|
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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? |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On 5/7/2008 3:53 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? I read somewhere (I think it might have been in Winston Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples") that a medieval king of England ordered the planting of oaks so that a later generation might have the raw materials to build war ships. However, trees take up land that might instead be used for crops or pastures. On my own standard tract lot, I have 14 trees. Some are trees only in name. Three are dwarf citrus and will never be tree-like. But nine of them are truly trees in size and shape. -- David E. Ross Climate: California Mediterranean Sunset Zone: 21 -- interior Santa Monica Mountains with some ocean influence (USDA 10a, very close to Sunset Zone 19) Gardening pages at http://www.rossde.com/garden/ |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
David E. Ross wrote:
On 5/7/2008 3:53 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? I read somewhere (I think it might have been in Winston Churchill's "A History of the English-Speaking Peoples") that a medieval king of England ordered the planting of oaks so that a later generation might have the raw materials to build war ships. However, trees take up land that might instead be used for crops or pastures. "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." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnrNYtOsbEg Portmore Castle was destroyed in 1716. The song dates to about 1745. On my own standard tract lot, I have 14 trees. Some are trees only in name. Three are dwarf citrus and will never be tree-like. But nine of them are truly trees in size and shape. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
My assumption would be the same situation as The Epic of Gilgamesh. In
that myth Gilgamesh sets out to appease the God of the Forest and thereby gain immortality. Gilgamesh is a hero of ancient Sumeria, but over the centuries Gilgamesh fell upon hard times. You see, Sumeria's power was based on the manufacture of bronze, which required large amounts of fuel. The original hardwood forests of Mesopotamia offered unlimited fuel, and Sumeria's power was a result of harvesting that fuel to manufacture bronze weapons and tools. But over the centuries the trees were harvested and woodcutters had to travel farther and farther to harvest fuel. This is known as the law of diminishing returns. The original lesson in unsutustainable economics. The Sumerians didn't know about ecology or economics, so an angry God was punishing them for destroying the forest. In the end, Sumeria meets her extinction and Gilgamesh is shown to be a mortal. The god of the forest destroys Sumeria and to this day that region is essentially desert. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the first documented case of a human caused environmental disaster. The Romans continued the tradition of unlimited military conquest to feed their need for fuel. By that time iron was the metal of choice. Iron required more heat than bronze, and soon the hardwood forests of the Mediterranean were depleted. Because of their proximity to waterways, the British Isles were targeted to supply hardwood for metal smelting. Once the trees were harvested, sheep and goats ensured the forest could not regrow. A large part of the poverty in Europe through the centuries was the result of the stripping of resources by the Romans. Most people are willig to give the Romans credit for building good roads, but in reality those roads would not have been built if there was not fuel to harvest and transport to the smelter. Ironically, the United States is repeating the same pattern now with petroleum. We have a state-sponsored military that enforces the harvesting of a fuel and we are leaving nothing for them in return. It seems the human race has learned very little from history, and at this rate history will have very little good to say about the United States. -- Gnarlodious http://Gnarlodious.com/ |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
"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? A few thousand years of human habitation and their domestic animals has greatly reduced the trees. Prior to high densities of humans much of Europe was heavily forested as the gulf stream moderates the temperature considerably compared to similar latitudes in Asia or America. David |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Wed, 07 May 2008 22:53:06 GMT, (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? Ireland was covered in trees before the English needed timber to built the fleet that fought the Spanish Armada. 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
"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. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. 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. |
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) |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 from http://www.woodlandsofireland.com/do...nt_History.pdf "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 from http://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. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 -- Garden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
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... |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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) |
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. |
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 =---- |
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 |
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" |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
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 |
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. |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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? 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... 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 =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. They did. I tried posting a link to it several times and for some reason the posts got lost. It's called "Bonny Portmore" and if you Google that you will find a number of references. If you go to Youtube and search on it you'll find a number of performances of it, and it's also a staple in the "Highlander" movies and TV series. -- -- --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 8, 5:40 am, Billy 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? Long story short, the British built ships with which to conquer and colonize the world. -- Billyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg&ref=patrick.nethttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=related For some reason or other, I had been invited to a high level meeting of a planned economy country dealing with timber products. I had had some previous run in with Minister regarding the load of whiskey in my office and had refused to use it. On the way in the door the Minister asked me how I liked my whiskey. "I'll take it neat" For some reason I was placed at the head of the large boardroom table with the Minister at the other. Someone next to me poured a large measure into my glass so I quaffed it down, put my elbows on the table in the manner of - right, now, let's get down to business. I know it now, but did not then, that the culture was; that if the glass was empty, it had to be refilled; but I quaffed that down as well. After some time I realised that people had stopped talking in English and instead used various other languages, which I didn't understand. I started talking Gaelic, but all that could come out of my roundabout brain was an old Irish poem 'What are we going to do when all the wood is gone?...' To my amazement, the Minister translated the poem into English - there were English bankers at the meeting, and he gave the same explanation for the removal of trees as your good self. When I looked at my glass again, it was full to the brim. I can't explain it but it happened. I have been experimenting with trees for fuel for about fifteen years and, for the record; Eucl. Viminalis wins by a mile. Donal |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. Yes, Administrative Cost........ Donal |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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. Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to have felled the trees in nearby Ireland? I have no idea. I'm sure the procurement agents in those days were quite competent 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. Jochen -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On May 8, 4:41 pm, 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 -- ------------------------------------ Limavady and the Roe Valley http://www.jochenlueg.freeuk.com A combination of Spanish Broom and Tree Lupin make an excellent local windbreak (scented). Donal |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:07:25 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given
wrote: "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, In Ireland a whole culture had grown up around living amongst the trees and it was this culture that was effectively destroyed by the deforestation of Ireland wrought by the forces loyal to the English crown...in their desire to obtain materials to build a fleet large enough to beat/repel a fleet whose creation had likewise deforested Spain...which of course is a much larger country than Britain...Spain's total land area = 504,030 km² whereas Britain's is 244,820 km²...and Ireland's (the entire island of Ireland) is 84414 km² 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. 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. ...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. 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. 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 That increase did not come from grain. I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above. 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... 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 because the consequences of the laws pertaining to inheritance and the selling of land have had long lasting ramifications, consider: "English Statute 1 Ann c. 26 (1702): An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Purchasers of the forfeited Estates in Ireland Sec. 15. No papist, during the time of his professing the popish religion, shall be capable to inherit, take or enjoy any other forfeited estates or interest therein," and, in particular, this one: 7.04 2 Ann c.6 (1703): An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery Sec. 10. All lands owned by a papist, and not sold during his lifetime for valuable consideration, really and bona fide paid, shall descend in gavelkind, that is to all of his sons, share and share alike, and not to the eldest son only, and lacking sons, to all his daughters, and lacking issue, to all kin of the papist's father in equal degree, The consequence of this was that the lots that were actually owned by Irish people who chose to remain 'Papists' was that their farms became smaller and smaller because the farms owned by Irish Catholics *had* to be split up evenly among *all* their children as opposed to the eldest inheriting the farm with the younger ones either being married off, sent into the Clergy or the Military as was traditional prior to the imposition of the Penal Laws... until potatoes were the only crop that could sustain the family that lived upon the land...maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder, maybe I don't but the point remains. 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... Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land? Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren? 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... And you appear to have reading difficulties The lecturers at my University disagree with you. 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. 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. 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? You know nothing about what I know about Ireland Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards inheritance? 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. 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? It was the Spanish Conquistadors in the 1530's in Peru that were the first Europeans to encounter potatoes. http://research.cip.cgiar.org/conflu...play/wpa/China The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) was introduced to Europe from its geographic origin in the Andes of South America in the late sixteenth century, probably in the 1570s (Hawkes 1992) Hawkes, J. G. 1992. History of the Potato. In: P.M. Harris, Ed. The Potato Crop: The Scientific Basis for Improvement. Second Edition. Chapman and Hall. London. pp. 1-12. Some claim that potatoes washed up in Ireland in 1588 as a consequence of the Spanish Armada sinking off the west coast of Ireland...its possible but not a certainty that the introduction was that early...but...as I say above it is beside the point because the trees that were cut down in Ireland were already cut down at that point. 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 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 =---- |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
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 |
Lack Of Trees In Irish And British Countrysides
Someone else wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 17:07:25 +1000, "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "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, In Ireland a whole culture had grown up around living amongst the trees and it was this culture that was effectively destroyed by the deforestation of Ireland wrought by the forces loyal to the English crown...in their desire to obtain materials to build a fleet large enough to beat/repel a fleet whose creation had likewise deforested Spain...which of course is a much larger country than Britain...Spain's total land area = 504,030 km² whereas Britain's is 244,820 km²...and Ireland's (the entire island of Ireland) is 84414 km² So, you would have enjoyed being beaten by the Spanish Armada and being subjected to an Inquisition no doubt! - Such blether and rubbish you talk Nik! See this: http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html The world was once covered in forests which were indeed depleted for ship building but also for Iron manufacture, and NOT mainly by the British, but also by the Irish and every other advanced country that wished to build ships for trade and for war, not to mention the slave ships as well, highly specialised that those were, and for the manufacture of iron. 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. 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. ...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. 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... By Raleigh, from a wooden ship! Made in England out of British Oak. 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? You usually do. Nah. 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 That increase did not come from grain. I think that you're going to have to revise what you've said above. 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... 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 because the consequences of the laws pertaining to inheritance and the selling of land have had long lasting ramifications, consider: "English Statute 1 Ann c. 26 (1702): An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Purchasers of the forfeited Estates in Ireland Sec. 15. No papist, during the time of his professing the popish religion, shall be capable to inherit, take or enjoy any other forfeited estates or interest therein," and, in particular, this one: 7.04 2 Ann c.6 (1703): An Act to prevent the further Growth of Popery Sec. 10. All lands owned by a papist, and not sold during his lifetime for valuable consideration, really and bona fide paid, shall descend in gavelkind, that is to all of his sons, share and share alike, and not to the eldest son only, and lacking sons, to all his daughters, and lacking issue, to all kin of the papist's father in equal degree, The consequence of this was that the lots that were actually owned by Irish people who chose to remain 'Papists' was that their farms became smaller and smaller because the farms owned by Irish Catholics *had* to be split up evenly among *all* their children as opposed to the eldest inheriting the farm with the younger ones either being married off, sent into the Clergy or the Military as was traditional prior to the imposition of the Penal Laws... until potatoes were the only crop that could sustain the family that lived upon the land...maybe I do have a chip on my shoulder, maybe I don't but the point remains. 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... Or on the Burren or a bog or some of the other non arable land? Have you yourself ever actually been to the Burren? 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... And you appear to have reading difficulties The lecturers at my University disagree with you. 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. 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. 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? You know nothing about what I know about Ireland Why then did you not refer to the impact of the Penal laws regards inheritance? 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. 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? It was the Spanish Conquistadors in the 1530's in Peru that were the first Europeans to encounter potatoes. http://research.cip.cgiar.org/conflu...play/wpa/China The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) was introduced to Europe from its geographic origin in the Andes of South America in the late sixteenth century, probably in the 1570s (Hawkes 1992) Hawkes, J. G. 1992. History of the Potato. In: P.M. Harris, Ed. The Potato Crop: The Scientific Basis for Improvement. Second Edition. Chapman and Hall. London. pp. 1-12. Some claim that potatoes washed up in Ireland in 1588 as a consequence of the Spanish Armada sinking off the west coast of Ireland...its possible but not a certainty that the introduction was that early...but...as I say above it is beside the point because the trees that were cut down in Ireland were already cut down at that point. Bullshit. Your opinion only. See http://fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/...restation.html -- Hal Ó Mearadhaigh. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter