, Taig & Charlie wrote:
Des Higgins wrote: On May 9, 5:15 pm, Si wrote: On 8 May, 13:49, Des Higgins wrote: On May 8, 11:15 am, mothed out wrote: On May 7, 11:53 pm, (Way Back Jack) wrote: TV documentaries and travelogues reveal a lot of lush "green" in those countrysides but a relative scarcity of trees. *Is it climate? *Too windy in Ireland? *Sheep and/or other livestock? One factor is this: The EU has been paying farmers to cut down trees for a long time. I think it is now paying people to plant them again. Tree coverage in Ireland was at its lowest point a century ago. *The EU has nothing to do with it. *In fact, Irish tree coverage has been slowly growing since the 70s. *The trees disappeared for farming, fuel and for building (including ships), centuries ago. T'was the towel heads(pasted from an old SCI thread): "Message from Q'il Q'as (Al Jazzbeera) Q'adda yen Hamid fastha q'on Aymid? Tha Tehran A'Q'ilta er Al'Awer. Ni Al Traw'q ter Q'il Q'as nawat' Ayla'q, Shni Q'lingfer A'Qling Ibn' Braw " well spotted that man!! It makes a change from blaming the Brits (apart from Gavin Bailey who himself almost certainly chopped down several large native trees). Des I didn't see him do it, though it is very likely, I would imagine he lingered at it, you know the way those crazy pepole in Oregon tie you to a tree before they do something that has the FBI web-site falling over? Well I reckon it was like that, a difficult to understand type of thing. I did not see him do it either; I am just assuming he must have; it would be exactly the kind of oppressive thing he would have done. Before the troubles, only 13.4% of NI trees were native. T & C- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
J. Clarke wrote:
.... I wonder if anyone wrote a poem or song about Irish trees being cut down. That would be interesting. They did. .... They certainly did. I'm sure another one will be along shortly. -- J/ SOTW: "Let's Impeach The President" - Neil Young www.tolife.shadowcat.name |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article , Féachadóir
Féach@d.óir wrote: Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have meant we held on to forest for longer. Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because no new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly nibbled to death. Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
In article ,
Féachadóir Féach@d.óir wrote: Scríobh jl : In article , Féachadóir Féach@d.óir wrote: Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have meant we held on to forest for longer. Not sure about that. Goats and sheep can devastate a landscape because no new shoots get the chance to grow and young trees are quickly nibbled to death. The Olde Irish favoured cattle. I suspect they favoured cattle - but a lot of the mountains here will support nothing but sheep or goats. I suspect that only the rich and powerful - those that could afford bards, for instance - could also afford cattle. Mind you, cattle in those days were tough and small beasts. It's only since the mid 18th century that the meat of cattle fetched more money than the skins. Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Someone else" wrote in message On Sun,
11 May 2008 16:23:31 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sun, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Someone else" wrote in message On Sat, 10 May 2008 13:12:01 +0000 (GMT), jl I wouldn't get to hung up about the Spanish Armada - the british fleet was quite small in those days, as were the ships. I'm not "hung up" about it. I refer in particular to that time period because that is when the Irish forests had a huge amount of damage done to them and I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland... You answer questions not asked and make repsonses to what you think you read in other's posts that were never there in the first place. In the instance of the 'question' of the deforestation of Ireland, you are answering a question that were NEVER asked. Which question, in particular, and explicitly stated, is that? viz: "I am responding to questions about the deforestation of Ireland..." You wrote that. No question about the deforestation of Ireland has been asked in this thread. You may choose to dribble on about it but it was not asked. Ah well...you're just going to have to cope then aren't you? And here was I thinking you were actually serious about having an interest in Ireland and Irish history and just had problems presenting information in a sensible and ordered fashion. I was wrong on the former but was right on the latter, but then that is a typical tactic of a troll. Sometimes I enjoy playing with trolls but I've decided that life is too short to bother with you. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"Féachadóir" Féach@d.óir wrote in message ... Scríobh "allan connochie" : "jl" wrote in message ... In article , Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote: Someone else wrote: On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: Ireland's population grew to around 8 million. But that had little to do with the state of the forests. Disease and over harvesting of trees were the main causes of the deforestation. As Ireland had no coal, the needs of 8 million people for charcoal and cooking woulkd certainly damage the forests. Peat was available of course - but only after the forests had made room for it. Plus I'd imagine that Ireland must be the same as Britain in that whatever deforestation took place in the second half of the second millenium was deforestation of what little remained of the woodland cover. Most of Britain's had already gone by 1500AD because of pastoral agriculture; the need for resources; and even possibly natural climatic effects within the last 5000 years or so. This website claims (I imagine it can only be guesswork) that the original forests had been halved by 500BC and was down to around just 15% by the 1080s. Perhaps degree may have been different but surely Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been that different from Britain at that time? Irish agriculture was much more pastoral than arable, which may have meant we held on to forest for longer. That may be so but then again the more pastoral regions of Britain were just as treeeless as anywhere else. My own area in the Southern Uplands of Scotland for example! It may be as I said a matter of degree and you may indeed be right in that 11thC or 16thC Ireland may have had a larger fraction of its original forest intact, but what I was saying was that surely this was only a fraction of what had been? Iron Age and first millenium Ireland couldn't have been so much different from Britain - could it? I know it is only one poster sayig it but the idea that a huge primeval forest covered Ireland until Elizabeth of England cut it down to build a few ships to ward off the Armada sounds a bit off. Allan |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On May 11, 5:26 am, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:
"Salahoona" wrote in message If you use Eucl. Viminalis; plant them only a foot apart and in a group. They will support each other in the wind (groups of two metres diameter) and when the trunks are about eight inches wide they can be harvested. Paint the cut on the living trunks with oil and they will sprout again: I can't think of a eucalypt that doesn't resprout if the trunk is cut right off . I don't think there is really any need to paint with oil. Sure. But I have other trees and use a mixture of linseed oil with a cheap tin of rooting compound mixed in. I do the same even for osier willow. I'd rather make sure that no disease gets a foot hold and it is my nature to be gentle and kind with plants. I do have a plum tree where the leaves get full of holes in an area where lots of sloe grow. I'd rather destroy a plant which needs insecticide to live. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter