Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2008, 06:39 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 12
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

On May 8, 4:14 pm, Des Higgins wrote:
On May 8, 3:17 pm, mothed out wrote:



On May 8, 12:49 pm, 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.


You may well be right. I'm no real expert on this.
I can say that I once saw a documentary on the subject in which they
interviewed a farmer, who seemed a really reasonable person with a
willingness to help the environment as far as he is able. However, he
explained how he had no realistic option but to fell a lot of the
trees on his land because he then received better subsidies for
putting the land to different use. He just couldn't afford to write
off the sum he made from doing that, I couldn't have said I'd have
done a differently in his shoes, which spelt death for most of the
trees on his land.
Another EU factor which I think may have an impact on re-
forestation is the big subsidies that currently go to sheep farmers.


There are 2 issues here; one is whether or not EU subsidies are a good
idea for the environment. It is complicated; there are certainly
problems caused by it.
Equally, much of the environmental legislation here on water quality
etc. only exists or is only enforced because of the EU.
However, what we were asking about was tree cover. How come, I can
remember the Dublin mountains being just as treeless as they are now
(maybe more so), even before Ireland joined the EU? Ireland lost its
forests in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yes it is sustained partly
that way because of agriculture; centuries of it.
The EU is neither here nor there.

The para below is fromhttp://www.woodlandsofireland.com/docs/No%5B1%5D._2_-_Woodland_Manage...

"By the time of the death of Elizabeth I
in 1603 AD, tree cover in Ireland was
diminished to the extent that, according
to estimates, woodland cover accounted
for no more that 12.5%, and as low as
2%, of the land area. At the same time,
both merchant and naval shipbuilding,
although never practiced on the scale it
was in Britain, also increased in Ireland.
Timber for ships was exported to England
from Waterford in 1608 AD, and the East
India Company is known to have established
a yard at Dundaniel in Cork some time
before 1613 AD (Neeson, 1995)."

this below is fromhttp://www.wicklowmountainsnationalpark.ie/history.html

"Much of the area, particularly in the south, was heavily forested and
had proved a boon to rebelling forces during the centuries of war, so
a policy of removing the tree-cover was instigated. In fact, forestry
was already well established as County Wicklow's first true industry.
During the Tudor period, timber had become valuable. It was required
for fuel and heat, housing and ship-building. Wood-charcoal was also
the main resource used for smelting iron. The magnificent oak woods
near Shillelagh, in the south of the county, were particularly well
renowned and Sir Arthur Chichester in 1608 noted that the timber from
these woods could '...furnish the King for his shipping and other uses
for 20 years to come'. At this time Wicklow was the only remaining
county in Leinster with extensive tree cover."

For example, most of the hill landscapes in the british isles, in all
the various countries, are completely without trees because they are
given to sheep farming. As I understand, this farming would not be
happening on anything like this scale without the subsidies. I have a
friend with some land in Conemara, and the whole area is (in one way
of looking at it) 'devastated' by sheep farming. Just by fencing off a
part of his land, we soon saw how small tree saplings were taking root
which would otherwise be barren, close-munched grass. Also, when you
find small rocky areas where sheep can't reach on cliffs and
waterfalls, you will nearly always see the native tree species such as
oak trying to come though. I was pretty sad to find about ten
neglected sheep (belonging to his neighbour) dying slowly and
miserably on land less than a mile from their owner's house, mostly
dying of parasitic infection of the liver I believe. These sheep lie
incapacitated sometimes for days on the ground before dying. Someone
told me the owner doesn't really care coz he only keeps the sheep for
the subsidy. I don't know if that's true, but whatever, it didn't look
like real farming to me. On top of this, water supplies to places like
Galway have been rendered undrinkable because of washoff and general
shite from the farming, and the land owners are not fencing the
animals away from the watercourses, rivers etc, which they should be
doing I think, and is part of the cause of the problem. Personally I'd
like to see a long term policy regarding EU subsidy which moved away
from this kind of omnipresent artificially subsidised sheep industry.
It doesn't make much sense...for example, in Wales I remember being
able to see thousands of sheep from my windows, but would still always
find New Zealand lamb in the freezers of the local chain stores (and
stop to think how much energy and pollution was spent shipping that NZ
lamb to the UK). In view of the environmental damage this strangely
organised industry causes, surely there is some less damaging way we
could subsidise rural people? While this system holds sway, i don't
see how you'd get the chance to restore the kind of tree cover that
existed historically in Ireland.



Wouldn't dispute a word of it.
Where from here though?
Sadly, by and large, people don't plant trees unless they have a
significant commercial motivation, unless they are highly idealistic
and not forced to make an actual living from the land.
Globally, one reason much forest is removed is because the values we
may ascribe to trees, such as the pleasure of their presence, the way
they help other natural diversity, and the bigger environmental
benefits such as fixing carbon are losing out to more immediate and
short-term commercial objectives.
Various economic theorists have posited that until we can
ascribe (and somehow enforce) a system whereby these other values are
given a price that people have to take into account, then we cannot
hope to see forests either preserved or re-grown. In other words, if
we were forced to take into account the *real long term value* arising
from trees, which often includes a longer term view of things like the
actual monetary gain people who already sustainably use the trees (but
are often politically marginalised), and also the cultural value of
the forest as an environment for people , such as native Amazonians,
the later-arriving (but sustainably operating) rubber tappers, the
'pygmy' people etc. Also there is the very real long-term poverty
people suffer in the long term from living on degraded, eroded land
etc. But the political situation prevailing often means that the
people doing the felling never have to face those costs themselves.
For anyone who might argue that we can't enforce such an
'airy fairy' or 'idealistic' value of trees when faced with the 'hard
reality' of economic necessity, i think they should certainly take
into account the fact that the impetus for much deforestation has
*nothing to do* with 'inevitable' economic forces, but with the
strange and damaging effects of unfair and skewed political and social
regimes which do not themselves follow any particular economic logic
which took account of the long-term benefits to people living near or
in the forests (the historic deforestation of Ireland being a case in
point).. The artificiality of the whole system really came home to me
when I decided about 15 years ago to do a bit of research into why the
Amazonian forests in Brazil are disappearing so fast. One of the best
books I found on the subject were some of the text books for an Open
University course on environmental issues. It explained how much of
the deforestation in Brazil was occurring because BIG and politically
influential ranchers were seeking to maximise their (vast array of)
ranch land, because they could then benefit and profit from artificial
subsidies and tax breaks from the Brazilian govt. These big powerful
landowners were part of a big 'farmers union' or some such, which had
a lot of influence in the govt, making it difficult to change thigns.
Meanwhile, vast numbers of poorly represented poor folks (often pushed
off land by the powerful landownders with the guns and the money), may
be pushed further into the jungle to try and cut themselves a
sustainable small-holding. in due course, however, these people are
pressured into losing or amalgamating their lands into the ranches,
mostly being pushed further into the jungle....and so the system goes
on. Similarly, people representing groups such as the rubber tappers,
who exploited the trees sustainably without cutting them down, often
meet a sticky end, like Chico Mendez did, assassinated for his trouble
by powerful land-owning interest groups and their agents. And bear in
mind that these big ranches are not necessarily economic without the
subsidies, and tend to become less viable through the degradation of
the land once it loses tree cover. And all this because of vested
interests and how they’ve been able to skew things through artificial
agricultural subsidies and the like.
Moving back to the european situation, while the worst
ravaging of the trees may belong in history, surely we (EU countries)
would also have to take a serious look at taking into account values
*other than* immediate and obvious financial returns to get some
serious reforestation happening. This would have to somehow translate
into the value of new woodland actually being taken account of euros
and cents, even if that means using ‘artificial’ subsidy as part of
the motive. Since the use of these truly vast swathes of land for
sheep seems to be sustained specifically by subsidy already, i don'
think it's so outlandish to see that as a key part of where we might,
collectively and with consent, change that and subsidise in a
different direction. Pricing living trees artificially, but with full
account of the 'non-immediate' value has got plenty of working
precedents. After all, look at the way that the imposition of carbon
pricing is being used to radically alter the balance sheets of
businesses in a way that aims to help the environment. It's entirely
based on ‘artificial’ regulation, but is nonetheless being applied to
radically change 'common sense' economic and industrial activity.
Interestingly, there is a serious and binding 'tree pricing' regime
starting up in London right now. In London there have been a huge
number of trees felled because of a big fear of subsidence caused by
tree-roots on the part of house owners. An organisation has (i
understand) been established to put a specific monetary price on
various trees, based on their age, beauty, recreational, aesthetic
etc. value. The idea is that when, say, an insurance company demands
that a tree close to a property should be felled, they will actually
have to justify removing the tree on a 'balance sheet' which compares
the loss 'to society' (as it were) as expressed in monetary value,
against the probable or real monetary cost of the damage the tree
might cause. Apparently some trees have been priced around the 750
thousand pounds stirling mark, so you can see how the case for removal
might lose the day (and therefore the planning go-ahead) when they are
required by a pricing scheme to look at the full longterm picture...
  #17   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2008, 07:30 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,265
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

In article
,
mothed out wrote:

On May 8, 4:14 pm, Des Higgins wrote:
On May 8, 3:17 pm, mothed out wrote:



On May 8, 12:49 pm, 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.


You may well be right. I'm no real expert on this.
I can say that I once saw a documentary on the subject in which they
interviewed a farmer, who seemed a really reasonable person with a
willingness to help the environment as far as he is able. However, he
explained how he had no realistic option but to fell a lot of the
trees on his land because he then received better subsidies for
putting the land to different use. He just couldn't afford to write
off the sum he made from doing that, I couldn't have said I'd have
done a differently in his shoes, which spelt death for most of the
trees on his land.
Another EU factor which I think may have an impact on re-
forestation is the big subsidies that currently go to sheep farmers.


There are 2 issues here; one is whether or not EU subsidies are a good
idea for the environment. It is complicated; there are certainly
problems caused by it.
Equally, much of the environmental legislation here on water quality
etc. only exists or is only enforced because of the EU.
However, what we were asking about was tree cover. How come, I can
remember the Dublin mountains being just as treeless as they are now
(maybe more so), even before Ireland joined the EU? Ireland lost its
forests in the 16th and 17th centuries. Yes it is sustained partly
that way because of agriculture; centuries of it.
The EU is neither here nor there.

The para below is
fromhttp://www.woodlandsofireland.com/docs/No%5B1%5D._2_-_Woodland_Manage...

"By the time of the death of Elizabeth I
in 1603 AD, tree cover in Ireland was
diminished to the extent that, according
to estimates, woodland cover accounted
for no more that 12.5%, and as low as
2%, of the land area. At the same time,
both merchant and naval shipbuilding,
although never practiced on the scale it
was in Britain, also increased in Ireland.
Timber for ships was exported to England
from Waterford in 1608 AD, and the East
India Company is known to have established
a yard at Dundaniel in Cork some time
before 1613 AD (Neeson, 1995)."

this below is fromhttp://www.wicklowmountainsnationalpark.ie/history.html

"Much of the area, particularly in the south, was heavily forested and
had proved a boon to rebelling forces during the centuries of war, so
a policy of removing the tree-cover was instigated. In fact, forestry
was already well established as County Wicklow's first true industry.
During the Tudor period, timber had become valuable. It was required
for fuel and heat, housing and ship-building. Wood-charcoal was also
the main resource used for smelting iron. The magnificent oak woods
near Shillelagh, in the south of the county, were particularly well
renowned and Sir Arthur Chichester in 1608 noted that the timber from
these woods could '...furnish the King for his shipping and other uses
for 20 years to come'. At this time Wicklow was the only remaining
county in Leinster with extensive tree cover."

For example, most of the hill landscapes in the british isles, in all
the various countries, are completely without trees because they are
given to sheep farming. As I understand, this farming would not be
happening on anything like this scale without the subsidies. I have a
friend with some land in Conemara, and the whole area is (in one way
of looking at it) 'devastated' by sheep farming. Just by fencing off a
part of his land, we soon saw how small tree saplings were taking root
which would otherwise be barren, close-munched grass. Also, when you
find small rocky areas where sheep can't reach on cliffs and
waterfalls, you will nearly always see the native tree species such as
oak trying to come though. I was pretty sad to find about ten
neglected sheep (belonging to his neighbour) dying slowly and
miserably on land less than a mile from their owner's house, mostly
dying of parasitic infection of the liver I believe. These sheep lie
incapacitated sometimes for days on the ground before dying. Someone
told me the owner doesn't really care coz he only keeps the sheep for
the subsidy. I don't know if that's true, but whatever, it didn't look
like real farming to me. On top of this, water supplies to places like
Galway have been rendered undrinkable because of washoff and general
shite from the farming, and the land owners are not fencing the
animals away from the watercourses, rivers etc, which they should be
doing I think, and is part of the cause of the problem. Personally I'd
like to see a long term policy regarding EU subsidy which moved away
from this kind of omnipresent artificially subsidised sheep industry.
It doesn't make much sense...for example, in Wales I remember being
able to see thousands of sheep from my windows, but would still always
find New Zealand lamb in the freezers of the local chain stores (and
stop to think how much energy and pollution was spent shipping that NZ
lamb to the UK). In view of the environmental damage this strangely
organised industry causes, surely there is some less damaging way we
could subsidise rural people? While this system holds sway, i don't
see how you'd get the chance to restore the kind of tree cover that
existed historically in Ireland.



Wouldn't dispute a word of it.
Where from here though?
Sadly, by and large, people don't plant trees unless they have a
significant commercial motivation, unless they are highly idealistic
and not forced to make an actual living from the land.
Globally, one reason much forest is removed is because the values we
may ascribe to trees, such as the pleasure of their presence, the way
they help other natural diversity, and the bigger environmental
benefits such as fixing carbon are losing out to more immediate and
short-term commercial objectives.
Various economic theorists have posited that until we can
ascribe (and somehow enforce) a system whereby these other values are
given a price that people have to take into account, then we cannot
hope to see forests either preserved or re-grown. In other words, if
we were forced to take into account the *real long term value* arising
from trees, which often includes a longer term view of things like the
actual monetary gain people who already sustainably use the trees (but
are often politically marginalised), and also the cultural value of
the forest as an environment for people , such as native Amazonians,
the later-arriving (but sustainably operating) rubber tappers, the
'pygmy' people etc. Also there is the very real long-term poverty
people suffer in the long term from living on degraded, eroded land
etc. But the political situation prevailing often means that the
people doing the felling never have to face those costs themselves.
For anyone who might argue that we can't enforce such an
'airy fairy' or 'idealistic' value of trees when faced with the 'hard
reality' of economic necessity, i think they should certainly take
into account the fact that the impetus for much deforestation has
*nothing to do* with 'inevitable' economic forces, but with the
strange and damaging effects of unfair and skewed political and social
regimes which do not themselves follow any particular economic logic
which took account of the long-term benefits to people living near or
in the forests (the historic deforestation of Ireland being a case in
point).. The artificiality of the whole system really came home to me
when I decided about 15 years ago to do a bit of research into why the
Amazonian forests in Brazil are disappearing so fast. One of the best
books I found on the subject were some of the text books for an Open
University course on environmental issues. It explained how much of
the deforestation in Brazil was occurring because BIG and politically
influential ranchers were seeking to maximise their (vast array of)
ranch land, because they could then benefit and profit from artificial
subsidies and tax breaks from the Brazilian govt. These big powerful
landowners were part of a big 'farmers union' or some such, which had
a lot of influence in the govt, making it difficult to change thigns.
Meanwhile, vast numbers of poorly represented poor folks (often pushed
off land by the powerful landownders with the guns and the money), may
be pushed further into the jungle to try and cut themselves a
sustainable small-holding. in due course, however, these people are
pressured into losing or amalgamating their lands into the ranches,
mostly being pushed further into the jungle....and so the system goes
on. Similarly, people representing groups such as the rubber tappers,
who exploited the trees sustainably without cutting them down, often
meet a sticky end, like Chico Mendez did, assassinated for his trouble
by powerful land-owning interest groups and their agents. And bear in
mind that these big ranches are not necessarily economic without the
subsidies, and tend to become less viable through the degradation of
the land once it loses tree cover. And all this because of vested
interests and how they¹ve been able to skew things through artificial
agricultural subsidies and the like.
Moving back to the european situation, while the worst
ravaging of the trees may belong in history, surely we (EU countries)
would also have to take a serious look at taking into account values
*other than* immediate and obvious financial returns to get some
serious reforestation happening. This would have to somehow translate
into the value of new woodland actually being taken account of euros
and cents, even if that means using Œartificial¹ subsidy as part of
the motive. Since the use of these truly vast swathes of land for
sheep seems to be sustained specifically by subsidy already, i don'
think it's so outlandish to see that as a key part of where we might,
collectively and with consent, change that and subsidise in a
different direction. Pricing living trees artificially, but with full
account of the 'non-immediate' value has got plenty of working
precedents. After all, look at the way that the imposition of carbon
pricing is being used to radically alter the balance sheets of
businesses in a way that aims to help the environment. It's entirely
based on Œartificial¹ regulation, but is nonetheless being applied to
radically change 'common sense' economic and industrial activity.
Interestingly, there is a serious and binding 'tree pricing' regime
starting up in London right now. In London there have been a huge
number of trees felled because of a big fear of subsidence caused by
tree-roots on the part of house owners. An organisation has (i
understand) been established to put a specific monetary price on
various trees, based on their age, beauty, recreational, aesthetic
etc. value. The idea is that when, say, an insurance company demands
that a tree close to a property should be felled, they will actually
have to justify removing the tree on a 'balance sheet' which compares
the loss 'to society' (as it were) as expressed in monetary value,
against the probable or real monetary cost of the damage the tree
might cause. Apparently some trees have been priced around the 750
thousand pounds stirling mark, so you can see how the case for removal
might lose the day (and therefore the planning go-ahead) when they are
required by a pricing scheme to look at the full longterm picture...


The name of the game is "privatize the profits, and socialize the cost".
Business gets the profits and the tax payers pick up the tab for
remediation.
The first step is education, because as long as our life style
looks cheap, it will be very expensive to repair the accumulative
damage. Indeed, it may already be too late.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1/28/AR2006012
801021.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feat...ing_point.html
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related
  #18   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2008, 07:37 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,265
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

In article
,
Bill wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

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?


Loreena Mckennitt and some unknown 18th century songwriter pretty much
say it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrNYtOsbEg

"O bonny Portmore, I am sorry to see
Such a woeful destruction of your ornament tree
For it stood on your shore for many's the long day
Till the long boats from Antrim came to float it away.

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the lords in Old England would not purchase Portmore.

All the birds in the forest they bitterly weep
Saying, "Where shall we shelter, where shall we sleep?"
For the Oak and the Ash, they are all cutten down
And the walls of bonny Portmore are all down to the ground."

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the Lords of Old England would not purchase Portmore."

ca 1745.

--


Here in the USA the rate of deforesting was something 17 acres a day to
turn into charcoal which ran one of our iron works for one day. Don't
ask for a site as it is most likely wrong.

If goggle is our friend.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bDr...=PA316&dq=defo
resting+charcoal+pennsylvania&source=web&ots=_-OqLaZQcj&sig=g9oRdPfW-1Jpm
dUsLdw6ggYQWmk&hl=en

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3tcazw

Bill


I is said that when the Europeans arrived to North America, a squirrel
could have gone from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi River,
without putting a foot on the ground.
--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related
  #19   Report Post  
Old 08-05-2008, 08:11 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,096
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article
,
Bill wrote:

In article ,
"J. Clarke" wrote:

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?

Loreena Mckennitt and some unknown 18th century songwriter pretty much
say it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrNYtOsbEg

"O bonny Portmore, I am sorry to see
Such a woeful destruction of your ornament tree
For it stood on your shore for many's the long day
Till the long boats from Antrim came to float it away.

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the lords in Old England would not purchase Portmore.

All the birds in the forest they bitterly weep
Saying, "Where shall we shelter, where shall we sleep?"
For the Oak and the Ash, they are all cutten down
And the walls of bonny Portmore are all down to the ground."

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the Lords of Old England would not purchase Portmore."

ca 1745.

--


Here in the USA the rate of deforesting was something 17 acres a day to
turn into charcoal which ran one of our iron works for one day. Don't
ask for a site as it is most likely wrong.

If goggle is our friend.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bDr...=PA316&dq=defo
resting+charcoal+pennsylvania&source=web&ots=_-OqLaZQcj&sig=g9oRdPfW-1Jpm
dUsLdw6ggYQWmk&hl=en

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/3tcazw

Bill


I is said that when the Europeans arrived to North America, a squirrel
could have gone from the Atlantic coast to the Mississippi River,
without putting a foot on the ground.


If you bike about here you will see sometimes one large tree in an
area of about five acres. This is now multiple homes but not too long
ago it was farm land.
The one tree was left to provide shade for the horses that pulled the
plows.

Bill

--
Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA
  #20   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 12:53 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 188
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

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?


Loreena Mckennitt and some unknown 18th century songwriter pretty much
say it all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrNYtOsbEg

"O bonny Portmore, I am sorry to see
Such a woeful destruction of your ornament tree
For it stood on your shore for many's the long day
Till the long boats from Antrim came to float it away.

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the lords in Old England would not purchase Portmore.

All the birds in the forest they bitterly weep
Saying, "Where shall we shelter, where shall we sleep?"
For the Oak and the Ash, they are all cutten down
And the walls of bonny Portmore are all down to the ground."

O bonny Portmore, you shine where you stand
And the more I think on you the more I think long
If I had you now as I had once before
All the Lords of Old England would not purchase Portmore."

ca 1745.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




  #21   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 10:27 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

jl wrote:
In article ,
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?



The Roe Valley has quite a few very nice woods, though a lot of the
large commercial forests are terrible and a scar on the countryside.
Farmers tended to fell trees everywhere except around their houses I
think, hence certain places have many fine old trees.

Our own house was build on the site of an old farm house and there
must be about sixty trees on our site, most of them near a hundred
years old. Some of them, particularly the ash trees are a wonderful
sight.

They were planted as a windbreak, and do that job quite well.

Jochen


I am sure. But you should be considering replacement trees and planting
saplings. The older trees are mature and will start to die all too soon.
What about your windbreak then?
--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

  #22   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 12:41 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 34
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "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?


I've not noticed a lack of trees in most of Britain when I've been there.
The north western parts of Scotland certainly lack trees and the vegetation
of the Burren in Ireland is well known internationally (but not for it's
trees). Scotland used to be covered by the Calidonian Forest and had wolves
and beaver but I can't recall why it went belly up. 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.


Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of
potatos in Europe...which, remember, were introduced by Sir Walter
Raleigh after he returned from the New World...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?

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

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.

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 =----
  #23   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 04:39 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
jl jl is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 26
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

In article ,
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. wrote:
jl wrote:


I am sure. But you should be considering replacement trees and planting
saplings. The older trees are mature and will start to die all too soon.
What about your windbreak then?



I've planted about thirty trees so far and about 27 have survived the
storms. I also planted about 10 young spruce trees harvested from the
forest - and three larches were sown naturally - but a herd of sheep got
in and nibbled most of those to death.

It is quite difficult to buy good young tree saplings of a kind that are
native to Ireland. As I like our plot to blend into the mountain, I don't
plant any fancy trees.

As well as trees I've planted about forty or fifty whin bushes - and they
look a treat this year.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
  #24   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 06:15 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 6
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

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 "


Si

"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"
  #25   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 09:41 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,265
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

In article
,
Si wrote:


T'was the towel heads(pasted from an old SCI thread):

Same crusader attitude that got us into the present pair of vanity wars,
stupid git. Muslims had street lights, indoor plumbing, and running
water when your sort was still walking in your own filth.

"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 "


Si

"Bog snorkler extraordinaire"

--

Billy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTf...ef=patrick.net
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo...eature=related


  #26   Report Post  
Old 09-05-2008, 09:55 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 10
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

Someone else wrote:
On Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "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?


I've not noticed a lack of trees in most of Britain when I've been
there. The north western parts of Scotland certainly lack trees and
the vegetation of the Burren in Ireland is well known
internationally (but not for it's trees). Scotland used to be
covered by the Calidonian Forest and had wolves and beaver but I
can't recall why it went belly up. 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.


Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of
potatos in Europe...which, remember, were introduced by Sir Walter
Raleigh after he returned from the New World...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?

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

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.


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. 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!!

--
Hal Ó Mearadhaigh.

  #27   Report Post  
Old 10-05-2008, 12:35 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
jl jl is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 26
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

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.

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. 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.

Jochen

--

------------------------------------
Limavady and the Roe Valley
http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com
  #28   Report Post  
Old 10-05-2008, 09:07 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

"Someone else" wrote in message On
Thu, 8 May 2008 16:57:04 +1000, "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.


Ireland had extensive forest cover well prior to the arrival of
potatos 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.

which, remember, were introduced by Sir Walter
Raleigh after he returned from the New World...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.

In addition, some of your facts are simply wrong. The potato was introduced
into Ireland by about 1600 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.

Ireland poulation doubled at the end of the 18th century in about a 40-50
year period till it hit 8 million. That increase did not come from grain.

Ireland's population otday is now just over 4 million.

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. Perhaps
you could knock that chip off your shoulder and explain how to grow potatoes
in a forest to feed a rapidly growing population? Or on the Burren or a bog
or some of the other non 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.


And you appear to have reading difficulties so I will forgive your inability
to draw a logical conclusion based on your misunderstaning of what I wrote
or didn't write.

I know when my ancestors left Ireland, I also know why they left. You know
nothing about what I know about Ireland nor it seems about the impact of the
potato on population growth of Ireland or ideed when the famines occurred or
how long the Irish had been growing potatoes.


  #29   Report Post  
Old 10-05-2008, 11:25 AM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 5
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

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.


--


J/

SOTW: "Let's Impeach The President" - Neil Young

www.tolife.shadowcat.name


  #30   Report Post  
Old 10-05-2008, 01:05 PM posted to sci.bio.botany,rec.gardens,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.irish
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: May 2008
Posts: 12
Default Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides

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.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Late Blight -- Irish Potato Famine Fungus -- Attacks U.S. Northeast Gardens And Farms Hard Charles[_1_] Gardening 1 06-07-2009 07:37 PM
Some of best tools came from Smith and Hawken Irish digging spade ****** Bill who putters Gardening 1 25-05-2009 11:09 PM
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides Way Back Jack[_6_] Gardening 118 14-06-2008 08:42 AM
Irish Peat BroJack United Kingdom 8 30-11-2003 08:44 PM
Irish moss Lynn A. Gardening 7 13-04-2003 10:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017