Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html

'...grows raipidly to heights of 80ft or more...'

'...amateur gardeners should be vigilant. Look out for sprouts and self
sown seedlings... remove them.'

'...Ailanthus leaks toxins into the ground which prevent the
germination and establishment of other species in its vicinity.'

'...is fiercly resistant to human intervention... responds to cutting
by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements,
drainage systems and foundations.'

'...the Environment Agency does not yet register Ailanthus as an
invasive species, but it is included in the top 25 alien invasive
plants by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing 'an
important threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity'.'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I live in rural West Dorset and haven't seen any... yet.

Thinking perhaps a website clocking the spread of them could be set up.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Bill" wrote in message
s.com...
NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html

'...grows raipidly to heights of 80ft or more...'

'...amateur gardeners should be vigilant. Look out for sprouts and self
sown seedlings... remove them.'

'...Ailanthus leaks toxins into the ground which prevent the
germination and establishment of other species in its vicinity.'

'...is fiercly resistant to human intervention... responds to cutting
by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements,
drainage systems and foundations.'

'...the Environment Agency does not yet register Ailanthus as an
invasive species, but it is included in the top 25 alien invasive
plants by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing 'an
important threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity'.'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I have only ever seen one for certain and that was in the Irish Botanic
Gardens in Dublin.
It was a big handsome specimen tree that had leaves that looked like ash but
with crinkled bark.
The second time I saw one was the same tree in winter cobvered in Waxwings.
They can be hard to spot I think seeing as they look like native ash trees?

It is sad if this is true but please check this is not a practical joke
before killing any :-).

Des



I live in rural West Dorset and haven't seen any... yet.

Thinking perhaps a website clocking the spread of them could be set up.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Bill" wrote in message
s.com...
NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html

'...grows raipidly to heights of 80ft or more...'

'...amateur gardeners should be vigilant. Look out for sprouts and self
sown seedlings... remove them.'

'...Ailanthus leaks toxins into the ground which prevent the
germination and establishment of other species in its vicinity.'

'...is fiercly resistant to human intervention... responds to cutting
by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements,
drainage systems and foundations.'

'...the Environment Agency does not yet register Ailanthus as an
invasive species, but it is included in the top 25 alien invasive
plants by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing 'an
important threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity'.'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I have only ever seen one for certain and that was in the Irish Botanic
Gardens in Dublin.
It was a big handsome specimen tree that had leaves that looked like ash
but with crinkled bark.
The second time I saw one was the same tree in winter cobvered in
Waxwings.
They can be hard to spot I think seeing as they look like native ash
trees?


ok just googled images and the resemblance to Ash is not so great but the
leaves are pinnate and ash-like. THere are indeed dozens and dozens of web
sites warning about it.


It is sad if this is true but please check this is not a practical joke
before killing any :-).

Des



I live in rural West Dorset and haven't seen any... yet.

Thinking perhaps a website clocking the spread of them could be set up.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Bill" wrote in message
s.com...
NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html

'...grows raipidly to heights of 80ft or more...'

'...amateur gardeners should be vigilant. Look out for sprouts and self
sown seedlings... remove them.'

'...Ailanthus leaks toxins into the ground which prevent the
germination and establishment of other species in its vicinity.'

'...is fiercly resistant to human intervention... responds to cutting
by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements,
drainage systems and foundations.'

'...the Environment Agency does not yet register Ailanthus as an
invasive species, but it is included in the top 25 alien invasive
plants by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing 'an
important threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity'.'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I have only ever seen one for certain and that was in the Irish Botanic
Gardens in Dublin.
It was a big handsome specimen tree that had leaves that looked like ash
but with crinkled bark.
The second time I saw one was the same tree in winter cobvered in
Waxwings.
They can be hard to spot I think seeing as they look like native ash
trees?

It is sad if this is true but please check this is not a practical joke
before killing any :-).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_heaven

Not as scary as the press.

I don't like chinese imports though.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

Bill wrote:
NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html



Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I live in rural West Dorset and haven't seen any... yet.

Thinking perhaps a website clocking the spread of them could be set
up.

This site has some information about distribution. It seems to be mainly
urban (because of its tolerance to pollution).
http://www.keele.ac.uk/university/ar...eeofheaven.htm

--

John

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Uncle Marvo" wrote in message
...

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

snip
Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I have only ever seen one for certain and that was in the Irish Botanic
Gardens in Dublin.
It was a big handsome specimen tree that had leaves that looked like ash
but with crinkled bark.
The second time I saw one was the same tree in winter cobvered in
Waxwings.
They can be hard to spot I think seeing as they look like native ash
trees?

It is sad if this is true but please check this is not a practical joke
before killing any :-).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_heaven

Not as scary as the press.

I don't like chinese imports though.

Inscrutable buggers these Ailanthus.

Des "in scruting mode"

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Bill" wrote in message
s.com...
NB: this is posted to uk.environment.conservation and uk.rec.gardening

"The toxic Tree of Heaven threatens England's green and pleasant land"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...874333,00.html

'...grows raipidly to heights of 80ft or more...'

'...amateur gardeners should be vigilant. Look out for sprouts and self
sown seedlings... remove them.'

'...Ailanthus leaks toxins into the ground which prevent the
germination and establishment of other species in its vicinity.'

'...is fiercly resistant to human intervention... responds to cutting
by throwing out underground suckers which can damage pavements,
drainage systems and foundations.'

'...the Environment Agency does not yet register Ailanthus as an
invasive species, but it is included in the top 25 alien invasive
plants by the European Plant Protection Organisation as posing 'an
important threat to plant health, environment and biodiversity'.'

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Just read this article in the Observer and was wondering where abouts
in the country these trees are and if people have had any experience
with them.

I live in rural West Dorset and haven't seen any... yet.

Thinking perhaps a website clocking the spread of them could be set up.


Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking over'.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


Among other things, it said in the article that...

i) it is often found near railway lines
ii) that by cutting back at the tree it sprouts off and throws out
underground suckers

Not sure if the methods they use in vegetation control around railways
(slash, slash some more, slash again) would help stop the second
point's phenomena.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


Among other things, it said in the article that...

i) it is often found near railway lines
ii) that by cutting back at the tree it sprouts off and throws out
underground suckers

Not sure if the methods they use in vegetation control around railways
(slash, slash some more, slash again) would help stop the second
point's phenomena.


Well, something kills them - I've managed to 'lose' a couple in my garden. I
must be the world's worst gardener, if I can't even grow an invasive alien
:-)

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.

Among other things, it said in the article that...

i) it is often found near railway lines
ii) that by cutting back at the tree it sprouts off and throws out
underground suckers

Not sure if the methods they use in vegetation control around railways
(slash, slash some more, slash again) would help stop the second
point's phenomena.

Climate change will probably mean we lose our native species anyway,
and this is just evolution in progress.

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many wifebeater/red
bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2 levels are
the cause of global warming, the difference we make will be smaller than
we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit radical like
that.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many wifebeater/red
bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2 levels are
the cause of global warming, the difference we make will be smaller than
we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit radical like
that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody what
a great job I'd done. They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply, because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought. And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

I just /know/ you can't be serious (C) John McEnroe.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:34:55 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:10:40 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

As no one seems to be that bothered about changing their wasteful
lives, I doubt we can stop the changes.

Even if one of us does something, like recycling the many
wifebeater/red bull cans, we will make a difference, however small.

It's not enough.

We need governments to TELL us what to do, and then to force us to
comply.

While companies like Exxon are denying (R4 this morning) that CO2
levels are the cause of global warming, the difference we make will
be smaller than we'd like, though.

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit
radical like that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?

Er, you /are/ joking, right?

No. What would you do to fight terrorism?

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!


We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply, because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

Message for La Puce : don't read this, it's political :-)

In addition to what Uncle Marvo (me) wrote in ,
I, Marvo, add :

I was joking.

A terrorist has an aim. The aim is to get someone to listen to him, and he
usually terrorises because someone won't listen to him, and he is hopelessly
outnumbered, and quite possibly frightened. And he thinks he's right,
obviously. He probably isn't, but it makes no odds.

The terrorist in question (for the purposes of this 'ere discussion) was one
Osama Binliner, a product of a very rich family, who sadly thinks that his
Islam way (for he is a Muslim) is the only way. Mr Pres Bush is a proponent
of a system of capitalism, to such an extent that he makes things illegal
which are contrary to his view, partly (mainly?) owing to the fact that he
becomes Very Rich if the planet can consume just that little bit more oil,
and money is his raison d'etre. Our chap Blair is not like that, he is only
interested in Power and has gone quite mad, in a Maggie-stylee.

Given that the terrorist has an aim, it would be foolhardy of him not to let
on who he is (even if he is in hiding), because that would defeat his
object. Therefore my plan would be to talk to said terrorist, if necessary
in a neutral place, and if necessary giving him an amnesty for the duration
of the talks. I would listen to what he had to say, and then respond to it
accordingly. If the talks could not possibly reach any conclusion at least
partly acceptable to both parties, then I suppose I'd have to resort to
giving him a good slap, but normally something would be possible even if it
meant that I (as President) would have to give some ground, and live in
peace with Mr Terrorist and his mates. The mess can be sorted out later.

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to
do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody
what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

I don't understand this comment ...

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!

I have 166 at the last count, but I am much cleverer than that because I
didn't join Mensa! Bush's IQ is reported at less than 100, which makes him
less intelligent than the average for his population and most farm animals.
It is also known that he is illiterate and quite bonkers.


We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply,
because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

I can't honestly believe that any right-thinking individual believes this -
I want to be put back in the Matrix.

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Er, are you a troll? If so, you are sussed and you must stop.




Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

I already do what I can. I am not in a position to do any more because
computer programmers are not eligible for government :-) You have to have
been a lawyer, telephone sanitiser, or similar.

I fear I am too little, too late, however. But I'm not a troll.

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 11:59:48 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

Message for La Puce : don't read this, it's political :-)

In addition to what Uncle Marvo (me) wrote in ,
I, Marvo, add :

I was joking.

A terrorist has an aim. The aim is to get someone to listen to him, and he
usually terrorises because someone won't listen to him, and he is hopelessly
outnumbered, and quite possibly frightened. And he thinks he's right,
obviously. He probably isn't, but it makes no odds.

The terrorist in question (for the purposes of this 'ere discussion) was one
Osama Binliner, a product of a very rich family, who sadly thinks that his
Islam way (for he is a Muslim) is the only way. Mr Pres Bush is a proponent
of a system of capitalism, to such an extent that he makes things illegal
which are contrary to his view, partly (mainly?) owing to the fact that he
becomes Very Rich if the planet can consume just that little bit more oil,
and money is his raison d'etre. Our chap Blair is not like that, he is only
interested in Power and has gone quite mad, in a Maggie-stylee.

Given that the terrorist has an aim, it would be foolhardy of him not to let
on who he is (even if he is in hiding), because that would defeat his
object. Therefore my plan would be to talk to said terrorist, if necessary
in a neutral place, and if necessary giving him an amnesty for the duration
of the talks. I would listen to what he had to say, and then respond to it
accordingly. If the talks could not possibly reach any conclusion at least
partly acceptable to both parties, then I suppose I'd have to resort to
giving him a good slap, but normally something would be possible even if it
meant that I (as President) would have to give some ground, and live in
peace with Mr Terrorist and his mates. The mess can be sorted out later.

They did in Afghanistan, and look what happened. If you think you can
talk to these, you're in a worse state then they are!

I think what I'd do is to invade a country that was probably nothing to
do
with the terrorism, murder a load of innocents, and then tell everybody
what
a great job I'd done.

Bush and Blair wouldn't let you!

I don't understand this comment ...

Then read your statement above again!

They'd re-elect me then. But I suspect my IQ is
something like double that of Mr Bush.

You have one!

I have 166 at the last count, but I am much cleverer than that because I
didn't join Mensa! Bush's IQ is reported at less than 100, which makes him
less intelligent than the average for his population and most farm animals.
It is also known that he is illiterate and quite bonkers.

Yet he still stands for freedom. Great guy. What do you do for global
freedom, bright eyes?

We need governement to tell us what to do, then force us to comply,
because
we are mindless idiots who are incapable of independent thought.

Spot on.

I can't honestly believe that any right-thinking individual believes this -
I want to be put back in the Matrix.

From that we can presume you do nothing to help society?

And the
governement has a marvellous track record of always doing the right thing
and looking after us. Or something.

Much better than we have left to our own devices.

Er, are you a troll? If so, you are sussed and you must stop.

What do you do to help society?




Just out of curiosity.What would you do to save us and the planet?

I already do what I can.

Like what? you seem somewhat cagey.

I am not in a position to do any more because
computer programmers are not eligible for government :-) You have to have
been a lawyer, telephone sanitiser, or similar.

I fear I am too little, too late, however. But I'm not a troll.

And you wonder why someone else needs to think for you!

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:13:19 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

snip

I vote for burning Pres. Bush for starters, but then I'm a bit radical
like
that.

Without the likes of Bush, the world would be a sadder place.

Perhaps you'd like to stand in his shoes?



When he sets them on fire, you mean?

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:45:21 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.



So, from that, can we presume you're just a selfish pig, who actually
does nothing for himself, and even less for society?

And you wonder why you need to be told!

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change (e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it
might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a
problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species
mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species
warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change
(e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the
mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards
the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin


There are only two sides in species warfare. The human species on one
side against which nothing can prevail, and everything else on the other.

Titanic, deckchairs, etc. etc.


michael adams

....

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 14:43:01 +0100, "Des Higgins"
wrote:


"Geoff" wrote in message
.. .
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


No doubt happily spread by CONservation hooligans, trying to hold back
the tide of evolution.


It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species mix
willy nilly.
Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change (e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin

I agree. Just take a look at mankind, and what happened.

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want to.

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want
to.

You're a polite troll though.

I hope he's that Peter Brooks who does the cartoons in The Thunderer, I like
them very much.

What is a troll, exactly? And how do you know all these things?

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Geoff ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

I'll reply if you can convince me you're not a troll.

People who say things like bright eyes are usually trolls.

The person you are conversing with has been trolling these newsgroups
for years. His real name is Peter Brooks, if he is to be believed that
is.

The number of pseudonyms he uses are legendary - changing them
regularly, like socks.

He also sneaks into his mummy's bedroom to try on her underwear.

P.S. I am a troll too, so you don't need to reply if you don't want
to.

You're a polite troll though.

I hope he's that Peter Brooks who does the cartoons in The Thunderer, I like
them very much.

I fear our Pete does not have much time for anything else other than
trolling.

What is a troll, exactly? And how do you know all these things?

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

But I thought that if you suss a troll he has to stop. Isn't it the rules?

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

Uncle Marvo wrote:
In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
, I, Marvo, say :

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

But I thought that if you suss a troll he has to stop. Isn't it the rules?

There is only one rule in trolling, and that is "There are no rules"

If you are still interested in the topic of Ailanthus try

http://www.nps.gov/plants/alien/fact/ceso1.htm

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it
might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a
problem
here.

Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species
warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change
(e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the
mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards
the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin


There are only two sides in species warfare. The human species on one
side against which nothing can prevail, and everything else on the other.


http://www.patternliteracy.com/exotics.html

http://dtheo.org/AABGAPaper.htm

http://dtheo.org/NativesVs.Exotics.htm

http://dtheo.org/BookOrder.htm

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"John McMillan" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" wrote:

"Des Higgins" wrote in message
. ie...

"Geoff" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2006 09:55:36 -0700, "Bill" wrote:


BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it
might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a
problem
here.

Over long time spans, you get more and more species and species
mixtures
evolving that are highly specific to particular locations and habitats
and
which can do this because they are isolated
Then when we come along and mix them with each other you get species
warfare
and you end up with fewer species as one species replaces others either
directly through competition or indirectly through habitat loss/change
(e.g.
Rhodendron ponticum in SW Ireland are replacing Oakwoods and all the
mosses
and liverworts that live in them). That is backwards evolution towards
the
kind of species mix you get in supermarket carparks.

Disgruntled of Dublin


There are only two sides in species warfare. The human species on one
side against which nothing can prevail, and everything else on the other.


http://www.patternliteracy.com/exotics.html

http://dtheo.org/AABGAPaper.htm

http://dtheo.org/NativesVs.Exotics.htm

http://dtheo.org/BookOrder.htm


Some good points but you completely ignored the point I was making and I can
answer all of the points in the above with these:

http://www.hoganstand.com/HomePage.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0130j5UVpbQ

http://www.arachne.com/

http://www.jackiehealyrae.com/

In particular I recommend the sections from the GAA and Jackie Healy Rae;
they have comments dotted around their web sites about the effects of aliens
on hurling pitches and roadside dancing in Kerry.

HTH

Dem vs Us 'R' Us

A discussion nothing to do with gardening any more. Sorry.
 

On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 16:08:01 +0100, "Uncle Marvo"
wrote:

In reply to Philip H. Hart ) who wrote this in
m, I, Marvo, say :

A troll on the newsgroups is someone who wastes the time of putatively
serious posters. I troll people on the environmental groups who post
anti-conservation messages, like the aforesaid Pete. His trolling
always comes with an anti-conservation message.

To find out about Usenet trolls I suggest you go through information
engines like Google or Wikipedia.

But I thought that if you suss a troll he has to stop. Isn't it the rules?

The blind leading the blind!

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In article ,
"Des Higgins" wrote:

There are only two sides in species warfare. The human species on one
side against which nothing can prevail, and everything else on the other.


http://www.patternliteracy.com/exotics.html

http://dtheo.org/AABGAPaper.htm

http://dtheo.org/NativesVs.Exotics.htm

http://dtheo.org/BookOrder.htm


Some good points but you completely ignored the point I was making and I can
answer all of the points in the above with these:

http://www.hoganstand.com/HomePage.aspx

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0130j5UVpbQ

http://www.arachne.com/

http://www.jackiehealyrae.com/

I'm sorry I ignored the point you were making. It was a mistake
and I now realize I was completely wrong.



In particular I recommend the sections from the GAA and Jackie Healy Rae;
they have comments dotted around their web sites about the effects of aliens
on hurling pitches and roadside dancing in Kerry.

Heck, I'd vote for him. I have to say that I couldn't actually find the
aliens but I'm sure they're there somewhere. Would your man Healy-Rae
be interested in standing as MEP?

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

The message
from "BAC" contains these words:


"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:
"Bill" wrote in message
oups.com...

BAC wrote:

Don't panic, it's been here for 250 years or so without 'taking
over'.

But the climate has heated up at an accelerated rate and now it might
be more sympathetic to this trees native conditions.


It may indeed, but that doesn't mean it will inevitably become a problem
here.

Good point.

(I probably got sucked into the Observer's screaming article title...
next time i'll buy the Mail on Sunday)


Among other things, it said in the article that...

i) it is often found near railway lines
ii) that by cutting back at the tree it sprouts off and throws out
underground suckers

Not sure if the methods they use in vegetation control around railways
(slash, slash some more, slash again) would help stop the second
point's phenomena.


Well, something kills them - I've managed to 'lose' a couple in my garden. I
must be the world's worst gardener, if I can't even grow an invasive alien
:-)

You're not the only one. I've lost one too.

Janet G

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In article ,
"Des Higgins" writes:
|
| It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting species mix
| willy nilly.

In some places, yes. In the UK, not really. There are a mere handful
of plants (and PERHAPS two land vertebrates) that have survived from
11,500 years ago. All of the rest have colonised or been introduced
by man (and we don't really know which, in most cases).

It is true that introducing plants from outside western or northern
Eurasia 'undoes millions of years of evolution', but that applies to
fewer plants than most people realise. It doesn't apply to Rhododendron
ponticum, for example.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Des Higgins" writes:
|
| It is actually undoing millions of years of evolution by letting
species mix
| willy nilly.

In some places, yes. In the UK, not really. There are a mere handful
of plants (and PERHAPS two land vertebrates) that have survived from
11,500 years ago. All of the rest have colonised or been introduced
by man (and we don't really know which, in most cases).

It is true that introducing plants from outside western or northern
Eurasia 'undoes millions of years of evolution', but that applies to
fewer plants than most people realise. It doesn't apply to Rhododendron
ponticum, for example.


The millions of years bit was for dramtic effect; point taken.
I was just pointing out how bad it is to refer to letting grey squirrels run
riot or to not control rhodondrons or sycamores as evolution.
Evolution has been used and misused to make dubious political statements
many times and this was one.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

In article ,
"Des Higgins" writes:
|
| The millions of years bit was for dramtic effect; point taken.
| I was just pointing out how bad it is to refer to letting grey squirrels run
| riot or to not control rhodondrons or sycamores as evolution.
| Evolution has been used and misused to make dubious political statements
| many times and this was one.

What we need is some beech martens to control the grey squirrels :-)

On a global scale, whether we worry about any of those three species
or not is pretty irrelevant - the UK's ecology is as artificial as
they get, and all of those three species are very close to ones that
are native to Europe. And we need lynx to control the deer!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

Ailanthus altissima: "toxic tree of heaven"
 

"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"Des Higgins" writes:
|
| The millions of years bit was for dramtic effect; point taken.
| I was just pointing out how bad it is to refer to letting grey
squirrels run
| riot or to not control rhodondrons or sycamores as evolution.
| Evolution has been used and misused to make dubious political
statements
| many times and this was one.

What we need is some beech martens to control the grey squirrels :-)

On a global scale, whether we worry about any of those three species

Globally absolutely but locally Rhododendron ponticum is a disaster in
Ireland.
We have bugger all in terms of unique habitat or species. One of the few
things we have that is spectacular is the Oak woods of SW Ireland. These
are sopping wet and do not get much frost and are loaded with (locally
restricted) mosses and liverworts and ferns. In terms of species, very few
(in any?) are endemic but it is a spectacular habitat in beautiful
countryside and is now restricted to a few valleys having once covered the
entire region. You also get Kerry spottted slugs and St Patricks Cabbage
and yew and arbutus woodland.
Once rhodos move in you get zilch apart from the rhodos themselves. It is
sad and it is right to try to control them. Sycamores are not as bad and
deer are certainly a problem as are sheep (in some areas).
Globally it is a blip but locally it is maybe the most important habitat in
Ireland.


or not is pretty irrelevant - the UK's ecology is as artificial as
they get, and all of those three species are very close to ones that
are native to Europe. And we need lynx to control the deer!


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.